The Sackler Family and Culpability in the Opioid Crisis

[4DQSAR]

Or perhaps merge and create a new subsection of the FDA since there would be immense overlap between the two agencies if the DEA were to be repurposed as such. The unfortunate thing is the fact that so many DEA agents are almost religiously assured of their righteousness in perpetuating the drug war. I think many of them do indeed believe they are doing the right thing, their brains crushed by an overwhelming amount of drug war propaganda.

Didn't an undercover DEA team end up in a gun fight with an undercover CIA team?

I HAVE checked the FDA and yes, there is a lot of overlap. I sincely doubt that either would allow itself to become subservient to the other - overlap means job losses.

So at least for now, let the sale of drugs fund the DEA. So at once they NEED sales but also need to show that they are fulfilling their new brief.

Whatever your politics, DEA agent are people. Most may well have got a job with the DEA from true feelings that drugs harm. But very few 50+ agents still think that legal control does and can work. But by the age of 50, what do you expect? They have to grind out another decade for the retirement plan. Yes, over the decades maybe the DEA will get smaller, but at the moment, it's still better to over-employ the DEA than to have the this of all this this that we are seeing now and have been seeing since the 1940s. Prohibition does not work.

 

[tuppingtoncity]

But very few 50+ agents still think that legal control does and can work.

As much as I'd like to believe this is the case, I'm not so sure. I think the indoctrination runs deep, and the acknowledgment that prohibition is ineffective, or a cause entirely not worth pursuing (in fact a cause that has ruined millions upon millions of lives) would amount to admitting that your entire identity and line of work for decades have been fundamentally flawed. Perhaps some DEA agents have the courage to acknowledge this, but I wouldn't bet on it. Maybe on a more subconscious level they realize that prohibition is farcical, and that people will want to alter their consciousness no matter what 'limits' the government aribtrarily throws at its citizens. They also certainly realize that clandestine chemists will always outpace the law, because at the end of the day, its impossible to criminalize human receptor pharmacology (not that attempts haven't been made. See the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012)

 

[4DQSAR]

I'm sure that they SAY such things, but they KNOW it's a game. Yet as I said, they have families to support.

 

[4DQSAR]

 

[4DQSAR]

BTW I am in no way suggesting that I have the veracity to know if what is said IS true, but it does hint that it's all a game. It's all about ensuring that career DEA agents get to retire and live a good retirement.

 

[4DQSAR]

Year	Total Employees	Special Agents	Context/notes
1973	~4,361*	1,470	At formation, following the merger of several agencies.
2014	~9,000+	4,700	Included ~600 diversion investigators and 800+ intel specialists.
2017	~9,500+	4,650	Staffing remained relatively stable during this period.
2021	9,848	4,649	Most recent official figure; includes 5,199 support staff.
2024	~10,000+	5,000+	Current estimates indicate a force exceeding 5,000 agents.

Any questions?

 

[tuppingtoncity]

Year	Total Employees	Special Agents	Context/notes
1973	~4,361*	1,470	At formation, following the merger of several agencies.
2014	~9,000+	4,700	Included ~600 diversion investigators and 800+ intel specialists.
2017	~9,500+	4,650	Staffing remained relatively stable during this period.
2021	9,848	4,649	Most recent official figure; includes 5,199 support staff.
2024	~10,000+	5,000+	Current estimates indicate a force exceeding 5,000 agents.

Any questions?

Makes sense. I would love to see more specific data between 1973 and 2014. I would assume massive proliferation under the Reagan administration, coincident with the massive budget increases for the DEA as the war on drugs kicked into nth gear. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Billy expanded it significantly too. In fact, both Bushes and Obama are probably not entirely innocent either. 30 years of neoliberal/neoconservative pro-establishment presidencies certainly helped federal law enforcement engorge to its current disgusting, bloated size quite a bit.

 

[4DQSAR]

Legislative Support: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 allocated an additional $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established mandatory minimum sentences.

Anti-Drug Budget: The total federal anti-drug budget tripled from $1.1 billion in FY 1981 to $3.3 billion in FY 1988.

Enforcement Outlays: Specifically for drug enforcement programs, federal outlays grew from $806 million to $2.5 billion over the same period.

FBI Collaboration: President Reagan integrated the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) more directly into drug enforcement, adding 500 FBI drug enforcement agents and establishing 13 regional anti-drug task forces.

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

it is the job of any company to sell as much of their product as possible, period. this is how capitalism works. it is not their job to manage addiction issues. this is a job for institutions (government and doctors) and individuals - all of which failed and ignored the problem and continue to ignore it and actually anything they do they make it even worse.

Yes and clearly they have no more ethical issue with taking advantage of the mentally challenged, desperate, chronically ill, or addicted.
( I agree, sched 2 YOU SHOULD KNOW means highly addictive -- but as mentioned intelligence and ignorance are not necessarily related --- In the US do we presume the customer has an extensive knowledge of the product.... or are we forced to market 'to the average' person? ) who don't know shit about scheduling -- why would they it doesnt make alot of sense even.

Correct. The job of the cartel is also to sell as much product as possible for as much profit.

What I am saying is these motherfuckers are equally evil and responsible as the cartel's. (Not strictly the Sacklers, "Bigpharma" as a whole - though again the Sacklers certainly were opportunist greedy unethical fucks that took they shot)

Moreso in my (Very strong) opinion. Lets have that debate?

 

[Deleted member 593549]

Yes and clearly they have no more ethical issue with taking advantage of the mentally challenged, desperate, chronically ill, or addicted.
( I agree, sched 2 YOU SHOULD KNOW means highly addictive -- but as mentioned intelligence and ignorance are not necessarily related --- In the US do we presume the customer has an extensive knowledge of the product.... or are we forced to market 'to the average' person? ) who don't know shit about scheduling -- why would they it doesnt make alot of sense even.

Correct. The job of the cartel is also to sell as much product as possible for as much profit.

What I am saying is these motherfuckers are equally evil and responsible as the cartel's. (Not strictly the Sacklers, "Bigpharma" as a whole - though again the Sacklers certainly were opportunist greedy unethical fucks that took they shot)

Moreso in my (Very strong) opinion. Lets have that debate?

i mean it’s not them it’s capitalism. if it wasn’t for regulations every company on earth would be dumping chemicals into the ocean and water supply and letting poison be in their food product. this is rampant in southeast asia where the government doesn’t crack down on companies

this is simply how capitalism works. maximize profits no matter the damage you do.

it is the governments job to regulate these companies and protect the citizens. the government has failed miserably in this opioid situation.

if it wasn’t purdue (which it wasn’t only them it was every generic manufacturer in existence that fueled most of it)….some other company would be the major perpetrator and scape goat the government uses to scape goat their own corruption and incompetence and straight up malice because they did this on purpose to feed the private prison industry

i wish ppl were as mad at the dea and congress about this opioid epidemic as they are at a single family.

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

i mean it’s not them it’s capitalism. if it wasn’t for regulations every company on earth would be dumping chemicals into the ocean and water supply and letting poison be in their food product. this is rampant in southeast asia where the government doesn’t crack down on companies

Well it is them; they do have the choice to lose a few pennies here and there for ethical reasons. It is still rampant and bigpharma is still one of the largest offenders -- Hell the gov shitcanned the EPA and FDA.

this is simply how capitalism works. maximize profits no matter the damage you do.

it is the governments job to regulate these companies and protect the citizens. the government has failed miserably in this opioid situation.

Agreed - so in this capacity Purdue Pharma and the Sinoala Cartel are filling the exact same role with the exact same amount of compassion for the end user.

So we CAN find common ground on BigPharma and Cartel's are equally evil and driven soley by profit? (and again I will debate big pharma is more evil all day but I will accept common ground)

if it wasn’t purdue (which it wasn’t only them it was every generic manufacturer in existence that fueled most of it)….some other company would be the major perpetrator and scape goat the government uses to scape goat their own corruption and incompetence and straight up malice because they did this on purpose to feed the private prison industry

i wish ppl were as mad at the dea and congress about this opioid epidemic as they are at a single family.

The old "If I wasn't the villian someone else would be" argument -- sure I can grant you that. Someone out there would probably be evil and smart enough to put it together....

Lost you a little on the private prison industry sentence....I couldnt make sense of it.

OH MAKE NO MISTAKE THE DEA SHOULDERS MORE BLAME. PPL like the Sacklers would not have the position and power that they currently exploit without the DEA playing they part.

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

We do not need bigpharma apologists here.... at all. I do hope you address some of the questions and points raised

 

[tuppingtoncity]

So we CAN find common ground on BigPharma and Cartel's are equally evil and driven soley by profit? (and again I will debate big pharma is more evil all day but I will accept common ground)

I would love to hear your argument here. I believe that both are exceptionally evil (probably equally so), but ultimately the entirely inevitable results of capitalism (and in the case of cartels, capitalism in the presence of prohibition)

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

My first point would be the synthesis towards worse and worse opiates/oids starting with heroin to replace morphine.

They (pharma) would have left opium - even morphine alone and we never end up with fentanyl.

The cartel's I see less as pioneers of evil and more as opportunist's --- they do not "Invent" awhole lot of drugs (That is our pharmafriends) -- they more make the most out of what substances and laws currently exist.
Kind of a ring under the actual inventors in the evil hierarchy(?)

Bigpharma has actual influence on the law --- Sackler and El Chapo do not end up in the same place (Despite coming from the same place metaphorically)

This is not the most concise argument certainly -- feel free to push back (It may actually clarify things)

 

[Deleted member 593549]

@notsmokeymcpot42088

you refuse to understand what capitalism is. companies do not give a fuck about ethics, profits are the only concern of a company.

this is how the world works. i’m sorry.

if you’re waiting for some ethical form of capitalism and ethical corporations to regulate themselves at the expense of their profits….you must be high.

if a ceo or board tries to do something ethical at the expense of profits those ppl are immediately fired and replaced.

regulation by government is the only mechanism to check these things. that’s where ppl should be pointing fingers.

 

[tuppingtoncity]

My first point would be the synthesis towards worse and worse opiates/oids starting with heroin to replace morphine.

They (pharma) would have left opium - even morphine alone and we never end up with fentanyl.

By worse and worse opioids, do you mean more potent? I certainly don't agree with the sentiment that more potent = worse; in fact it is the potency of fentanyl in part that allows it to be so medically useful. That is to be said that when used recreationally, there is a threshold of potency that when crossed makes the average recreational user less safe (lets say 20mg for an effective dose, below which eyeballing becomes a far riskier prospect).

I also don't agree that pharmaceutical companies are the sole reason we have progressed beyond opium... which is certainly a good thing. Academic chemists I'm sure could have and would have just have easily invented meperidine/fentanyl/insert synthetic/semi-synthetic opioid here. In fact oxycodone was first synthesized by academic chemists at the University of Frankfurt. I think we should try to steer clear of any opiophobia and recognize that medicinal chemistry's advancements in the realm of opioids has had some rather beneficial effects.

The cartel's I see less as pioneers of evil and more as opportunist's --- they do not "Invent" awhole lot of drugs (That is our pharmafriends) -- they more make the most out of what substances and laws currently exist.
Kind of a ring under the actual inventors in the evil hierarchy(?)

Bigpharma has actual influence on the law --- Sackler and El Chapo do not end up in the same place (Despite coming from the same place metaphorically)

I think the Sackler's were certainly opportunists as well. And with regards to drug trafficking, the cartels have certainly been pioneers in some respects. With regards to big pharma's influence on law, I see that less as a reason to believe that big pharma is more evil, and more of an exemplar of how easy regulatory capture is in this country.

All that to say, I think America's poor relationship with opioids mostly boils down to systemic issues, rather than the exceptional evilness of any one clan of people or organized crime group.

 

[Asclepius]

"opiophobia"

 

[Deleted member 593549]

My first point would be the synthesis towards worse and worse opiates/oids starting with heroin to replace morphine.

They (pharma) would have left opium - even morphine alone and we never end up with fentanyl.

fentanyl is a great invention due to its short half life it makes it a good surgical anesthetic.

it is also very easy to synthesize and doesn’t rely on poppy plant supply chains.

the transdermal patches provide the best analgesia of any opioid imo with less intoxication/ euphoria.

it has very minimal histamine reactions compared to morphine also

fentanyl is a great medical invention

 

[4DQSAR]

As someone who has worked in both fields, the only real difference is that pharmacutical companies can afford better lawyers. Neiher care about the end-user, both handed control to the PR department rather than the chemists who actually develop novel ligands.

In short - neither have ANY morals (or morels - mushrooms being natural).

 

[Deleted member 593549]

As someone who has worked in both fields, the only real difference is that pharmacutical companies can afford better lawyers. Neiher care about the end-user, both handed control to the PR department rather than the chemists who actually develop novel ligands.

In short - neither have ANY morals (or morels - mushrooms being natural).

i don’t think chemists have morals either when it comes to lay offs vs the company making more money to fund new R & D and keep everyone employed.

the only institution that doesn’t have a profit motive here is government (but even that has been corrupted with lobbying and bribes). At the end of the day individuals have to watch out for themselves because everyone is out for themselves to get more at the expense of someone else.