Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Virginia Nets $80 Million for Opioid Treatment

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

by James A. Bacon

Virginia’s Opioid Abatement Authority will get an $80 million shot in the arm (so to speak) from the resolution of a lawsuit pursued by Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring and his peers in 14 other states. The bankruptcy-court settlement with the Sackler family and its company Purdue Pharma requires payment of $4.3 billion nationally for prevention, treatment and recovery efforts across the country.

Additionally, Purdue and the Sacklers are required make public more than 30 million documents, including attorney-client privileged communications about the original FDA approval of OxyContin and tactics to promote opioids.

“No dollar amount will ever bring back the Virginians we have lost to the opioid crisis or repair the families that have to live with the devastating effects of losing a loved one, but this settlement is an important step in our ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis,” said Herring in a press release.

Legislators created the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority at Herring’s request to hold funds collected from opioid litigation. A settlement with McKinsey & Co. provided $13.7 million for the authority, and the AG’s office has also filed a lawsuit against Teva/Cephalon for its role in creating the opioid epidemic.

Funds flowing through the Authority are to be apportioned as follows:

  • 15% for state-identified abatement initiatives
  • 15% for locality-identified initiatives
  • 70% for opioid abatement split evenly between regional projects and projects identified as effective by a board of experts.

Bacon’s bottom line:

Kudos to Herring for pursuing the opioid litigation and setting up a mechanism for distributing the funds in a rational manner. As Herring rightly observes, the sum won’t come close to compensating for the harm inflicted by the opioid epidemic, but it can help thousands of Virginians find treatment.

The Sacklers could well be remembered as the most vicious business predators in the history of the United States. The oil and steel and railroad titans may have used their economic muscle to crush competitors and maintain monopolies, but at least they produced something of value. Purdue Pharma unleashed nothing but destruction upon the country. Purdue is now gone. But Mexican cartels, exploiting the opioid “market” that Purdue created, are flooding the country with highly addictive fentanyl. The miseries are never-ending. And unlike Purdue, cartels are largely beyond the reach of U.S. law.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

49 responses to “Virginia Nets $80 Million for Opioid Treatment”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Like the tobacco settlement, I am assuming this protects the manufacturers from liability to individuals harmed by their product and business practices. Is that true for criminal liability? Why in the world should we cheer such a thing? Save the platitudes, this is just another example of capitalism run amok and citizens paying the price.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Indeed, it’s a compromise that actually does limit other recourse.

      But apropos to all this stuff about “freedom” and “my body, my choice” – why is this not the responsibility of those who make those choices? Why is the government interceding on their behalf anyhow if it was choices people had the “freedom” to make – and did so?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        More importantly, as with gun manufacturers, why is the government acting to protect these villains from legal liability for the product they manufacture? And with these two settlements (tobacco and opioids) the corporate payoff to our “representatives” is done in broad daylight.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          So you’re against the COVID-19 vaccines?

          After all, the Federal Government is shielding them from any legal liabilities that are incurred by individuals who had poor outcomes from them.

          If you weren’t a hypocrite you’d be nothing at all Trolly.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I am against the government shielding any private corporation from legal liability for the products they manufacture. I can’t think of any exceptions to that opinion.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            If that is the case why do you insist people get a vaccine where their manufactures cannot be held liable?

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            In short, I don’t. How many people have died as a direct result of tobacco and opioid use again?

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Umm your comments on the matter of vaccination on here would seem to indicate otherwise, but I can understand how those are now inconvenient to you.

            Lots have died as a result of those substances but here’s the fun part, it’s their choice.

            Addiction is a nasty animal I wouldn’t wish on anyone, but you know what. It was my choice to put Copenhagen into my lip just as it was my choice to quit it.

          5. Brian Leeper Avatar
            Brian Leeper

            There are people–I don’t think they’re very smart people–who take the position that, since they have a prescription for it, it isn’t substance abuse.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            but some of those people don’t trust the vaccines?

          7. Brian Leeper Avatar
            Brian Leeper

            The vaccines don’t make you feel good the way a prescription for Dilaudid does.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Without a doubt, but it’s their choice to take that drug.

            As I said addiction is a nasty beast.

          9. Brian Leeper Avatar
            Brian Leeper

            Yes, but when they can go to the ER (late in the evening, so their pain doctor is unavailable for questions) and tell the doctor that their pain is a 10 so they get more pain pills–all paid for by Medicaid– isn’t this the medical system (and the government) enabling addiction?

            The people who do this stuff are quite skilled at gaming the system.

          10. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I don’t need or want the Government to manage my life, been there done that. If someone wants to use, that’s their business. Their body their choice.

          11. Brian Leeper Avatar
            Brian Leeper

            Even if your tax dollars are paying for it?

          12. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            If you had any clue what your tax dollars were paying for you’d think very little of this situation.

            https://www.paul.senate.gov/wastereport

          13. Brian Leeper Avatar
            Brian Leeper

            Whataboutism doesn’t work for me.

          14. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            That’s not whataboutism, which is defined as follows:

            “the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.”

            Try again.

          15. Brian Leeper Avatar
            Brian Leeper

            A different issue being the idea that if I knew what my tax dollars were being spent on I wouldn’t care about this issue?

          16. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Not at different issue at all, you said what about your tax dollars. To which I said, if you’re pissed about your tax dollars funding this, you’re not looking at the whole picture.

            This is a drop in the bucket.

            A person will only be sober if they want to be sober. No amount of Laws or interventions will change that.

          17. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            That’s not whataboutism, which is defined as follows:

            “the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.”

            Try again.

          18. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Nope, I support people choosing not to be vaccinated, I also support them facing the consequences of making that choice and the relevant institutions using the vaccines to protect the populations they are responsible for. I do not support liability protections for corporations (including vaccine manufacturers). Not really that hard, Sport.

            Btw, regarding your addiction comment, I guess you would also argue, “hey, it was you choice to drive a Pinto! Deal with it!!”

          19. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Nope, I support people choosing not to be vaccinated, I also support them facing the consequences of making that choice and the relevant institutions using the vaccines to protect the populations they are responsible for”

            No you don’t, the manufactures of the vaccine have been shielded from legal liability. So they are again protected from lawsuits, but you don’t seem to mind that at all.

            “I do not support liability protections for corporations (including vaccine manufacturers). Not really that hard, Sport.”

            Oh how cute and predictable, when you find yourself in a corner you lash out like a child and try to posture like you’re a tough guy. Your last statement cannot be true if you previously state people should face consequences for not taking a non-FDA approved vaccine.

            PS: You’re hypocrisy is showing.

          20. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “No you don’t…”

            Yes, I do. I do recognize that I am expecting too much from you today so, sorry for that…

          21. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Eric the half a troll Matt Adams • 19 minutes ago
            “No you don’t…”

            Yes, I do. I do recognize that I am expecting too much from you today so, sorry for that…”

            Further holding up to your standard childish retorts.

            The positions that you claim to espouse cannot coexist as they are at odds with one another.

            You cannot be for holding companies liable while asserting individuals must partake in their goods or service, else suffer consequences.

            I’m sorry logic and reason escape you, maybe you should ask your “boss”.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Because it’s your Constitutional right to reject an injection of vaccine, but not lead.

          2nd Amendment restrictions are a slippery slope made slicker with the blood of schoolchildren.

        3. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          The government has not acted to protect the firearms industry from legal liability for the products they manufacture. If they produce a defective firearm or act illegally they can, and should, be held legally liable.

          I hope your misrepresentation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act is due to actual ignorance of its contents rather than from listening to and believing the ridiculous and inaccurate descriptions of the act perpetrated by the hysterical anti-gun lobby and media.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            A manufacturer makes and sells a virus specifically designed to kill people. Do you not believe that they should have a reasonable expectation that if they market and promote the virus specifically for that purpose then someone will use it to kill innocent people? Should not victims of that use have the ability to make that claim in court and let our justice system decide if the manufacturer has some liability for being so irresponsible? Why would you prefer it be predetermined and excluded by some politico who has been bribed by the manufacturer itself?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Umm what you just described is the creation of a bioweapon, they aren’t legal. They are listed un WMD’s and you’ll go to a very dark hole for a very long time for creating one.

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Firearms are not designed specifically to kill people. They simply are not. To claim that they are is to lie.

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        “But apropos to all this stuff about “freedom” and “my body, my choice” – why is this not the responsibility of those who make those choices?”

        Assuming this is a serious question, this is one of the few areas in which LarrytheG and I appear to be in total agreement.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          It’s a consistency issue involving the role of govt.

          What is the role of govt when it comes to substances that people use.

          Should the govt even be setting standards for drugs and “approving” them?

          If we don’t really trust the govt on drugs, why do we want the govt to go after drug manufacturers for drugs they’ve produced and people have willingly taken?

          Why should govt determine what drugs are good for you and which ones are not only bad for you but they will even jail you if you use them?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      His fingers are moving, but can anyone see what he’s typing?

    3. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Irony: A rich white guy complaining about “capitalism”. That’s almost as edgy as a youth’s iPhone with a “crush capitalism” sticker on it.

      If you weren’t a vacuous hypocrite you’d have nothing, half-wit.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        It’s not really capitalism actually because in a truly capitalistic system, corporations would be liable for their products and would not be able to bribe our so-called representatives to avoid that responsibility.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          So in essence you’re not complaining about “capitalism” but rather bureaucrats elected and non-elected who shield their buddies for sums of money and kickbacks.

          You’re anger is misguided, as with most people whom complain about unfair laws. The elected officials you voted into office created this, not Capitalism.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You are not wrong. The issue is with those in government who protect the Capitalists. The corporations are just calculating their return on investment. It is really just another twist of the old “deregulation” or rather the “let us write the regulations under which we will operate in the name of ‘jobs’” argument.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “The issue is with those in government who protect the Capitalists.”

            They by that definition aren’t capitalists, as they are using the power of the Government to coherence others into using their products.

            “The corporations are just calculating their return on investment. It is really just another twist of the old “deregulation” or rather the “let us write the regulations under which we will operate in the name of ‘jobs’” argument.”

            That is laughable, because it’s not only wrong it’s just plan ignorant. You’re also again being a rich white guy complaining about capitalism that achieved you that wealth.

            The PPACA was written by Insurance companies, you don’t seem to have a problem with that.

            Let me know when you plan to stop being a hypocrite.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Actually, I far prefer excluding private insurance carriers from the healthcare industry. So, I do indeed have a problem with that law. Better than no law but certainly a problem.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Eric the half a troll a few seconds ago
            Actually, I far prefer excluding private insurance carriers from the healthcare industry. So, I do indeed have a problem with that law. Better than no law but certainly a problem.”

            Spoken as someone who’s never been subject to Government healthcare. Who also isn’t aware that the UK doesn’t operate on a complete Government based healthcare system.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Sadly, skinning and flaying is unconstitutional but worse no jailtime is unfathomable.

    The existence of a family trust helps avoid REAL justice
    https://apnews.com/article/shootings-iowa-ap-top-news-in-state-wire-terre-haute-824b3ba56e1be497e98100b9e7b91420

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    God made Tylenol 3 for a reason. If worse comes to worst, a quick trip to Canada for some OTC 222s will fit the bill. Just be cool coming back over the 1000 Island Bridge. Cool, bro.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Codeine is an opiate, so what’s the difference?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Not 100% mind you, but I have “heard” the synthetic crap is more potent and addictive.

        I’ve done one 10-day Tylenol-3 regiment. At the end, I did double dose Tylenol for about 5 days and was pleasantly surprised to be painless. In all, I’ve used Tylenol-3 maybe half dozen times in my life. No urges for another.

        My mother had a bowl full of percocets given to her by military doctors. She said she kept them out to remember to take one in the morning. When I asked the facility nurse why my mother had so many, she said she’d call her doctor. The next time I visited they wer gone.

  4. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    The opioid market existed long before the Sacklers and Oxycodone. They didn’t create it. People have been overdosing on heroin derivatives for more than 100 years. And while it is clear that Perdue marketed their drugs irresponsibly and that many became tragically addicted, the drugs themselves — when used responsibly — make life bearable for thousands who suffer crippling, continuing pain.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Good point that is often overlooked in the discussion about painkillers.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      They just perfected it.

    3. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      As usual, the truth is more complex and nuanced than the short version.

      Not only oxycodone and heroin, but other drugs like cocaine and now synthetic drugs like fentanyl which In 2017, 59 percent of opioid-related deaths involved fentanyl, compared to 14.3 percent in 2010.

      We blame cocaine on Columbia and Mexico and Fentanyl on China and Oxycodine on Sackler and US companies but the reality is that the drugs are there because people want them and will find and use whatever is available and like any other product in demand, suppliers will form and meet that demand.

      We figured this out with alcohol and cigarettes and now marijuana but harder drugs, we still are hopelessly conflicted on. We can take Sackler out, but the demand will still be there and others will step in to meet that demand.

      Until we deal with the actual issue -this will continue and we’ll squander billions of dollars on futile things that just chase shaddows.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    We all seem to accept the Govt’s power to limit and restrict our access to drugs basically on the premise that govt knows best for us.

    I’m not speaking of “illegal” drugs, I’m speaking of prescription drugs where we don’t get to decide what we need and instead some pointy-head bureaucrat does.

    I’m sure the anti-govt folks will eventually get around to this “my body, my choice”outrage” also sooner or later..

Leave a Reply

Read More