- Quickdraw McLaw
- 17 Comments
- 489 Views
- How was the Eglet party? Pictures? Stories?
- Speaking of Eglet, Clark County DA Steve Wolfson may team up with him to bring the county’s own lawsuit to recover opioid epidemic expenses. [TNI; RJ]
- Judge Williams issued a TRO preventing Metro from forcing mandatory overtime. [RJ]
- The US Supreme Court is hearing oral argument today on federal law regarding sports betting. [LasVegasNow; SCOTUSblog]
First
9:39–What you lack in analysis, you make up for with brevity. That's more than I can say for a couple posters today who could have made their same points in less than half the time.
This suing the manufacturer is really stupid.
Now, I realize this can be successful in some narrowly drawn situations. For example, when Dr. Desai was sued(of course by Eglet's firm) not only was he liable but everyone down the food chain was laible, including some liability of the manufacturer of the medical packets. Desai was too cheap to dispose of the packets, if there was some medication remaining after administering it to the patient. Contamination then occurred with the remaining packaging contents, which raises questions about the packaging procedures, etc. So, in some narrow instances, I get the concept.
But with the opioids we are dealing with a critically needed medication that treats a whole range of serious conditions. The fact that some people improperly obtain and/or use them for the euphoric feel or to feed an addiction, does not establish in any remote sense that they are improperly manufactured, or that the manufacturer intentionally produces a quantity not only sufficient for valid prescriptions, but an additional amount to address an improper, illegal non-medical need and black market.
And no one has alleged that manufactures lace them or make them stronger for the purpose of feeding and encouraging addictions, as opposed to legitimate pain killing methods.
There isn't even a sensible theory advanced. No one has any data or real evidence to indicate that the producers of such medicine over-manufacture it for the purpose of not just addressing valid medical concerns, but to feed addictions and abuse as well. And no one has indicated or argued that they are intentionally enhancing such medications to make them more addictive.
This is the typical weak retarded bullshit where authorities are totally
unable to curtail the real offenders(the drug abusers and the over-prescribing physicians)so they then pander to the public and media and pursue someone where liability is, at best, a real remote reach.
It will all be an endless cycle. The manufacturers will indicate they are producing amounts consistent to fill valid orders from pharmacies and health-care providers, and that if such entities are ordering too much of the product, then regulate those entities better and scrutinize their prescribing process better, and enhance criminal enforcement for members of the public who are in possession of such substances without a valid prescription.
I guess we should sue twinkie manufactures, as well as many others, for contributing to a health epidemic which leads to obesity, diabetes, skyrocketing medical costs, etc. After all, using the rationale and sophomoric mentality of those who wish to sue the opioid manufactures, the twinkie folks should know how to only produce an amount of twinkies that would be used in moderation and responsibly by relatively healthy people of average weight who just want a temporary sugar boost. Anything produced beyond that amount would clearly subject them to liability as they should now know that the excess production is to feed the ravenous sugar addictions of fat bastards who are on the road to premature demise which jacks up insurance rates, etc. And, as absurd as that all sounds, a twinkie law suit is far less absurd than the opioid law suit as the opioids serve a very critical medical service, while twinkies are nothing more than a guilty pleasure. One is clearly needed, and the other is not.
Any defense attorneys of any real merit will be able to convince jurors not to punish those who provide critical products or services merely because the government is incompetent in curtailing the epidemic by controlling and punishing those who are directly and totally responsible for the epidemic–those who abuse the drugs, and those who over-prescribe the drugs.
TLDR
@10:09 a.m., you clearly underestimate the merits of Twinkie lawsuits in modern day society given the legality of cannabis and abundance of munchies pervading our community.
Also, I think you incorrectly assume that Eglet's lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and authorities' ability to curtail opioid abusers and prescribers are mutually exclusive. Civil lawsuits often accompany and parallel criminal prosecution of the same or similar activities. Both are aimed at deterring unwanted behavior and civil suits are often more successful because of the lower standard of proof and increased resources (both time and money) at the civil attorneys' disposal. While I don't think the merits of a lawsuit against opioid manufacturers are particularly strong because I agree that doctors hold the key to use and abuse of opioids, I disagree that suing the manufacturers is "really stupid."
The Eglet party was a good time. Lots of debauchery. Lots of botox. I didn't see or hear about anything crazy like the fights or drunken drama of the past, but I also try to separate myself from that nonsense whenever possible. I didn't see as many judges and doctors there as usual. There were a lot of younger, hotter chicks this year compared to prior years. I've been going for the past 5 years and found this to be the best venue so far.
Agree on the botox. Some of the women there looked like hired whores.
was it at Chateau?
Yes, on the roof.
To:10:09:You should be used to this by now, and not exercise such moral indignation. When the public and media are really upset about an issue and clamoring for reform, and when the authorities are largely unable to
make the true culprits responsible, they then cast a very broad net to hopefully catch someone who then can make responsible.
I'm not persuaded, as you insist, that the manufactures have zero liability, but I am convinced their liability would, at best, be a mere fraction of he liability of over-prescribing physicians and drug abusers.
If for the sake of argument and illustrative example, the drug abusers are 60% responsible for the crisis, while over-prescribing physicians are 30% responsible, and the manufacturers are 10% responsible(for over-producing or whatever)since curtailing this epidemic by focusing on the drug abusers and physicians has been largely ineffective, they will drop down to the manufactures.
And if they succeed against the manufacturers, they will offer the absurd argument, to the media and public, that they have succeeded in putting a dent in matters by achieving justice against the manufacturers, which in addition to punishment of them also causes them to manufacture far less opioids.
But if part of what happens is some manufacturers are put out of business, while others greatly reduce the manufacture of them,it may reduce to some extent the number flooding the street, but that will only increase the street price of the drugs. So, yes, there may ultimately be fewer of them on the street, but since the street cost will be multiplied many times over, it will lead to much more violent crime for those who need them but can't afford them, and must commit violent crimes to get the money to purchase them.
So, the net result of this farce is as follows. First, pursuing the manufactures constitutes a tacit admission that the authorities have been woefully ineffective in pursuing the druggies or the physicians. Secondly, if by some minor miracle liability is achieved against the manufacturers, yes that could eventually lead to fewer of these drugs on the street, but that will only greatly enhance their street costs which will in turn lead to a large spike in crime.
And all that is just the tip of the ice berg. But none of thee folks have thought any of this through. They just want to, for that one day news cycle, say "Hey. We care. We are trying to do something."
Well, this post is just wrong.
As I mentioned above (@12:04 a.m.), why do you assume that Eglet/Clark County's lawsuit against opioid manufacturers means that authorities' pursuit of "the druggies or the physicians" was/is ineffective? Why do you think they're mutually exclusive?
These lawsuits against big pharm don't have the same goal as the authorities you reference. The authorities regulate and monitor opioid medication, its prescription, and the doctors who prescribe it, as well as prosecute related violations and criminal activity. They attack the opioid drug "epidemic" at a local level and do not touch the pharmaceutical companies. Eglet/Clark County's lawsuit, on the other hand, attacks the epidemic on an international level by seeking to recover the costs incurred by the County related to opioid addiction, such as medical treatment, investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by addicts, and educational and rehabilitation efforts. Totally different goals and totally different results. Perhaps the "authorities" aim to get opioids "off the streets," as you put it, but Eglet/CC's lawsuit has no such goal and it will have no such result. To that end, I don't think "street use" has much to do with opioid epidemic concerns; I think it's more accurate to say the goal is to reduce the amount and use of opioids altogether.
Also, your assumption that violent crimes will increase if the amount of opioids "on the streets" decrease is flawed because one of the unique aspects of the opioid drug epidemic is that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in crime. Because the drug and addiction are medicalized, the drug is primarily sourced through big pharma and doctors instead of drug cartels, so there's less "turf" violence and related criminal activity than other drug crimes (we can still only dream about turf shootouts between Teva and McKesson, Insys and Takeda). Opioid medication is also more expensive than other drugs, so it has a wealthier client base and people who can afford their drug of choice tend not to commit crimes. It also must be mentioned that opioid meds are a white person's drug and white people are arrested less, so if there is increased crime, they might be simply getting away with it. Lastly, let's not forget that heroin is an opioid so even if there's less opioid medication "on the streets," addicts can simply resort to the cheaper, more available street option of heroin.
So basically, it doesn't sound like you've thought it through, either.
Also, this over-reaction is totally un-necessary because I believe, contrary to the two above posters, that a more aggressive approach toward over-prescribing physicians has been somewhat effective–although the efforts and effectiveness vary from state-to-state.
And enhanced criminal sanctions against those who illegally use or sell them has also to some extent been effective, but that also varies from state-to-state, and tends to be much more effective in states that give defendants the option of in-house treatment at state expense. But some states can't afford to make such rehab. available at state expense, and most users can't afford it(whatever money they get their paws on, goes to the drugs)
I completely agree. Over-prescribing physicians have been aggressively pursued and curtailed. It has become exceedingly difficult to obtain opioid medication, even for patients who desperately need it for pain relief.
I think plaintiff personal injury lawyers are acutely aware of all sides of the opioid epidemic: client abuse of opioid meds in the form of selling them; abuse in the form of exaggerating pain to fuel an addiction to opioids; use and sometimes dependency on opioid meds because of severe and chronic pain; and deprivation of opioid meds because of strict and often arbitrary regulations that prevent patients from getting much-needed medication and pain relief.
It can be heartbreaking to witness a person in extreme, debilitating pain because their physician prescribed only ibuprofen for pain relief after surgery, or under-prescribed opioid pain medication out of fear of being criminally investigated and/or prosecuted. And let's not forget the personal shame and embarrassment that most patients have to experience now that taking pain medication is taboo… not only do they have to deal with the depression and anxiety that typically accompanies severe pain, but they also have to hate themselves because society tells them there's something wrong with them because they can't manage on Tylenol alone.
I would like to have a look at the Metro contract. I've been a part of too many union contract negotiations with public safety employees to count, and a 40 hour work week/tour of duty is pretty standard language, has never been intended to prevent mandatory overtime when dictate by management in its sole discretion.
Either Metro's attorneys/negotiators got caught not understanding the terms and conditions which the union presented, or the judge just got it wrong.
Maybe wait until you read the complaint? I don't think the problem is that the drugs are addictive; they are appropriate for certain conditions (end of life, etc.). The problem is that the manufacturers misrepresented the addictive nature of the drugs, hid evidence of that, and actively encouraged physicians to prescribe them inappropriately.
Correct. Look at the track record of Perdue (sp?) on this for an example of how these companies behave. The actions of certain physicians are equally bad. Lost in the shuffle are those (relatively few) patients with intractable pain that will only respond to large doses of opioids, who now are looked upon as drug abusers by pharmacists and insurance companies.
Right, who would ever guess that opioids – i.e. heroin – would be addictive. Shame on big pharma for concealing its addictive nature.