[bradford]

> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims?

I can see it going both ways, yes: this means that 6 billion dollars are not immediately available for compensation.

On the other hand, certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation in hopes that future lawsuits would yield more.

I view this decision as rejecting the immediate compensation, but opening up possibility for greater compensation in the future (with obvious risks and delays).

[JumpCrisscross]

> certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation

As the dissent notes, “all 50 state Attorneys General have signed on to this plan.” The holdouts were “a small group of Canadian creditors and one lone individual.”

I always thought of the Sackler carve-out as a scam. But the dissent gives me pause. This ruling trades restitution for retribution. In all likelihood, many classes of victims—such as small victims, small states and local governments—won’t see a penny, at least for years.

[rootusrootus]

> This ruling trades restitution for retribution

IMO the money is a pittance, sounds like a lot but it's just a fraction of what the federal government spends on any given day. We can afford to carve out the financial resources to help victims. The retribution is totally worth it, because it needs to be understood that behavior like this will get punished. It should be painful, not just the cost of doing business.

[s1artibartfast]

You may find the money a pittance, but the victims decided otherwise.

It seems the case that the interests of the victims/plaintiffs (e.g. compensation) may be different than the public at large (e.g. punishment).

If so, perhaps the interests of the public should be pursued by a different avenue than the civil case of the victims, which requires superseding the agency of the victims.

[rootusrootus]

> You may find the money a pittance, but the victims decided otherwise.

When you say 'the victims' are you implying they all agreed to this? So they are all okay with giving up their individual right to sue for damages? You make several points which imply that this is some kind of consensus position that everyone is okay with. That's the root of the problem, though -- this settlement in no way addresses the damage to all the victims.

Perhaps renegotiate the agreement so that it only immunizes Purdue/Sacklers from further civil action from

In any case, when I say pittance, I was clearly talking about relative to the financial resources of the US. This is a national problem, we can afford to solve it at a societal level without being forced into accepting an unjust settlement.

[s1artibartfast]

The case and settlement has almost nothing to do with solving the problem at a societal level, with either outcome being negligible.

Real progress would involve systemic changes to the treatment and causes of drug addiction, as well as medical treatment philosophy.

To hang the opioid epidemic on perdue is a gross oversimplification, essentially a scapegoating of a multifactorial problem. Perdue sold the same pills in Europe, but the US has an overdose rate 2,000% higher.

[richwater]

> To hang the opioid epidemic on perdue is a gross oversimplification

The only sane comment here. It's laughably ridiculous to call for retribution against a single family as if they were personally responsible for every overdose the country has seen.

[blkhawk]

I think that was because they could more effectively market their "pain is bad mkay" strategy in the culturally and politically more homogeneous market that is the US. The European healthcare market is completely different for each country in multiple dimensions. Be it political, the way insurance is structured, laws are setup and governmental agencies handle them. That means while it is entirely possible to sell the pills in Europe they won't be prescribed in the amounts necessary to jump start the "vibrant free market" for them the US has. So they are just an opioid that is prescribed in extreme cases.

[JumpCrisscross]

I agree, but absent John Stewart taking it up [1] were not paying out the victims, and I’m not a victim, so it’s easy to discount their desire for the $3,500 to $48k.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/jon-stewart-9-11...

[bradford]

> As the dissent notes, “all 50 state Attorneys General have signed on to this plan.”

Thanks for the correction! I must have read about Washington States objection a while ago, and been unaware of a change in their position (since I first read about it)