[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.

[s1artibartfast]

I don't excuse their unethical and potentially criminal behavior, but I do think they way people talk about it is detached from reality. The corporate choices likely had some effect on the margin, but I dont think the appropriate disclosure around addiction potential and would have moved the needle much.

[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.

[s1artibartfast]

I dont think the idea that patient pain is bad was unique to perdue and their drugs. Many European countries have private health insurance, with reimbursement quite similar to the US.

Like I said above, I think it would be extremely shallow thinking to claim that there is a single reason.

If I were to pick a leading difference, I would say that the US has embraced trained consumerism to a greater degree than most European countries. As such, the idea that a simple pill/product will make a problem go away has more traction, both with prescribers, patients, and abusers.

You see this difference manifest in many cultural and social forms, where people in the US are especially prone to "quick fix" marketing and products that offer escape and excitement through consumption.

This is one thing that leads into higher rates of substance abuse in the US than Europe. For example, the US has a higher rate of alcohol use disorder than most European countries, despite most of the countries having more permissive laws around alcohol and more consumption of it on average.