Although they have stuffed Giga$ into their pockets, most people also care deeply about their own social status, so have the Sacklers had severe social repercussions from their peers? Some of their peers or acquaintances of their peers must have been addicted.
If there is a positive part to the book it is indeed some very small sense of social justice outside of the legal system (which failed to hold them to account). Nan Goldin is an artist who lead the way in organizing protests and press that would lead to their names being taken off the very museums and universities they had paid to put their name on. They had worked hard, over multiple generations, to have clean name despite their business. Nan and others did a lot of work to make sure that changed.
I don't suppose that Giga$ makes you happy. I'm not sure what "social status" is like; is that the same as having friends who own Giga$?
I possess what I'd call "social status" - I'm not a pariah, my neighbours greet me on the street, and my kids and my ex-wives treat me as a friend. I own my home, and I have no debts. That's quite enough "status" for me. I consider myself pretty fortunate.
Rich people can afford the absolute top-tier rehab (and probably can just start doing coke w/o repercussions).