No, my question is about how people judge our opioid status quo: a medical system that prescribes addictive opioids for routine and low-grade pain.
I had to cop on the black market to keep from going insane from insomnia and screaming, until I could check myself into an inpatient clinic that would dispense them legally.
There is more harm in making them difficult to get.
If you want a poll, this court case was a poll. A majority of victims who had ample time to participate in litigation agreed to the settlement terms. They told you that addiction is bad, the new Purdue would help, and that money from its owners was sufficient justice. That some agitator basically played the Yogg-Sauron of this meta, the Supreme Court, and cast 5 fireballs against his opponent versus 4 fireballs on himself, isn't super material to the seeming success of the hard political work of this bankruptcy judge.
Are you sure they'll give "better answers" when they're the ones prescribing like that?
It seems most commenters here are fine with a settlement that clears Purdue to sell opioids (for the benefit of victims), but not with a settlement that lets the Sacklers off with a fine. That is exactly the opposite of my moral intuitions. What gives?
Some questions are message board questions.
What I wonder is why someone like you wouldn't know this?