JaneQPublic
JaneQPublic's JournalOxyContin Maker Explored Expansion Into "Attractive" Anti-Addiction Market
Source: ProPublica
Secret portions of a lawsuit allege that Purdue Pharma, controlled by the Sackler family, considered capitalizing on the addiction treatment boom — while going to extreme lengths to boost sales of its controversial opioid.
Not content with billions of dollars in profits from the potent painkiller OxyContin, its maker explored expanding into an “attractive market” fueled by the drug’s popularity — treatment of opioid addiction, according to previously secret passages in a court document filed by the state of Massachusetts.
In internal correspondence beginning in 2014, Purdue Pharma executives discussed how the sale of opioids and the treatment of opioid addiction are “naturally linked” and that the company should expand across “the pain and addiction spectrum,” according to redacted sections of the lawsuit by the Massachusetts attorney general. A member of the billionaire Sackler family, which founded and controls the privately held company, joined in those discussions and urged staff in an email to give “immediate attention” to this business opportunity, the complaint alleges.
ProPublica reviewed the scores of redacted paragraphs in Massachusetts’ 274-page civil complaint against Purdue, eight Sackler family members, company directors and current and former executives, which alleges that they created the opioid epidemic through illegal deceit. These passages remain blacked out at the company’s request after the rest of the complaint was made public on Jan. 15. A Massachusetts Superior Court judge on Monday ordered that the entire document be released, but the judge gave Purdue until Friday to seek a further stay of the ruling.
Read more: https://www.propublica.org/article/oxycontin-purdue-pharma-massachusetts-lawsuit-anti-addiction-market?utm_content=buffer2c3c1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer
From ProPublica's Twitter feed:
"Scoop: In internal correspondence beginning in 2014, Purdue Pharma executives discussed how the sale of opioids and the treatment of opioid addiction are “naturally linked” and that the company should expand across “the pain and addiction spectrum.”
https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/1090703716427186182
Perfect name for Schultz, Bloomberg, Trump, Steyer...
...and other would-be candidates who believe their vast wealth is a superior alternative to mere experience in government:
"Billionaire Boys Club." It needs to be a hashtag.
Credit goes to "The Guardian" and their recent article, "Billionaire boys club': the challengers lining up to face Trump in 2020":
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/16/trump-2020-challengers-billionaires-tom-steyer-bloomberg-howard-schultz
But one of the more unusual clusters in the putative Democratic field is the billionaire boys club: former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, hedge fund investor and activist Tom Steyer and former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz. Estimated combined wealth: $50bn.
...
But these are early days and corporate titans can buy name recognition. Schultz, 65, reportedly plans to travel the country early next year to promote a book entitled From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America. Bloomberg, a businessman who recently re-registered as a Democrat, and Steyer spent heavily in the midterms to help Democrats regain the House of Representatives. Earlier this month they were on the ground in the key states of Iowa and South Carolina. Both have political causes that could make them stand apart from a highly crowded field.
Major barrier to 3rd-party candidates: The Electoral College
Apparently, the winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College makes a successful third-party POTUS candidacy a near impossibility (so says something political scientists call "Duverger's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law).
So with all the talk about whether a Howard Schultz Independent candidacy would make him a worthy contender or a Trump-aiding spoiler, I looked into just how successful third-party POTUS candidates have been in gaining electoral votes.
The short answer is: Not very.
Some the most famous third-party candidates in recent years --- Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, H. Ross Perot, John Anderson, and Ralph Nader -- never earned a single electoral vote.
Ron Paul, Rand's dad and the Libertarian candidate in 1988 and a write-in candidate in 2008, won a single electoral vote, but not in those years. It was in 2016, apparently the work of a "faithless elector."
Going back a full century, the only third-party presidential candidates on the ballot to earn electoral votes were the following folks:
> 1924 - Robert LaFollette (Progressive Party) - 13 votes (2.4%)
> 1948 - Strom Thurmond (States' Rights Party) - 39 votes (7.3%)
> 1968 - George Wallace (American Independent Party) - 46 votes (8.6%)
> 1972 - John Hospers (Libertarian Party) - 1 vote, by a faithless elector (0.2%)
So, are third-party POTUS candidates legitimate contenders or just spoilers? In light of their dismal record for winning the White House, I vote "spoiler."
Even Teddy Roosevelt, running as the Progressive Party candidate in 1912, couldn't pull off a win.
Sure, other countries manage more than just two parties, but they don't have the Electoral College.
I'm all for eliminating the Electoral College, but only because it enables GOPers to win and therefore hinders Dems.
If anyone's interested, here's a couple of sources I found most interesting:
"Third Party Presidential Candidates":
https://www.presidentsusa.net/thirdparty.html
"List of people who received an electoral vote in the United States Electoral College"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_received_an_electoral_vote_in_the_United_States_Electoral_College
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: Southern Maryland
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 7,113
