That's what is nice about Thank$giving:
"Purdue Pharma pleads guilty to criminal charges for opioid sales" by Jan Hoffman and Katie Benner New York Times, October 21, 2020
Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, has agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and face penalties of roughly $8.3 billion, the Justice Department announced Wednesday, a move that could pave the way for a settlement of thousands of lawsuits brought against the company for its role in the opioids epidemic.
The company’s owners, members of the wealthy Sackler family, will pay $225 million in civil penalties. Federal prosecutors said the settlement did not preclude criminal charges against Purdue executives or individual Sacklers.
Wednesday’s announcement does not conclude the extensive litigation against Purdue, but it does represent a significant advance in the long legal march by states, cities, and counties to compel the most prominent defendant in the opioid epidemic to help pay for the public health crisis that has resulted in the deaths of more than 450,000 Americans since 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Still, it is unlikely the company will end up paying anything close to the $8 billion negotiated in the settlement deal. That is because it is in bankruptcy court and the federal government will have to take its place in a long line of creditors. Typically, creditors end up collecting pennies on the dollar, and the federal case against Purdue is distinct from thousands of opioid-related lawsuits against other drug manufacturers, as well as distributors and pharmacy chains, still pending in federal and state courts.
Purdue has long demanded that the federal charges against it be resolved before reaching a larger settlement with thousands of cities, tribes, states and individuals, who claim that its relentless marketing of OxyContin directly contributed to towering costs in health care, law enforcement and unemployment. Lawyers close to negotiations expect that the final settlement may emerge early next year.
Specifically, the company has agreed to plead guilty to felony charges of defrauding federal health agencies and violating anti-kickback laws. The penalties include $3.54 billion in criminal fines, $2 billion in criminal forfeiture and $2.8 billion in civil penalties, related to violating federal requirements to monitor promotion and sales of a scheduled drug;contributing to false claims to Medicare and Medicaid; and involvement in a kickback scheme with a software company that would alert doctors to promote OxyContin.
This is the first time since 2007 that Purdue has pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges for misleading doctors, patients and the government about its drug. At the time, the company paid $600 million in fines
To resolve the local lawsuits, Purdue has proposed a global settlement that it values at about $10 billion. That figure includes future profits from drugs still in development as well as a $3 billion contribution from the Sacklers.
A year ago, under the weight of opioid litigation, Purdue sought protection in bankruptcy court from which it is expected to emerge at some point as a new company. Judge Robert D. Drain, who is overseeing the bankruptcy case in White Plains, New York, will review a long line of unsecured creditors alongside the federal penalties, but the $2 billion federal criminal forfeiture penalty stands apart and has considerably more teeth. The Justice Department said Wednesday it would demand that Purdue directly pay just $225 million of that amount and would earmark the remainder for the municipalities, states and tribes, on condition that they allocate the money to abate local opioid crises.
A second condition of the unusual government-to-government designation, however, has prompted an outcry from 25 state attorneys general: the ownership of Purdue, after it emerges from bankruptcy.
Purdue has proposed that the company be run as a “public benefit corporation,” with proceeds from continuing limited sales of OxyContin and several overdose-reversing medications under development to go toward opioid abatement. The Justice Department endorses that model, but in a forceful letter addressed to Attorney General William Barr earlier this month, the attorneys general decried the public trust model, and its association with governmental entities. Governments should not be in the opioid business, they said. Instead, they said that Purdue should be run privately, with government oversight.
Another objection to Wednesday’s settlement centers on the resolution of civil claims against individual Sacklers, raised by private families who are suing. A forensic audit last year by Purdue found that the Sacklers directed at least $10.7 billion in the company’s proceeds to family-controlled trusts and holding companies, even as Purdue was facing legal scrutiny.
In addition to the payment of $3 billion to resolve thousands of other lawsuits, the family has agreed to turn over ownership of the company.
A contentious issue with respect to the Sacklers is that the family itself is not seeking bankruptcy protection and has been seeking release from litigation as a condition of settling the Purdue claims.
Joe Rice, a negotiator on the executive committee for thousands of local governments, favors the broad contours of a public benefit trust. “You have to figure out what you do with the limited need there may be for some opioids. You don’t maximize the value of the Purdue asset if you destroy the product totally,” he said, “and you want to make sure that the people who abused the right to sell narcotics pay for what they did. The Sacklers lose their name, their company and substantially more.”
The settlement terms announced on Wednesday by the Justice Department, including direct payments to the federal government from the company and the Sacklers, is subject to approval from Drain, the judge.
The $ame $ector is bringing you the vaccine you don't need.
"OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma pleads guilty in criminal case" by Geoff Mulvihill The Associated Press, November 24, 2020
NEWARK — Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty Tuesday to three criminal charges, formally admitting its role in an opioid epidemic that has contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths over the past two decades.
In a virtual hearing before a federal judge, the OxyContin maker admitted impeding the Drug Enforcement Administration’s efforts to combat the addiction crisis. Purdue acknowledged that it had not maintained an effective program to prevent prescription drugs from being diverted to the black market, even though it had told the DEA it did have such a program, and that it provided misleading information to the agency as a way to boost company manufacturing quotas.
It also admitted paying doctors through a speakers program to induce them to write more prescriptions for its painkillers, and it admitted paying an electronic medical records company to send doctors information on patients that encouraged them to prescribe opioids.
The guilty pleas were entered by Purdue’s board chairperson, Steve Miller, on behalf of the company. They were part of a criminal and civil settlement announced last month between the Stamford, Conn., company and the Justice Department.
The deal includes $8.3 billion in penalties and forfeitures, but the company is on the hook for a direct payment to the federal government of only a fraction of that, $225 million. It would pay the smaller amount as long as it executes a settlement moving through US Bankruptcy Court with state and local governments and other entities suing it over the toll of the opioid epidemic.
Members of the wealthy Sackler family, who own the company, have also agreed to pay $225 million to the government to settle civil claims. No criminal charges have been filed against family members, though their deal leaves open that possibility.
“Having our plea accepted in federal court, and taking responsibility for past misconduct, is an essential step to preserve billions of dollars of value for creditors and advance our goal of providing financial resources and lifesaving medicines to address the opioid crisis,” Purdue said in a written statement after pleading guilty.
“We continue to work tirelessly to build additional support for a proposed bankruptcy settlement, which would direct the overwhelming majority of the settlement funds to state, local and tribal governments for the purpose of abating the opioid crisis," the statement read.
Purdue's plea to federal crimes provides only minor comfort for advocates who want to see harsher penalties for the OxyContin maker and its owners. The ongoing drug overdose crisis, which appears to be growing worse during the coronavirus pandemic, has contributed to the deaths of more than 470,000 Americans over the past two decades, most of those from legal and illicit opioids.
The attorneys general for about half the states opposed the federal settlement, as well as the company’s proposed bankruptcy settlement. In the bankruptcy case, Purdue has proposed transforming itself into a public benefit corporation, with its proceeds going to help address the opioid crisis.
The attorneys general and some activists are upset that despite the Sacklers giving up control of the company, the family remains wealthy and its members will not face prison or other individual penalties.
The activists say there’s no difference between the actions of the company and its owners, who also controlled Purdue's board until the past few years.
Last week, as part of a motion to get access to more family documents, the attorneys general who oppose the deals filed documents that put members of the Sackler family at the center of Purdue’s continued push for OxyContin sales even as opioid-related deaths rose.
The newly public documents include e-mails between consultants from McKinsey & Corp. hired by the company to help boost the business. One from 2008, a year after the company first pleaded guilty to opioid-related crimes, says board members, including a Sackler family member, “ ‘blessed’ him to do whatever he thinks is necessary to ‘save the business.’ ”
By falsely foisting addiction upon you!
"Legal marijuana in Rhode Island? What a difference a massive budget deficit can make; A big drop in revenue because of the coronavirus has some lawmakers reconsidering their opposition to recreational marijuana" by Edward Fitzpatrick Globe Staff, November 18, 2020
PROVIDENCE — Momentum is building to legalize recreational marijuana in Rhode Island now that state budget deficits are looming and the marijuana business is booming in neighboring Massachusetts.
Less than a year ago, state Senate leaders were dead set against Governor Gina M. Raimondo’s proposal to legalize recreational cannabis by setting up a system of state-controlled pot shops, much like New Hampshire’s state-run liquor stores.
In December 2019, Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio, a North Providence Democrat, told the Globe he was concerned about the “debilitating effect” that the proposal would have on youths in the state. “If we have an education problem in this state, why would we legalize marijuana?” he said.
Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Michael J. McCaffrey, a Warwick Democrat, said there wasn’t enough information about the consequences of legalization. “Massachusetts is starting to realize the side effects of it, and insurance rates are going up,” he said at the time. “We are seeing more accidents in Massachusetts because of impairment from marijuana.”
What a difference a massive budget deficit can make.
(harrumph)
Senate leaders sent a much different message during and after the Nov. 6 Senate Democratic caucus.
“The time has come to legalize adult cannabis use,” McCaffrey declared. “We have studied this issue extensively, and we can incorporate the best practices as learned from other states.”
Rhode Island’s prohibition on recreational marijuana no longer makes sense given the “robust” system that Massachusetts is establishing just over the border, McCaffrey said. “We can create jobs, capture lost tax revenue, and fund important social programs,” he said.
After the caucus, Ruggerio acknowledged that even though he had some concerns in the past “about the social costs that exist with that,” he now is willing to reexamine the issue.
“We are in a tough situation as far as our revenue is concerned,” he said. “I don’t want to look at it just as a revenue source. So I’m interested in seeing what we can come up with similar to what we have done with the medical marijuana.”
You don't have to be stoned to see (or smell) the overwhelming $tench of hypocri$y along with the lack of principle.
The new direction comes as five more states legalized marijuana on Election Day.
Voters in New Jersey, Arizona, and Montana approved measures legalizing marijuana for adults age 21 and older. South Dakota became the first state where voters authorized both recreational marijuana and medical marijuana via two separate initiatives in the same election, and medical marijuana won approval in Mississippi.
Another factor: House Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello, a Cranston Democrat, lost his race in the Nov. 3 election, and his presumed replacement as House Speaker, Democrat K. Joseph Shekarchi of Warwick, said Tuesday that he’s open to discussing the proposal.....
I wouldn't run over the the shop right away if I were you:
"Dozens of workers at Brookline marijuana dispensary forced to quarantine, limiting orders; Two more employees of NETA test positive" by Dan Adams Globe Staff, November 18, 2020
The New England Treatment Access marijuana dispensary in Brookline is sharply limiting orders amid a severe staff shortage related to the coronavirus pandemic, company officials acknowledged this week following complaints from customers.
Managers at NETA have asked at least 30 employees of the firm’s Brookline shop to stay home and self-quarantine because they interacted with two colleagues who tested positive for the virus earlier this month, a spokesman told the Globe. That leaves only a handful of workers available to process online orders for cannabis products and otherwise staff the dispensary, which was once among the busiest pot shops in the country before closing to walk-in customers because of the pandemic.
“Two employees who were working together in an office [at the Brookline dispensary] tested positive for COVID-19 earlier this month,” a NETA spokesman said in a statement. “Out of an abundance of caution, and following company protocols, members of the staff who came in contact with the two employees are in self-quarantine and are in contact with the Brookline Board of Health. To date, no other employees have tested positive for the coronavirus.”
The spokesman added that NETA’s hybrid medical/recreational marijuana store in Brookline is routinely deep-cleaned, and has strict protocols in place meant to limit close contact between and among employees and customers.
A message on NETA’s website early Wednesday said the company’s Brookline shop was already “at capacity” for recreational orders for the day, and directed customers to try placing an order in the evening for pickup the next day.
Licensed marijuana companies in Massachusetts are required to disclose coronavirus infections among their workforces to the state Cannabis Control Commission, which has received such reports from at least 10 different companies. A commission spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment and the total number of cannabis workers reported to have tested positive by their employers.
To date, seven of NETA’s 750 employees have tested positive for the coronavirus, the company spokesman said. Those include at least two other workers at the Brookline store who became ill with COVID-19 last spring plus one each at NETA’s Northampton dispensary and the firm’s cultivation and processing facility in Franklin, according to data previously provided by the commission.
“Employees who felt symptoms never came into work,” the spokesman stressed, noting the rate of infection among employees was well below the state average.
The spring cases prompted accusations by NETA employees that the company was doing too little to protect them, and figured heavily in a campaign by the United Food and Commercial Workers union to organize the firm’s workforce.
What are they trying to do, destroy the industry as it begins to grow?
"Fatal opioid overdoses up slightly during pandemic" by Gal Tziperman Lotan Globe Staff, November 18, 2020
The number of people dying of opioid overdoses in Massachusetts rose slightly in the first nine months of 2020, raising concerns from public health officials about caring for people dealing with substance use disorders during the pandemic.
Public health officials pointed to a few concerning data points: More Black and Latino people are dying in overdoses, and the isolation and stress of the pandemic make reaching vulnerable people more difficult.
“The pandemic is extremely taxing and difficult and isolating and challenging for all of us,” Public Health Commissioner Monica Bharel said Wednesday, “and then, what we see is where we have vulnerabilities, and those of us who are vulnerable for either chronic disease exacerbation, or substance use disorder exacerbation, mental health issues exacerbation, that’s happening related to the pandemic. I think that’s what we’re seeing in this report.”
Dr. Edward Bernstein, a member of the state’s Public Health Council, said he was particularly concerned about people who need substance use treatment during a surge in COVID cases. The state has one program for people who need treatment and are COVID-positive, but as COVID cases climb, especially in vulnerable populations, it may need more, he said.
“I am concerned about how we’re preparing for this new surge,” said Bernstein, a professor and vice chair for academic affairs, emergency medicine, at Boston University School of Medicine. “Because right now, they are facing overcrowding. And that’s a critical danger for the spread of the virus.”
The state has been releasing data about overdose deaths twice a year, but Bernstein also questioned whether officials should release it more proactively during the pandemic.
“I was sort of concerned that we waited until now to know what was going on in March, April, June, July,” he said.
Slightly more Black and Latino people died of opioid overdoses in 2019, compared to previous years, according to the state’s data. The Department of Public Health is responding by offering training to counselors and by starting a pilot program offering more care to men being released from prisons and jails, said Deirdre Calvert, director of the Bureau of Substance Addiction Services at the state Department of Public Health.
The overdose rescue drug naloxone, commonly known by the brand name Narcan, is widely used and remains effective. But pandemic-related isolation means there is not always another person present to administer it, Calvert said.
“No matter how much naloxone we flood our system with, if people are using in isolation and nobody’s there to give them naloxone, it’s an issue,” Calvert said.
Though some drug-treatment programs had to reduce capacities because of the pandemic, the state has not lost any programs since the pandemic began, Calvert said, despite concerns that the economic collapse and concerns about the virus would drive programs out of business.
Another concern, Calvert said, is reaching mothers who need treatment but may be reluctant to seek it. Now, along with long-present concerns that their children may be taken away if they seek help, they also have to worry about the daily care of children whose school buildings are closed.
“We know that addiction festers and grows in isolation, and we know that recovery is available through community, and right now we’re asking people to isolate,” Calvert said. “So we’re very, very, very worried.”
Time for treatment:
"AA to Zoom, substance abuse treatment goes online" by Matt Richtel New York Times, November 28, 2020
Until the coronavirus pandemic, their meetings took place quietly, every day, discreet gatherings in the basements of churches, a spare room at the YMCA, the back of a cafe, but members of Alcoholics Anonymous and other groups of recovering substance abusers found the doors quickly shut this spring, to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
What happened next is one of those creative cascades the virus has indirectly set off. Rehabilitation moved online, almost overnight, with zeal. Not only are thousands of AA meetings taking place on Zoom and other digital hangouts, but other major players in the rehabilitation industry have leapt in, transforming a daily ritual that many credit with saving their lives.
“AA members I speak to are well beyond the initial fascination with the idea that they are looking at a screen of Hollywood Squares,” said Dr. Lynn Hankes, 84, who has been in recovery for 43 years and is a retired physician in Florida with three decades of experience treating addiction. “They thank Zoom for their very survival.”
Although online rehab rose as an emergency stopgap measure, people in the field say it is likely to become a permanent part of the way substance abuse is treated. Being able to find a meeting to log into 24/7 has welcome advantages. Online meetings can also be a good steppingstone for people just starting rehab.
If you are locked down in your home it also makes it harder to get drugs.
“There are so many positives — people don’t need to travel. It saves time,” said Dr. Andrew Saxon, an addiction expert and professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “The potential for people who wouldn’t have access to treatment easily to get it is a big bonus.”
It is too early for data on the effectiveness of online rehabilitation compared to in-person sessions. There has been some recent research validating the use of the technology for related areas of treatment, like PTSD and depression that suggests hope for the approach, some experts in the field said.
Well, we know online education isn't working.
Even those people who say in-person therapy will remain superior also said the development has proved a huge benefit for many who would have otherwise faced one of the biggest threats to recovery: isolation.
The implications extend well beyond the pandemic. That’s because the entire system of rehabilitation has been grappling for years with practices some see as both dogmatic and insufficiently effective given high rates of relapse.
Somehow COVID became a cover to redesign the entire world.
“It’s both challenging our preconceived concerns about what is necessary for treatment and recovery but also validating the need for connection with a peer group and the need for immediate access,” said Samantha Pauley, national director of virtual services for the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, an addiction treatment and advocacy organization, with clinics around the country.....
That's when I fell off the wagon.
