Have you watched Painkiller, the limited Netflix series about the OxyContin epidemic that kills thousands of Americans each year—more than car crashes? It is an eye-opening piece–even if you already know the story of the Sackler family and the devastation the family released on America. That devastation continues, which is only one reason this series is important.
From listening to people running for president in 2024, you would not know that more than 100 people a day die of opioid overdoses, or that 81,000 people died of opioid overdoses in 2021, more dead Americans than died in the Vietnam war. Have you seen action plans put forward by any of the dozen or so Republican presidential candidates to address the problem? I have not. Not unless you count Donald Trump’s and Ron DeSantis’ proposals to execute drug dealers.
Painkiller tells the story of the Sackler family’s and Purdue Pharma’s greed, as well as how otherwise good people got involved in distributing drugs (in the case of Purdue, aggressive marketing to persuade doctors to prescribe OxyContin).
The series is worth watching, but it does not address the biggest question—what does the government have to do to stop the epidemic? The Sacklers are no longer in the drug business, but the opioid epidemic continues.
Painkiller offers a simplistic rationale for Purdue’s crimes: greed. Sackler family money allowed it to buy regulatory approvals (by effectively bribing a Food and Drug Administration official) and neuter law enforcement with money (a Maine prosecutor who once publicly attacked Purdue was hired as a consultant to the company) and hiring famous lawyers to game the legal system. (Purdue hired Mary Jo White, a former U.S. Attorney in New York, and Rudy Guiliani to represent it.)
After more than a decade in court, the Sacklers were stopped from peddling these drugs. Yet, the Purdue story is still not over. Despite the company settling the criminal charges brought against it, the Sackler family assets remain in the billions. A court recently rejected a settlement with a Bankruptcy Court that would have ended future financial risk for the family. Thus, trials relating to Purdue will continue indefinitely.
Much more important is the reality of at least 100 people a day dying of opioid overdoses, especially those involving Fentanyl, a synthetic 50 times more potent than heroin. Why isn’t more being done?
Experts admit there is no easy solution. Are those who overdose victims or criminals? Should doctors be second-guessed by lawyers on how they prescribe painkillers? Are families to blame? Would “drug education” programs in schools dissuade people from trying illegal drugs—or legal ones they might not need? Would stronger border enforcement stop the flow of opioids into America?
I do not know the answers to these questions. I also do not know why major presidential candidates, including Joe Biden, are not talking more about the issue, or putting forth bold plans to address it. (In February, President Biden called for “a major surge to stop fentanyl production, sale, and trafficking, with more drug detection machines to inspect cargo and stop pills and powder at the border.” Is that enough?)
The drug problem is not getting better. As a nation, are we ready to accept 100 people a day dying of opioid overdoses? I am not.
Here are questions I would like to see the 2024 candidates answer.
On a scale of one to ten (just like the pain charts doctors use), how serious is the drug problem in the U.S.?
What are the causes of the drug problem?
What actions would you take in your first 100 days in the White House (hopefully in the first 100 hours) to begin addressing the problem?
What commitment of new federal resources to address the addiction problem do you support?
How do you propose to reduce access to illegal opioids, as well as to legal opioids by people who do not need them?
Do you think the FDA is doing its job in protecting the public from opioids?
Do you believe executing drug dealers would solve the opioid epidemic? If so, explain.
Are new laws needed to punish doctors who inappropriately prescribe opioids to people at risk of addiction or to people who do not need the drugs to address intolerable pain? How would such an initiative work?
What innovative ideas do you have to address the drug epidemic?
Do you agree that, if you are elected, voters should hold you accountable for your record on the drug epidemic issue?
If anyone running for president happens to read this piece (I like to think that several candidates are Spy readers), please send me your answers. The Spy, I am sure, would like to publish them.
And, Dr. Harris, where are you on this issue? As a doctor and the First District representative in Congress, what should be done to hold doctors who facilitate access to unneeded addictive opioids accountable? Your website tells us, “Physicians, not government bureaucrats, should provide guidance on medical decisions that affect you and your family.” What would you do to stop doctors from inappropriately prescribing opioids?
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.
Laurie Powers says
Mr. Dean,
Quoting you, “From listening to people running for president in 2024, you would not know that more than 100 people a day die of opioid overdoses, or that 81,000 people died of opioid overdoses in 2021, more dead Americans than died in the Vietnam war.”
And, “I also do not know why major presidential candidates, including Joe Biden, are not talking more about the issue, or putting forth bold plans to address it.”
You’re looking in all the wrong places. I’m guessing that you still haven’t listened to Robert Kennedy, Jr., who is talking about this crisis on a regular basis – likely the only candidate who is – and who has firsthand experience. No other candidate cares more or will do more about this and other issues that are destroying our country.
It’s astounding that people are evidently still drinking the mainstream koolaid and acting as if Kennedy isn’t running or that he’s not as popular as he is across the political spectrum, increasingly so, for very good reason. He is addressing the tough issues facing our country that others aren’t; his honesty, diligence, understanding of what really matters to ordinary Americans, and concrete plans to address those issues, are a serious breath of fresh air.
All you have to do is start listening to him. Follow his campaign at Kennedy24.com and go to YouTube and search “Robert Kennedy Jr. opioid crisis” or the like, and you will find examples such as this interview specifically addressing your concerns –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEO5hlsO8lI
John Dean says
Thank you for reading the piece and for your comment.
Gary Saluti says
IMHO the obvious answer is to legalize drugs. It has worked in other countries. Why is the US so reluctant to learn from others?
First off, keep in mind that opiates when properly prescribed by a physician serve an important purpose. Only a very small percentage of patients become addicted (under 10%).
Second, drug addiction is directly related to an individual’s environment. Rats isolated in a cage and offered opiates or water will always choose the opiate. But rats in a cage that includes toys, other rats and various distractions will not. Ever wonder why so many addicts live in economically depressed areas?
Fentanyl is so powerful that mere pounds of it are all that is needed to serve tens of thousands of addicts, unlike heroin, cocaine and marihuana which must be shipped into our country in bulk. It’s a whole different ballgame. All the law enforcement in the world will never stop its importation.
Legalization, while admittedly not popular with the masses is the only answer. It would eliminate the criminal element and the many many consequences of buying an unknown product in a dangerous part of town. It would free up our police and others law enforcement agents thereby liberating millions of dollars which could be better spent on drug education. Clinics could be set up that would provide a safe environment for addicts and a pure and measured product thereby eliminating overdoses. These same clinics could then be used as a sort of “outreach program” working with the addicts to help integrate them back into society.
Like I said, this isn’t new. Many other countries have successfully used this model.
A “War on Drugs” will simply never work. History has proven that.
When will we wake up?
I’m sure my thoughts on this subject will cause an uproar but I hope that the logic of my argument will reach some and perhaps that will be the small step needed to finally achieve a better society for all.
Reed Fawell 3 says
And as result everyone would live out the lives in a drug induced state managed by the Government. That solution is the best definition of a living hell one can imagine.
Gary Saluti says
Not “everyone” my friend. That kind of flippant comment only serves to show your unwillingness to tackle the problem in any realistic way.
John Dean says
Thank you for your comment. I have read a bit about countries that have legalized drugs. I have more to read, but I believe some of them are rethinking the approach.
In any case, thank you for adding to the conversation.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Yes, that state sponsored policy was first implemented as I recall in Amsterdam at least before 1969 when I saw it in action during 1960’s drop out culture. And it hasn’t worked, but only grown the problem, particularly of late in out present high tech screen drop out culture.
Art Murr says
While Purdue Pharma, owned by the Sacklers declared bankruptcy, the corporation that will be created from Purdue Pharma can still produce OxyContin. So the Sacklers are still able to sell OxyContin and remain in the drug business.
John Dean says
You are right–I was aware of that. I should have been clearer–the Sacklers no longer control Purdue. I don’t know if they still have an ownership interest in it.
I understand OxyContin is still sold, but it is a revised formula and is marketed only for situations where there is no alternative–cases like terminal cancer patients.
In any case, thank you for the comment and information.