This seems like a difficult way of resolving this situation. How do you prove willful intent on part of Opioid companies? From what I understand, opioids do serve a purpose, especially those who require pain medications more powerful than aspirin or IBUprofen. Perhaps a routine when prescribed w// opioids, that follow-up medications that reduce possibility of addiction after taking ?

In this case, I think a doctor and his office was involved in prescribing. Amazing...the drug distributor should have caught (but didn't). I think the doc was caught and sentenced?

They were making a lot of money off that.

drugs from 1 small location/company/office should raise questions immediately (but obviously it didn't, hence the conviction(s) etc.)...

Specially during periods of campaigning.

Trying to deal with a problem in it's totality might upset some people.

I know several I follow on twitter are very scared of the opioid crack down, because opioids are the only medication that works on their chronic pain, and now they're having trouble getting it. We're talking people who've been on stable doses for years, who get it prescribed under doctor supervision, and for whom suggestions they take up yoga and meditation instead are, frankly, a huge slap in the face.

badly needed by hospitals and surgery centers across the US because the 3 opioid mfrs are concentrating their ingredients into oral, retail-centric forms. They know what they're doing.

Are you saying his constituency is impacted by one over the other compared to many other representatives? To claim something like that would be to ignore reality.

What else shouldn’t we “inject race into”? It’s a topic that shouldn’t and won’t be silenced.

from the sale of legal marijuana. But I guess that’s different.

Sellers always make a profit, or they go out of business.

When I and my fellow Californians voted to legalize pot for recreational use, the intent was to stop people from getting arrested and going to prison for the use of this herb. The biggest threat to people's health from pot use has always been having a criminal record and/or being sent to prison. The other threat to public safety is that, just as Prohibition allowed the Mafia an entry-point to the lives of otherwise law-abiding citizens, so has the criminalization of cannabis allowed gangs and cartels to flourish, and to introduce people to pushers of other drugs.

So although I don't use the stuff myself, my thinking is to treat it like alcohol. Tax it, regulate it, and allow individuals to grow a certain amount for personal use. Regarding alcohol, yes, you can brew and distill quite a few gallons of whatever you like without a license, you just can't transport it very far or sell it. The taxes on tobacco and alcohol used to be winkingly referred to as "Sin Taxes"-- now just add cannabis products to things that are taxed if sold.

Opioids, otoh, are extremely addictive. They have their uses for intractible pain, gods know, but any corporation that vastly overproduces and distributes the stuff, plus goes on an all-out advertising campaign to convince doctors that their product is safe and non-addictive ought to be run out of business, and the owners should face prison time.

Instead, doctors and patients will be targeted (as usual) and the corporations held harmless (as usual). Pardon my cynicism on the matter.

However, kudos to Bernie for at least going public with the issue.

is money. That is the point. Any business venture is out to make money. This is just grandstanding about corporations, billionaires, big Pharma. It has all the buzzwords. The turf fights over legal pot profits will be okay, though, because no one lies about pot, lol.

...potential entrepreneurs (the ones hoping to make money) to have swung the election in California? Somehow I doubt there are that many voters in that narrow category. A lot of voters like me (i.e. non-users) were persuaded that legalization is in the public interest because way too many people have gone to prison, and they are disproportionately POC, a palpable social injustice.

Who is "grandstanding"? Me? Bernie Sanders? Anyone who recognizes the evils done by Big Pharma?

And why would you imagine that nobody realizes the world of legal cannabis sales is filled with fallible human beings? Of course problems will ensue -- they always do. I just hope we can stop having Mexican cartels running their Panga boats filled with product up the California coast, and other branches of those cartels establishing pot farms in the back country. Those illicit pot farms, btw, degrade the fragile ecosystem and are guarded with firearms lest hikers stumble in.

Seriously, what is your point in this argument?

related to legal weed and how those PROFITS will be taxed, so maybe all this umbrage about Big Pharma is just a distraction and a double standard. Maybe we read different news articles, but pot dealers have always had a huge eye on making money selling drugs. LOL, this is getting absurd now.

I couldn’t agree with you about Mexican cartels. This sounds out of touch. There are plenty of white people growing pot for profit.

Sorry, but you can’t be against Big Pharma and be for legal weed without realizing that it is ALL profit driven.

You can't make a law that takes effect retroactively. It's literally enshrined in the constitution that ex post facto law is not allowed.

So disappointing. Everything for rhetoric rather than actually achieving an end goal.

This just tears me up because it does nothing for it. Nothing.

A loved one in a nursing home who couldn't get adequate pain med till she officially went on hospice. Why are they worried about addiction with a 90 year old whose medication intake is completely controlled?

..... now Medicare for all.

It’s funny how the people who constantly harp about just settling for incremental change can’t grasp the concept that TRYING for these “pie in the sky” ideas actually puts them out for public debate.

Sanders knows this bill isn’t going anywhere with this congress and this president. Pretty much anything that isn’t a tax cut or fucks the 99% is going to have to wait.

But not talking about it is stupid.

Look it how opinions have changed in just the last couple years re: Medicare for all.

Look at how fast things changed re: marriage equality. I remember when the sensible woodchucks called it a pink pony.

Whether you like it or not, Sanders has a voice and is getting coverage. So he absolutely should be pushing for the right issues. Whether they happen tomorrow or not.

This is nothing like the other fights. It's just grandstanding.

He made an unsubstantiated claim with no explanation of which part was ex post facto. And so did you, ipso facto.


#32 should ask the thousands of, albeit smaller, drug dealers about having profits disgorged and how “unconstitutional” it is.

And that's what this bill does.

The “ex post facto” piece is, in fact, civil and not criminal. The governing agencies can, at the direction of The Legislators by law, retroactively disgorge ill-gotten gains.

Civil not criminal.

A fine of 100 percent of their total compensation is more than "excessive."

Also, find the part where he wants the law to take effect in 1985.

That's a 100% fine.

Text:
http://email.capitolenews.com/q/R4Wn_tx3P6APr8n43jQERi20cLbnSjUwuzyZno_2tdb3fxDaJADp1y-M0nZQ

Summary:
http://email.capitolenews.com/q/f58NJh2XhZoJVE_aKe0xSFVCDs9ezNZEp6ZplP4YpcJZ5Sq9zIDC0fUuubZw

Or something.

A couple of years ago it was never ever going to happen. Now there are 16 cosponsors saying oh yeah me too. And public opinion has shifted considerably.

Gee, maybe talking about these pie in the sky ideas actually works.

and will win elections. Medicare for all, I'll talk about it and support it until I'm blue in the face and stone cold dead!

But let’s just say nothing because it will “never ever happen”

Just like marriage was a “sacred bond between an man and a woman” until the polling came around.

Because I’m curious what part is unconstitutional.