The Ad Man and the Opiate

October 19, 2017 2:27 PM

How the Sacklers, especially Arthur, helped create the current opiod crisis.
posted by MovableBookLady (46 comments total)

It's essentially a legal cartel that has figured out how to detach itself completely from the violence associated with "traditional" cartels. The legal approach will most likely be the same. Lock up lots of poor people.
posted by Brocktoon at 3:04 PM on October 19, 2017 [6 favorites]

“Boxes of artifacts of tremendous value piled up in numerous storage locations,” she wrote, “there was too much to open, too much to appreciate; some objects known only by a packing list.” Under an avalanche of “ritual bronzes and weapons, mirrors and ceramics, inscribed bones and archaic jades,” their lives were “often in chaos.” “Addiction is a curse,” Lutze noted, “be it drugs, women, or collecting.”

Fuck you.
posted by munchingzombie at 3:19 PM on October 19, 2017 [29 favorites]

“Boxes of artifacts of tremendous value piled up in numerous storage locations,” she wrote, “there was too much to open, too much to appreciate; some objects known only by a packing list.”

COST: NO MAN CAN SAY
posted by praemunire at 3:26 PM on October 19, 2017 [6 favorites]

Excellent article, thanks for posting.

I get the point and the seriousness of the article with regard to the human suffering that has been caused, and I don't mean to gloss over it, but my whole reading of the article was colored by the utter obscenity of the list of donations in the first paragraph. Really, what a complete waste.

I'd like to think that if I were ever so wealthy that spending my money was a job in and of itself, that I'd use it to better mankind somehow. Accessible and better healthcare options. Access to clean drinking water. Safe housing options for those in peril. Not putting my name on some useless building that only the privileged have the opportunity to see anyway, if they even want to. If you've lived through the Depression, I get wanting to ensure the security of your own family, but holy hell, after you've taken care of their security, literally share the wealth ffs.

I keep re-writing my comment, I can't even coherently articulate how disgusting this is. I'll stop here.
posted by vignettist at 3:27 PM on October 19, 2017 [15 favorites]

Fuck you.

Yeah. Addiction...to women...a curse? Try those little pills labeled OC for a while and then come back to me with that insulting babble. If you've taken those little pills for a while, and experienced their glorious power, then you will forever live with the knowledge that bliss is just a pill away. That is a curse.
posted by kozad at 3:27 PM on October 19, 2017 [10 favorites]

I firmly believe that everyone's neurochemistry is different. This is a function of both genetics and development. Some people are really primed for opiate addition, others are predisposed to abusing cocaine or other stimulants. I like booze, but I could get into some real trouble with benzos, which is why I mostly stay away from them.



Note- compulsively collecting artifacts is not one of those things. It just means you have too much fucking money.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:34 PM on October 19, 2017 [11 favorites]

Note- compulsively collecting artifacts is not one of those things.

In the next episode of Rare Art Hoarders: we find a human turd atop of a pile of Cézannes.
posted by GuyZero at 3:48 PM on October 19, 2017 [4 favorites]

I mean really, we should be culture-hacking all the names on these galleries to “OxyContin”*. The OxyContin Wing at the V&A. The OxyContin Gallery at The British Museum. And so on.

That’s where their money came from, only stands to reason the public should know that’s how museums and art gallleries are being funded.

*interestingly, iOS autocorrects this to the trademarked capitalisation. I wonder how one gets their trademark included in the iOS dictionary.
posted by adrianhon at 4:04 PM on October 19, 2017 [17 favorites]

Medical Advertising Hall of Fame.

Christ. Is there a puppy kicking hall of fame too? Burn it to the fucking ground.
posted by uncleozzy at 4:09 PM on October 19, 2017 [16 favorites]

I still personally trace a very large share of the 'popularity' of OcyContin to back when Rush Limbaugh overdosed on it and survived. Along with all the toxic lies he was spreading you could add "this stuff isn't that bad", and that's why it caught on with a "more white" user group than other drugs.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:10 PM on October 19, 2017 [1 favorite]

then you will forever live with the knowledge that bliss is just a pill away

Quoted for fucking truth.
posted by elsietheeel at 4:12 PM on October 19, 2017 [1 favorite]

for many patients, the drug lasted only six or eight hours, creating a cycle of crash and euphoria that one academic called “a perfect recipe for addiction.” When confronted with complaints about “breakthrough pain”—meaning that the pills weren’t working as long as advertised—Purdue’s sales reps were given strict instructions to tell doctors to strengthen the dose rather than increase dosing frequency.

Is there any non-obvious justification for this strategy?

I think I would like my doctors selected more for critical thinking ability than the ability to endure 12-hour internship shifts.
posted by amtho at 4:23 PM on October 19, 2017 [6 favorites]

So are the Sacklers going to be the new Rothschildes? You know- the Jewish family we can blame for all our problems? Because I think the opioid epidemic is a little more complicated then one family, and I'm not liking the burn the witch feeling I'm getting from this thread.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 4:47 PM on October 19, 2017 [8 favorites]

So is there a serious study out there that has looked at the economics of nationalizing drug companies? Because it seems like we have ample evidence that for-profit healthcare seriously distorts costs, approved treatment regimens and outcomes, that same logic should apply equally as well to the pharma industry.
posted by aiglet at 4:57 PM on October 19, 2017 [2 favorites]

It's AW-FUL. John Oliver has a pretty good bit on it actually, of all people. It's on the long side, it but gets pretty serious in tracing how oxycontin was deliberately marketed to a lot of people in the 90s and 2000s.
posted by karmachameleon at 5:13 PM on October 19, 2017 [3 favorites]

So as far as I can tell, rich people who donate large amounts to museums are looking for a way to save on taxes without accidentally somehow benefiting a poor person.

Every time I go to the Met or AMNH I just mentally replace the donor names with "asshole". Asshole Wing of Vertebrate Development, Asshole Gallery of Modern Art, Robert and William J. Asshole fountain.
posted by phooky at 5:41 PM on October 19, 2017 [24 favorites]

recent 60 Minutes: DEA whistleblower, pharma distributors negligent
the dollop takes on opium, part 1 part 2
netflix: heroin(e)
pbs frontline: chasing heroin
caustic soda podcast: addiction

there seems to be a lot of blame to spread around. but, the five-why cause is purdue pharma creating a dangerously irresponsible drug to make up for expected profit-decline when their rights for oxycontin were about to expire.
posted by j_curiouser at 5:46 PM on October 19, 2017 [1 favorite]

my whole reading of the article was colored by the utter obscenity of the list of donations in the first paragraph. Really, what a complete waste.

So, that paragraph does a great job of making their donations sound sinister, but I would hope people would retain their critical thinking skills enough to realize what is being described is primarily old-fashioned donations to major museums, universities, and other cultural institutions. There is a fair and reasonable argument that they are not the best priorities for philanthropy right now, but...you think maintaining a suitable facility for the Temple of Dendur is a complete waste? You think it's just frittering away money to give Harvard students proper facilities to study Islamic and Asian art?

(That paragraph also makes it sound as if these donations were just crumbs from the Oxycontin feast...but the Sackler institutions I'm familiar with all antedate the late 90s.)
posted by praemunire at 6:23 PM on October 19, 2017 [9 favorites]

You think it's just frittering away money to give Harvard students proper facilities to study Islamic and Asian art?

Harvard could afford to do that all on its own.
posted by Dysk at 6:26 PM on October 19, 2017 [6 favorites]

A spokesperson for the university added, “Yale does not vet donors for controversies that may or may not arise.”

Yeah, I'm sure they don't.
posted by el io at 6:45 PM on October 19, 2017 [7 favorites]

you think maintaining a suitable facility for the Temple of Dendur is a complete waste? You think it's just frittering away money to give Harvard students proper facilities to study Islamic and Asian art?

In the context of how this family attained their wealth, by outright harming people without guilt or shame (and let's remind ourselves that these people were medical doctors, who took a hippocratic oath), by valuing money and status over the health and welfare of millions of patients, their families, their children; yes, I stand behind my statement that this type of philanthropy in this context is a complete waste. Would you be so quick to disagree with my pov if we were discussing The Pablo Escobar sponsored Temple of Dendur exhibit? There's no material difference.
posted by vignettist at 7:29 PM on October 19, 2017 [5 favorites]

*sigh* these pills weren't developed til the 90's most of their donations predate that. I get it, you really want a witch hunt, but please get your facts straight!
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 7:31 PM on October 19, 2017 [2 favorites]

*sigh* these pills weren't developed til the 90's most of their donations predate that. I get it, you really want a witch hunt, but please get your facts straight!

Yeah, but it was named that so that people would remember the name for generations to come. Which we are. We are allowed to.
posted by karmachameleon at 7:40 PM on October 19, 2017 [3 favorites]

*Sigh* It's not necessarily about Oxy per se, (for instance, their work on over-selling Valium, which took place in the 60's), it's about a pattern of behavior in which money is valued over real flesh-and-blood people. Pointing out someone's real and documented actions is not a witch hunt; it's calling them to account for their actions.
posted by vignettist at 7:42 PM on October 19, 2017 [9 favorites]

Yeah, we should be focusing on the irresponsible marketing of Valium instead.
posted by elsietheeel at 7:42 PM on October 19, 2017 [2 favorites]

Speaking as someone who is not neurotypical, the Valium family of medicines is one of the ways I can function normally in society. Is this like the thing where "everyone knows" that ADHD isn't real when people and children with ADHD beg you to pay attention to them while you ignore them and talk about "overmedication"?
As someone who has needed them, thank god for benzos. I wont let you demonize them too.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 7:45 PM on October 19, 2017 [8 favorites]

Oxycontin was sold as a non-addictive solution for chronic pain. A shitload of people were told they wouldn't get addicted. But they did. It is super sad. If you watch the Oliver clip you can see how aggressively drug companies lobbied to make this opiate the first line drug of choice for pain that could be treated in other ways - saying over and over that it was not going to hook people, that it was 100% safe, go ahead and prescribe it. It wasn't safe. It was a cover-up, much like the cigarette companies lobbied to make cigarettes seems safe. Now a lot of people got hooked and for a good number of people it has led to other forms of opiate and heroin addiction. It's kind of disrespectful to say "well now it's water under the bridge."
posted by karmachameleon at 7:52 PM on October 19, 2017 [12 favorites]

I mean, as someone with a history of opioid addiction - note that pills were only a small part of my story though in case that colors my perspective - something about the way all this stuff gets reported now does give me a bad gut feeling. Like the important points are going to be missed and people are going to rush into some dumb drug war shit instead.

On the other hand I don't mind hunting extremely rich people on general principle so...
posted by atoxyl at 8:28 PM on October 19, 2017 [3 favorites]

(Jewish background too so I get what you're saying about some of the tropes, but then I have somewhat conflicted feelings about overcorrecting on that to the point of letting specific people who are wealthy and powerful off the hook.)

Plus:

Richard’s political contributions have gone mostly to Republicans—including Strom Thurmond and Herman Cain—though at times he has also given to Democrats. (His ex-wife, Beth Sackler, has given almost exclusively to Democrats.) In 2008, he wrote a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal denouncing Muslim support for suicide bombing, a concern that seems to persist: Since 2014, his charitable organization, the Richard and Beth Sackler Foundation, has donated to several anti-Muslim groups, including three organizations classified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. (The family spokesperson said, “It was never Richard Sackler’s intention to donate to an anti-Muslim or hate group.”) The foundation has also donated to True the Vote, the “voter-fraud watchdog” that was the original source for Donald Trump’s inaccurate claim that three million illegal immigrants voted in the 2016 election.
posted by atoxyl at 8:44 PM on October 19, 2017 [1 favorite]

(for instance, their work on over-selling Valium, which took place in the 60's)

I didn't read the entire article, so I apologize if they covered this eventually, but I was under the impression that Valium capitalized on the noose tightening around Quaaludes in the 70s.
posted by rhizome at 8:46 PM on October 19, 2017 [1 favorite]

Would you be so quick to disagree with my pov if we were discussing The Pablo Escobar sponsored Temple of Dendur exhibit? There's no material difference.

Yes, yes, I would. Because you're confounding two propositions that are pretty obviously separate.

"It's worth it, or acceptable, to have [x malign entity] perform [x malign activities], because [x malign entity] then donates a lot of the resulting money to Big Museum."

and

"[X malign entity]'s donating a lot of money to Big Museum is itself a worthwhile activity."

It's the latter that you denied originally, which is what I objected to. You can believe in fully automated space gay luxury communism and reject the proposition that properly housing the Temple of Dendur is an "obscene waste," as you put it. The source of the donation does not in itself affect whether the purpose of the donation is worthwhile.

That I don't think it's an obscene waste to house the Temple of Dendur actually implies nothing about what I think of the Sacklers' businesses. I will have conversations at the top of my lungs with anybody at the Frick about the Homestead strike-breaking; I hope Henry Clay Frick is burning in atheist hell. But that doesn't mean his buying up Holbeins and putting them on display was an "obscene waste." It doesn't justify his career, it doesn't justify Gilded Age capitalism, it doesn't take a particle of blood off his hands. But making a great museum is (generally speaking) a worthwhile activity, and so it happens that (posthumously) he ended up contributing to a worthwhile project in an otherwise invidious existence.

Now, the mindless Xanadu-like piling up of purchases never even looked at described later in the article--that does strike me as horribly wasteful. But you're not building the kind of society you think you're trying to build if you're going to declare contributions to cultural institutions wastes in themselves. One can legitimately discuss whether it's more worthwhile to give to the Met than to try to cure cancer or whatever, but it's a lot better to give to the Met than, e.g., to spend the cash on gold-plated yachts and blow.
posted by praemunire at 11:18 PM on October 19, 2017 [7 favorites]

Harvard could afford to do that all on its own.

Whether or not Harvard could afford to do it on its own (with money that came from some donor originally, after all!) doesn't really have much to do with whether making sure it gets done is a complete waste. I have to say, I find the immediate elision from "these cultural institutions may not be the optimum recipients of philanthropy if you want to achieve some particular definition of the most possible good for your money" to "funding major cultural institutions in major initiatives is just a complete obscene waste" pretty disconcerting. The former is definitely a defensible position (I myself don't really contribute to my own schools, as I see more compelling use for my charitable dollars); the latter is heading into Cultural Revolution territory.
posted by praemunire at 11:34 PM on October 19, 2017 [3 favorites]

The source of the donation does not in itself affect whether the purpose of the donation is worthwhile.

The purpose of the donation is self-aggrandizing, isn't it? The purpose of the donation is pure ego. If it weren't, the donations would be anonymous, instead their name is plastered over everything they could find.

And given the how the family made its money, that name shouldn't be a good name, should it? Shouldn't we remember how they earned that money instead of marveling over the elaborate tax-breaks they facilitated for themselves?

Even Bill Gates, who has done tremendous good is still remembered for his cut-throat business tactics that earned him his wealth. Not so much with these folks (yet), they wish to remain in the shadows and not have the public realize that they helped facilitate one of the largest health crisis the country has seen.
posted by el io at 12:18 AM on October 20, 2017 [3 favorites]

I know that next time I'm walking by the Serpentine Sackler Gallery, I'll definitely think of the lives that were ruined to make that money. And I'll probably ruin a nice walk in the park by mentioning it to whoever I'm with.

But I'm conflicted about the overall point of this article. Because there's that oily, lustful, covetous description of the eponymous institutions combined with a description of the lives that they've destroyed in such a mechanical way mechanical way at such opulent distance. The wealth porn makes me feel complicit in the cruelty, somehow. And that's not nice.
posted by ambrosen at 12:51 AM on October 20, 2017 [1 favorite]

Whether or not Harvard could afford to do it on its own (with money that came from some donor originally, after all!) doesn't really have much to do with whether making sure it gets done is a complete waste.


Right, it isn't a complete waste, just all but. Like, I could give the change in my pocket to a panhandler, or I could give it to Elon Musk. The latter isn't a complete waste, just all but.

Like, you can draw up a list of who needs help the most (let's arbitrarily limit it to America). Harvard - already stinking fucking rich, sitting on a huge endowment - isn't going to be in the top... several million? There is little to no meaningful argument that Harvard needed that money, and there are lots of people and institutions not already sitting on giant piles of money that do.
posted by Dysk at 2:02 AM on October 20, 2017 [2 favorites]

I've had some really serious injuries thanks to a few decades of stupid human tricks: broken back, six broken ribs, exploded elbows, etc. I can't begin to describe how valuable turning down the pain via Oxy was. It was the difference between saying '"fuck it, I'm outta here" "and "Ok chill, this will get better just hang on."

I can understand why someone in a lot of psychic pain could get addicted to Oxy. Very sadly there is no shortage of psychic pain in the USA right now. That's arguably a key cause of our opiate addiction crises. And in no way am I justifying the so-called "medical advertising" used to market perceptions drugs. Nuts. But before we totally demonize the company that created this drug I just want to thank them for all the pain they saved me from.
posted by Dean358 at 2:10 AM on October 20, 2017 [8 favorites]

...before we totally demonize the company that created this drug...

I think it is worth pointing out that they didn’t create the drug, just an extended release form of it. And then lied about how long the effects lasted. I agree that for some people opioids are the best option for pain, but even without Oxycontin there are dozens of opioids out there (not all on that list are used clinically) that could be used instead. Oxycontin was a marketing breakthrough, not a medical breakthrough.
posted by TedW at 6:29 AM on October 20, 2017 [9 favorites]

yeah, oxycodone itself is a hundred years old
posted by atoxyl at 1:37 PM on October 20, 2017

According to his ads, psychic tension, the forebear of today’s “stress,” was the secret culprit behind a host of somatic conditions, including heartburn, gastrointestinal issues, insomnia, and restless-leg syndrome.

this is more or less what five out of seven psychiatrists believe today. if advertising on that basis is somewhere on the continuum between crass, immoral, and criminal, so is much of the mental health profession(s). and I'm not saying it isn't. "somatization" has been much discussed here and there and elsewhere. along with the idea that people, especially women, complain about difficult-to-diagnose ailments because complaining for attention is in their nature, and the cure for that is to give them a benzo or an antidepressant, or, if you must, a painkiller, and send them on their way. on the understanding that if the benzo or the painkiller doesn't fix anything and makes things worse, it's the patient's fault for accepting the prescription, not the doctor's fault for writing it.

I mean: however wicked the Sacklers have been, the idea that one family, even one family with multiple psychiatrists in it, is responsible for one of the greatest evils of medicine (which is: not oxycontin) is spectacularly short-sighted. doctors who do not know what drugs do are committing malpractice when they prescribe them, and I do not care if the law and insurance companies disagree. doctors who do not want to explain to patients how opiates work and who are not willing to spend a good deal of time helping those patients taper off them later should not be prescribing them. doctors who prescribe opiates not because they think it's a good idea, but because they want to get a pushy addict out of their office so they can be on time for the next appointment, are unethical. doctors who do not want to prescribe opiates ever, no matter how much pain a patient is in, because they might get in trouble for it someday, should be in prison. all of these problems are systemic and each doctor who participates in creating them is independently responsible for his or her own part in it.

none of the above is a defense of the bad Sacklers, who were certainly extremely bad. but the following is:

So as far as I can tell, rich people who donate large amounts to museums are looking for a way to save on taxes without accidentally somehow benefiting a poor person.

sorry, the Arthur Sackler Gallery in D.C. is as free as the rest of the Smithsonian museums. that's just one, but it's a nice one. I don't know if the people of my city are sufficiently improved by exposure to art to make it count as a benefit, but we do enjoy looking at it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:46 PM on October 20, 2017 [2 favorites]

I'll say this... having taking a job last year covering Mass Tort cases and researching the scientific papers that sometimes get submitted into evidence, I've learned that essentially all pharma companies are guilty of over-promoting drugs, especially promoting them for off-label uses without FDA approval.

What's more shocking is that for every company the U.S. Justice Department manages to pin a successful false claims act violation charge on -- e.g., the somatic uses of Valium, though that happened decades before this law was enacted -- there's no accompanying blast of publicity and scrutiny about the over-prescription of said drug made on these false claims.

In plain English, if a company pays a billion dollars to settle false or illegal marketing claims by a company like Purdue, why isn't there a concurrent investigation in the over-prescription of said drug to patients?

Yes, the Sacklers are responsible for getting millions of people addicted to Valium and Oxycontin. I found the article incredibly enlightening, so thank you for posting this. But the problem itself is endemic to Big Pharma, and they are just one cog in the wheel of horrors that still isn't properly regulated for patient safety, I'm afraid.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 9:30 AM on October 21, 2017 [1 favorite]

I've learned that essentially all pharma companies are guilty of over-promoting drugs

Why is this the tiniest bit surprising?
posted by gottabefunky at 11:29 AM on October 21, 2017

There's another article about the Sacklers and OxyContin in the latest New Yorker, part of their series on the opioid crisis. The framing is very, very similar but it discusses the different suits brought against the company in greater depth.
posted by Anita Bath at 10:33 AM on October 23, 2017 [2 favorites]

If I was a former street dealer in lock-up, my outrage would be redoubled, right about now.
posted by Fupped Duck at 9:26 PM on October 23, 2017

Both the New Yorker article and the Esquire article build some of their reporting on the excellent work of Sam Quinones, author of Dreamland.
posted by cell divide at 11:00 PM on October 23, 2017 [2 favorites]

That New Yorker article: The Family That Built an Empire of Pain.
posted by storybored at 7:44 PM on October 24, 2017 [1 favorite]

Feds Prepare For A New War On Kratom, An Herbal Drug Many Swear By
via FDA Loyalty to Big Pharma Exposed in Move to Ban Plant [Used to Treat] Opioid Addiction
posted by jeffburdges at 10:16 AM on November 17, 2017