Do you agree with the legal settlement allowing the Sackler family to pay $6 billion for protection from any future civil lawsuits regarding the opioid crisis?

👍 Yes (27%) – "This settlement gives the victims something now, versus waiting years and letting the lawyers get everything, with the possibility of getting nothing or less than the current settlement. Meantime, the Sackler family will just spend down, move funds and take bankruptcies to avoid payments."

• "Enough is enough. They cannot assume responsibility for all the players AND the drug does actually work. They cannot be responsible for all addictions and subsequent deaths."

👎 No (54%) – "The Sacklers got obscenely rich marketing this product to everyone and knowingly making up lies to get FDA approval. They should be penniless when it’s all over, not (still) rich and protected from further scrutiny."

• "Even after this, the Sackler family is worth billions of dollars. These dollars were made by careless disregard for the life and wellness of many, many other people. The family's priority of financial gain over human life and well-being should not allow them to be shielded and essentially continue to enjoy the wealth and luxury given them by this dangerous drug and their marketing fibs. Quite frankly, it also appears the FDA was negligent in its testing of this drug as well."

"They profited off lying about their product and as a consequence destroyed many livelihoods and killed people. They should have an example made of them to deter anyone from the future thinking they can use a company as a shield to keep them from the consequences of murder."

• "I think no amount of money can ever make up for the loss of life that the Sacklers caused. They knowingly misrepresented a drug that they knew had addictive qualities and created the Opioid crisis. To allow them to never be sued again is yet another manipulation of their power."

🤷 Unsure/other (19%) – "I think it is important to know how much money they made on the drugs to know if the six billion is an appropriate amount. Also why can't the government and the individuals both receive compensation? The amount of money also needs to send a message to all corporations that predatory actions will not be tolerated."

• "To me, the question is less about justice and more about the purpose of the bankruptcy courts. Bankruptcy is supposed to enable the involved parties to find the fairest possible outcome in an inherently bad situation. (Paraphrased quote by L. Simon, a bankruptcy prof at Emory). Here, the Sacklers are still able to be pursued criminally, should the government choose to do so; the agreement doesn't prevent criminal charges. Victims will be paid, and while that won't bring lost children back, it's better than nothing at all, which they would probably get if the agreement doesn't go through. And on the other hand, I loathe the idea that bankruptcy can be manipulated in this way to prevent individuals from feeling anything but a pinch in their wallet. So maybe the system is working; no one will be happy no matter the outcome."