A lot of those "junkies" started off as normal people with pain, who were targeted by perdue, until they became heavily addicted to opiods and eventually turned to heroin or fentanyl.
We, as a society, as responsible for this situation, because we allowed a company to turn hundreds of thousands of people into drug addicts, and let all of the company executives walk away without any repercussions.
We have two options, both of which are bottomless pits:
1. Do nothing, and pay the costs associated with drug addicts being left untreated (shelters, prisons, run down portions of cities, lowered property values)
2. Treat people
One of those options may cost a lot, but it also improves everyone's lives. I don't understand why this choice is so hard for some folks.
Before even deciding between those choices, we should at least stop the problem continuing, by preventing so many prescriptions for opioids being given out to people in pain. The government should prosecute the likes of Purdue for their aggressive targeting of people in pain.
It won't happen though, because of regulatory capture, and general lobbying / corruption.
That problem is mostly already stopped. It is now much more difficult for doctors to prescribe opioid painkillers, to the extent that patients who legitimately have serious chronic pain are turning to buying illegal drugs because they can't get what they need through the healthcare system anymore.
Washington state successfully sued Purdue for millions of dollars over their contribution to opioid dependency. It hasn't made the tabloids because it's an example of government doing things right that doesn't sell well to people who want to complain about regulatory capture and corruption.
If we don't choose option 2, we're choosing option 1.
We need to address the source and the problem at the same time. Regulatory capture doesn't really apply here, but lobbying (which is synonymous with corruption at this point) definitely does. Fixing the citizen's united issue would be a proper start at addressing the lobbying problem.
We, as a society, as responsible for this situation, because we allowed a company to turn hundreds of thousands of people into drug addicts, and let all of the company executives walk away without any repercussions.
We have two options, both of which are bottomless pits:
1. Do nothing, and pay the costs associated with drug addicts being left untreated (shelters, prisons, run down portions of cities, lowered property values) 2. Treat people
One of those options may cost a lot, but it also improves everyone's lives. I don't understand why this choice is so hard for some folks.