
How judges added to the grim toll of opioids - SolaceQuantum
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-courts-secrecy-judges/
======
Meekro
> Judge Stephens was bound by West Virginia law to weigh secrecy against
> transparency and provide in the court record his reasoning. Like many judges
> in his position, he did neither. "This case was sealed because both sides
> agreed and asked me to seal it," he told Reuters.

As a practical matter, this is why it happens: the court system is inherently
adversarial. If the two sides agree that something should happen in their
case, the judge is likely to rubber-stamp it. Judges don't want to waste time
litigating something that isn't actually disputed.

~~~
rstuart4133
> If the two sides agree that something should happen in their case, the judge
> is likely to rubber-stamp it.

Except of course that isn't what happens in most cases. One side wants the
details of the case kept secret, the other may not care but more likely (as in
this case) would prefer the details to be made public so others can at least
learn from their experience. But if there is a power imbalance (which there is
this case because $X has far more effect on one side than the other), the side
with the most money can simply buy their way out of the unwanted publicity.
It's effectively a bribe, but since it's tied up with the settlement and the
negotiations are also secret that's impossible to prove.

I can't see how this is the judges fault. If every case was forced to be
public there would be all sorts of unpleasant consequences. If judges were
forced to go through all the evidence in these cases and rule on which bits
should be made public it would increase their work load considerably.

~~~
headsoup
The judges aren't forced to make every case public. There are clear guidelines
for when not to, where otherwise there are requirements to clarify the
reasons. The judges aren't following the guidelines, because there's no
repercussions and it makes their job easier. That needs to change. And also
the judges are supposed to weigh up the secrecy vs public interest, which is
clearly not happening.

------
alexandercrohde
> In fact, court records are presumed to be public as a matter of law. They
> can only be sealed for valid concerns about privacy, including personal
> medical records, and to protect company trade secrets.

Yet

> In practice, secrecy has become so ingrained in the system that judges
> rarely question it. In 85 percent of the cases where Reuters found health
> and safety information under seal, judges provided no explanation for
> allowing the secrecy.

Sounds like this needs oversight.

~~~
reallydude
> Sounds like this needs oversight.

That's what the record is for. There needs to be _consequences_

~~~
hotgoldminer
Really dude? Semantic much.

~~~
reallydude
There are no consequences. You don't need additional oversight. This is not
semantics, at the core of the issue.

The idea that oversight (ie another layer of bureaucracy) is a solution to a
problem is what the US legal system has to avoid, to stay effective.

------
eecc
How is this allowable? What law or procedure allows this to happen? Scrap it,
unseal everything and let evidence wash away all the rhetoric and grand-
standing

------
empath75
Meanwhile joe weed dealer on the corner got 20 years in prison.

The next story we’ll be hearing about is how adderall and Ritalin made a
generation of kids addicted to speed.

~~~
eecc
Weed might also be an effective pain killer but we’ll never know. The
Reactionaries - God bless them - have already decided there’s no good use for
it, there’s no need for controlled experiments and all that scientific devilry

~~~
nostrademons
We do know, and it is. Medical marijuana is legal in about half the states,
and is commonly prescribed for cancer, glaucoma, and MS.

~~~
bluGill
It is legal and commonly prescribed, but that doesn't mean it is effective.
Anecdotes say it is, and the enjoyment of being high is worth it to some but
no doctor should prescribe it until the alternatives we know work have been
tried and found to not work. Proper medical treatments goes through many
rounds of studies to prove that it works and is safe (which is unlikely in
this case: smoke causes cancer in general).

If someone were to do a proper study (I'm not aware of any, but many countries
don't have the US ban so I'd be shocked if none have been done) I'd change my
position. For now it is a last resort though.

~~~
codyb
This seems to ignore the incredible numbers of testimonials from very sick
patients who say marijuana improves their quality of life by reducing anxiety,
and/or increasing appetite, and/or reducing pain with few long term side
effects.

It also conveniently ignores that you can ingest cannabinoids in a variety of
methods besides smoking.

And the fact that there are an absolute ton of “FDA Approved” products which
have barely gone through any of the rigor you’ve talked about which is why
there are all those commercials on TV about “have you or a loved one suffered
acute bronchitis as a result of taking prophylactyse?”

As well as the incredible lists of side effects even well studied drugs seem
to have which is why all the other drug commercials end with “Side effects may
include internal bleeding, gastrointestinal distress, ...”.

All that being said, I’d love to see more research, why not?

~~~
bluGill
Antidotes are not science. I have seen plenty testimonials for homeopathic
treatments.

~~~
inflatableDodo
>Antidotes are not science.

Sorry, but that is a great typo.

------
gnicholas
Somewhat related: there's apparently some question as to whether the
availability of Naloxone actually increases risky behavior among drug users,
based on a concept called 'moral hazard':
[https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(18)30457-8/fu...](https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644\(18\)30457-8/fulltext)

------
thorwasdfasdf
There's so many people that get these drugs completely legally then get hooked
on them and next thing you know their on heroin which is illegal. I really
think we need to restore some balance and get rid of the legal stuff (like the
so called harmless back-ache medicine, etc) people are getting addicted to in
the first place.

~~~
freedomben
Have you ever needed opioid pain killers to deal with either an acute or
chronic pain condition?

~~~
merpnderp
If they'd witnessed someone they love, living for weeks in mind shattering
pain, sobbing just getting up to go to the bathroom, unable to sleep or think
through the pain, waiting on a doc to prescribe real painkillers, but the doc
is too afraid of the DEA, maybe they'd change their minds. Or maybe they'd
point to some random overdose in the newspaper and tell their
spouse/mother/father/child to suck it up and stop crying, it's only major
nerve branches slowly dying, and who can't rub some dirt on that?

~~~
thorwasdfasdf
Being addicted to heroin is even worse. You should see how the people addicted
to drugs end up: they have all the pain you just mentioned but with the
additional burden of having to buy 150$ worth of drugs everyday, just so they
can function.

