Has the Recent Court Decision Changed any of the Outcomes Involved in the DEA?)

Fox News (and many other news sources) are currently covering a New York federal judge’s decision to allow class action litigation against a pharmaceutical company to proceed and demand it pay out damages to…

Has the Recent Court Decision Changed any of the Outcomes Involved in the DEA?)

Fox News (and many other news sources) are currently covering a New York federal judge’s decision to allow class action litigation against a pharmaceutical company to proceed and demand it pay out damages to those harmed by pharmaceutical opioids. This, of course, is well and good. Given the $87 billion we have spent over the past four years simply on law enforcement and medical treatment in response to drug overdoses, anything that can be done to hold those who made and sell addictive painkillers responsible and deliver those billions to the victims would be welcome.

But one question keeps creeping up among reporters who cover this story: “How will this decision affect federal law enforcement efforts?”

Legislators from both the House and Senate, as well as the attorney general of New York, have been actively writing new laws and instituting new protocols for dealing with drug addiction. And the federal government as a whole has spent some $222 billion over the past four years on law enforcement and medical treatments and has made its spending on law enforcement, medical treatment, and other anti-drug programs more visible over the past two years than it had in the previous ten.

Read More: Does the DEA Need to Compensate Meddled Victims of Trump Admin?

Why is it that on the night a judge has the power to order a well-financed pharmaceutical company to pay money to victims of the illegal things that pharmaceutical companies did to illegally make and sell drugs that people use?

While I have no doubt that in the legal battle between doctors and lawyers over who should pay for illegal and deadly or painkilling crimes, the defense lawyers and investors will win.

But this Judge is not a judge. He is not a lawmaker. He is not anything other than a judge who is supposed to be able to get law enforcement to enforce the laws as written by a legislature. In this case, the law is basic stuff like tort law. The judge can force the lawyers representing a company that makes over-the-counter anti-cold medicines, like Sudafed, to admit liability for killing thousands of people. This is as basic a case as there is, given that these products are harmless and the company manufactures them based on research showing what is reasonably safe and effective for people with colds. But the defense lawyers can win because the ruling is not supported by any law and will not in any way help the Attorney General of New York, who is serving as the plaintiff in this suit.

Read More: New Jersey Just Became the First State to Decriminalize Drug Law

Why do we allow lawyers to do the work of lawmakers?

Judges are not parliamentarians. The law is written by lawmakers who, in turn, take legislation written by the other legislative body and wring their hands as to how they can fix it. Reporters need to ask themselves the same question. How will this ruling impact the drug enforcement efforts of law enforcement at the state and federal level? When will this latest ruling make federal lawmakers like the Senators from New York do more to stop the medical industry from making and selling toxic medicines and treats?

Leave a Comment