It seems like it was better back when doctors were still allowed to prescribe pain pills. The patients were supervised, and the drugs came from legal sources that weren’t adulterated, no chance for accidental overdoses.
One often forgotten victim of the war on opioids is the handful of patients who actually NEED them.
I know such a person. A car accident left them with life long constant pain. They have screws and cadaver bone in their body and the surgery got them back movement and life, but couldn’t fix the constant debilitating pain. Going on oxycontin and similar medications changed their life. Suddenly with two pills a day they can LIVE- go to the gym and work out and enjoy it, get through a night of sleep without ice packs and heat packs and still waking up in the morning feeling like a 90yo person. They have a dedicated pain management doctor, a legit dude they were referred to by the surgeon who knew the pain was a likely outcome. But now with the war on opioids it’s a constant struggle. The pain doctor gets constant push back from insurance and the FDA even though my friend is on what every paper and study says is a medically appropriate dose. And half the pharmacists act like you’re picking up a prescription for heroin.
Yes a lot of people were prescribed opioids inappropriately and had problems. Yes Perdue Pharma are assholes. But not every patient is a drug seeking addict. For those who NEED it, opioids can be a miracle drug that is the difference between enjoying life and constant debilitating pain. And those patients like my friend got lost in the war on opioids.
So how did this get turned into three charges? The article didn’t explain that.
I want justice for this woman’s family but I hate how our system allows fifty different charges for one or a handful of crimes. Murdering one person should be one murder charge, not three, and not murder plus homicide plus manslaughter plus killing a person plus death by bullet plus turning a person into a corpse; you get what I mean.
I think the “extra” charges are often used to put someone who’s clearly a danger to society away for longer. Another example I can think of that’s similar is someone going to jail for CSAM gets a separate charge for every frame of video, as they’re separate “images”. I agree that the law should be more straightforward but there are instances where nuance can be helpful.
What evidence is there to indicate this is a consequence of forced labor? If the industries in Xinjiang that produced for export were sanctioned by the US, it makes sense that they would have to relocate. The people who worked for such industries would have to relocate as well if they wanted to keep their jobs. This accusation only makes sense if you make the absurd presumption that forced labor was essential to Xinjiang’s export economy.
The accusation is that workers are being forcibly transferred by the Chinese government. That’s very different from the government supporting workers who want to voluntarily relocate within China to where the jobs are.
Assuming the article is correct about the slavery, then I would assume the workers don’t actually have any choice in whether they relocate or not. I’m not going to pretend I have great evidence, but that’s what I would infer.
Well that’s the problem. The article does not provide any evidence that workers migrating out a Xinjiang are being forced to do so. They just assume that based on their presumption that there is forced labor in Xinjiang. It’s a logical house of cards I suspect they’ve constructed to justify their own job as a lobbyist.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.