My friend Dennis Dodson sent me an idea that I thought deserved more discussion. This is my version of it and apologies to Dennis if I mess any of it up.
What if pharmaceuticals were treated as as the new tobacco companies?
What if a law suit was filed by a state alleging that:
1. That many psychotropic drugs cause untold medical complications.
2. That this is well documented and the pharmacy companies are aware of it.
3. That they have tried to alter or hide information that proved that and thus engaged in deceptive practices.
4. They have used other unethical means to market their products which has also been well proven.
5. These practices have caused medical, legal, and social consequences that unfairly have fallen on the states to pay which have reduced their ability to meet other needs.
6. That pharmaceuticals should have to pay a penalty to the states (much as tobacco companies have) to help pay for that cost.
7. That some portion of that penalty be specified for funding for non pharmaceutical based mental health services.
What do you think?
Hopeworks Community 
Jim Gottstein tried suing the pharma companies and State of Alaska for Medicare Fraud, with evidence showing that doctors were billing Medicare for drugs not approved for the uses they were prescribed (heavy psych drugs being prescribed to CHILDREN). He lost, because the judge ruled that the government “didn’t care”. Something is not fraud because of administrative indifference?
I’ve forwarded this to Jim, but he’s already paying $330,000 in damages for a “frivolous lawsuit”. If you don’t think it was frivolous, you can help Jim by donating to PsychRights.
I would also point out that several magazine articles have stated that these abuses will not stop until pharma executives get jail time — all the fines they have been paying have just been charged off to expenses, which means the people buying the drugs are financing the lawsuits.
This is directly from PsychRights website: “On February 13, 2007, the trial court in the Zyprexa products liability litigation ruled that Jim Gottstein “conspired to steal” the Zyprexa Papers from Eli Lilly when he subpoenaed them from Dr. Egilman in December of 2006, and then released them to the public, resulting in multiple front page articles in the New York Times about Lilly hiding the extreme harm that Zyprexa causes and criminal off-label promotion. That ruling was appealed by Mr. Gottstein, but on August 12, 2010 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.” Jim Gottstein should have played by the rules. Even if you’re right…you have to play by the rules.
That was on a different case. And we won that one.