In a landmark decision in the sprawling opioid litigation, a jury in New York has found the Israeli-based pharmaceutical company Teva guilty of contributing to the opioid epidemic. It’s only the second opioid case to reach a jury verdict, among thousands of similar claims across the country brought by states, municipalities, and tribes. Many of those cases have been settled out of court, including a $26 billion agreement with drug distributors that was originally part of the Teva lawsuit. In other cases, rulings have been overturned in favor of the opioid industry, including manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacy chains. Prosecutors in New York had accused Teva of downplaying the addictiveness of opioids and failing to adhere to safeguards to stop the flood of drugs reaching the marketplace, which contributed to the deaths of more than 500,000 people over the past two decades. Money from all the opioid settlements will be distributed piecemeal to the communities hardest hit by the epidemic, and for prevention and treatment programs, at a time when the nation faces a tragic addiction and overdose crisis.
With one fatal drug overdose occurring every four hours in New York City, health officials are groping for solutions to address the escalating crisis. One solution was to open supervised syringe sites late last year, to provide a safe space and medical services for addicts to inject drugs. While this harm reduction measure has its flaws—for not engaging patients and getting them into treatment—the latest move is completely misguided: installing vending machines on street corners to dispense sterile needles and the overdose reversal medication naloxone. This is unlikely to stem the tide of overdoses and does nothing to encourage drug users to seek treatment. Instead of useless vending machines, health officials should be focused on expanding services to those struggling with substance use.
And finally, the New York Times investigates a company that is selling marijuana edibles with the promise that the product is an effective weight loss and diet control method—when in fact, there is no scientific evidence supporting such claims. The Times found that a clinical trial the company cites as proving its claim does not exist and that the Mayo Clinic and National Institutes of Health—also mentioned by the edible's makers as sponsoring the study—have no record of such research. As more states legalize cannabis under different regulatory mandates, companies are devising new ways to attract customers. Many play into modern-day consumer needs such as help with sleep, libido, self-improvement, and prolonging the workday (or ending it). But as competition heats up, so do the false claims. Increasingly, marijuana marketers sell pot products to relieve pain and manage stress and provide feelings of bliss, among other unproven benefits that are based mostly on anecdotal evidence. With the cannabis industry cashing in on these false promises, it’s time for regulatory agencies to take a closer look at marijuana companies that are deceiving the public—and possibly endangering their health.