California governor signs law allowing gun violence victims to sue firearm manufacturers for damages

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most Americans are probably not aware this is not the first time we have sent large numbers of firearms to civilians fighting to save their country. We did the same thing, except in that case it was individual Americans donating their own firearms, to be sent to England to arm the Home Guard to protect against a possible invasion from Germany. Anytime the populace is denied arms to defend themselves it turns out badly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(United_Kingdom)

Perhaps we need a conservative leader, hopefully the next President, to champion the idea of officially establishing an American home guard, to protect against tyrants foreign and domestic.
All the guns donated by US citizens, with a few exceptions of those given by famous people, where all dumped into the ocean after the war, most having never even been handed out.

This law will get tossed out. Even the 9th circus will see its ridiculous.
 
The difference is that tobacco used as intended causes cancer. Firearms used within legal boundaries and as intended do not generally kill/injure except via legal usage. It’s not the same. For opioids and benzodiazepines there is evidence that they misled the public and patients as to the risks. Used as prescribed a huge amount of people became addicted to both. They also were way overprescribed. Again, not identical.

To someone else’s post, there is a big difference between holding a car manufacturer responsible for a faulty product that leads to death or injury, used within legal guidelines, versus someone let’s say plowing a car into a crowd on purpose.

I’m all for firearms manufacturers being sued for faulty products.
The point is both are legal to use and to sell. No laws are broken, but manufacturers of cigarettes and pharmacies who are merely filling prescriptions are being held liable for supplying a legal product.

To your point about cigarettes causing cancer, the number one killer in U.S. is heart disease. If we are going to sue tobacco companies because some adults over indulge and due as a result, then we might as well sue fast food, alcohol, and junk food manufacturers and retailers while we are at it.
 
The point is both are legal to use and to sell. No laws are broken, but manufacturers of cigarettes and pharmacies who are merely filling prescriptions are being held liable for supplying a legal product.

To your point about cigarettes causing cancer, the number one killer in U.S. is heart disease. If we are going to sue tobacco companies because some adults over indulge and due as a result, then we might as well sue fast food, alcohol, and junk food manufacturers and retailers while we are at it.
I actually will say, the pharmacies filling scripts shouldn’t be sued, but the prescribing doctors and big pharma.
 
the prescribing doctors and big pharma
Pray tell, on what grounds?

Doctors might be found liable if clear abuse of professional conduct/standards (or overtly illegal actions) are found upon examination....

But "Big Pharma"? Please let us know your grounds for suit.

.
 
Pray tell, on what grounds?

Doctors might be found liable if clear abuse of professional conduct/standards (or overtly illegal actions) are found upon examination....

But "Big Pharma"? Please let us know your grounds for suit.

.
Are you serious?

Big pharma, you know, the huge pharmaceutical industry and lobby, created virtually all of the synthetic opioids and benzos and pushed them on the market.

Another Pharmaceutical Company Facing Opioid Epidemic Lawsuits Files For Bankruptcy (ibtimes.com)

How Did Purdue Pharma Fuel the Opioid Epidemic in the U.S? - CCIWA
"
However, what most of them didn’t know was that the opiate was highly addictive. Purdue Pharma failed to warn patients about the addictive nature of the drug leading to widespread addiction that cumulated into a public health crisis.

The drug manufacturer downplayed the risks associated with using OxyContin while aggressively marketing the pain pill. The result was a catastrophic opioid epidemic that started in 1996 and hasn’t slowed down up to date."

Then let's discuss benzos. Benzos were originally marketed by pharmaceutical companies as non-addictive and safe. They are possibly the most addictive substances on earth, with the worst withdrawals. The benzo epidemic is now catching up with the opioid epidemic. Guess who created and pushed those? Big Pharma.

BOTH benzos and opioids have been widely overprescribed by medical systems and doctors. 1/2 of opioid overdoses now involve benzos.
 
Last edited:
Are their products legal ?
Yes or No...

Do they sell them illegally?
Yes or No....

Do they have any element of direct connection to the street sales of their products ?
Yes or No....
















BTW: I just described the firearms industry we are so interested in protecting from frivolous suits

.
 
Last edited:
Are their products legal ?
Yes or No...

Do they sell them illegally?
Yes or No....

Do they have any element of direct connection to the street sales of their products ?
Yes or No....
















BTW: I just described the firearms industry we are so interested in protecting from frivolous suits

.

It's a fact that some pharma companies have been sued or cited by the government for fraudulent marketing to consumers/patients, or violation of relevant patient rights laws. Are you saying that misrepresenting the dangers of some pharmaceuticals is legitimate and legal? Dangers that have materialized such as an epidemic of addiction? Then we get into bribery of medical systems/doctors. Literally.

Here's one general example. This is not an isolated example of "Big Pharma" malfeasance. There is a long laundry list available upon request.

Pfizer drug breach ends in biggest US crime fine | Pfizer | The Guardian

Pfizer, the world's largest drugs company, has been hit with the biggest criminal fine in US history as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors.

In a blow to its reputation in the eyes of doctors and patients, Pfizer pleaded guilty to misbranding the painkiller Bextra, withdrawn from the market in 2004, by promoting the drug for uses that were not approved by medical regulators.

The New York-based company also settled civil allegations concerning improper payments to doctors who prescribed nine other pharmaceutical products, although it continues to deny these charges.


Under an out-of-court deal with the US department of justice, a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn, is paying a criminal fine of $1.3bn (nearly £800m), a record in American judicial history.

Pfizer is also paying $1bn in civil settlements to Medicare, Medicaid and other government health insurance schemes to reimburse improper prescriptions.
 
Last edited:
Purely Political/Feel-Good "We're doing something"
- Promoting is not prescribing illegally
- Promoting is not selling illegally
- Promoting is not distributing illegally

Once again we blame EVERY body but the responsible parties -- the individuals and...
- Pill factory doctors
- Street thieves & Drug-dealers
- And the gov't banking on the companies' tendency to take the lesser-cost deal to make the lawsuit go away.
Exactly as will happen -- and for the same reason as -- will be the case w/ firearms manufacturers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And oh by-the-way: God help you w/o todays' big Pharma
Medicine would still be in the witch doctor stage and prayer...
... and agony

 
This is not good. Similar laws just about put the Aircraft industry out of business years ago! Then again, maybe thats the idea?
 
Purely Political/Feel-Good "We're doing something"
- Promoting is not prescribing illegally
- Promoting is not selling illegally
- Promoting is not distributing illegally

Once again we blame EVERY body but the responsible parties -- the individuals and...
- Pill factory doctors
- Street thieves & Drug-dealers
- And the gov't banking on the companies' tendency to take the lesser-cost deal to make the lawsuit go away.
Exactly as will happen -- and for the same reason as -- will be the case w/ firearms manufacturers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And oh by-the-way: God help you w/o todays' big Pharma
Medicine would still be in the witch doctor stage and prayer...
... and agony
Wow you seem highly defensive. So you appear to have ignored the 2 billion fine levied on Pfizer for illegal behavior. Pfizer stocks or employment perchance? Disclose your conflicts of interest please.

Once again, there is a difference between holding a manufacturer liable for faulty products, or fraudulently marketed products, versus products misused to kill such as a firearm. All manufacturers can and should be held responsible for fraud or unsafe products based on their design or manufacture. This includes pharma, and firearms. A firearm going off by itself and killing someone, that’s included.

Pharma played down the dangers of opioid and Benzo prescription drugs. We now have a catastrophe on our hands with both. Literally tens of millions of people. That is not the same as suing Glock for someone misusing a gun to murder, or a car manufacturer for someone plowing into a crowd.
 
Yes, I've ignored it as a sign of any actual guilt.
Just a business decision on the part of "big Pharma"

The gun manufacturers won't have that kind of money though.
You can kiss them goodbye.
by design.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ps: I haven't a care in the world "for" Big Pharma (other than their products have
most likely saved close to a billion lives just over this & last century.
and relieved countless untold sufferings.)

But like Prometheus, the gods of gov't are unhappy.
It just can't be the individual's abuse of the gift of fire they've been given.
Let's tear Pharma's liver out instead....
Easier....
 
Last edited:
Big pharma and their ways are off topic for the forum in general and really have close to nothing in common with the CA law that the thread is about.
 
Big pharma and their ways are off topic for the forum in general and really have close to nothing in common with the CA law that the thread is about.
with respect, those were examples of virtuous lawsuits against manufacturers, versus the current CA law. They are relevant in explicating the difference. If you read back examples were brought up too of tobacco or car companies.
 
with respect, those were examples of virtuous lawsuits against manufacturers, versus the current CA law. They are relevant in explicating the difference. If you read back examples were brought up too of tobacco or car companies.
Yea but some went left field with it.
 
The Texas law (encouraging private parties to enforce what the government does not have the power or authority to do) is a horrible legislative model. Newsom admitted it is. But he copied it. Says a lot about his fanaticism overwhelming his integrity
 
Just another indicator of California freewheeling. They ought to send more time/money on getting their major homeless problem solved.
Cities are turning into pig sties.
 
I'd rather people sue the State (or individuals employed by and acting on the State's behalf) for releasing a known violent felon back into society to commit another violent crime.

But I don't suppose the government of California will take responsibility for their part in the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top