|
|
||
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
||
Posted on 10/15/2003 5:37:26 AM PDT by soothsayer99
Rush to revenge? Rush Limbaugh is obviously a hypocrite, but that's no reason to punish him for a victimless crime.
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Robert Scheer
Oct. 15, 2003 | Free Rush Limbaugh! Sorry to betray such a low level of lust for revenge, but as a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I am duty bound to defend the rights of even those I loathe. Not that Limbaugh, the talk-show bully, has been charged with a crime or sentenced to jail time. However, as an admitted addict who allegedly purchased drugs illegally, his freedom, were he an ordinary guy on the street, would be very much in jeopardy. In Florida, where Limbaugh allegedly committed his felony, the crime of purchasing large amounts of powerful narcotics without a prescription can get you a five-year sentence if prosecutors are so inclined. That is, if they are in a mood to be the tough anti-drug warriors that the Limbaughs of this world have long applauded.
Credit Limbaugh for riling up the public and politicians to imprison many addicts whose behavior was no worse than what he has admitted to. As he once told his radio audience: "If people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
Limbaugh was an equal-opportunity drug warrior who, in response to the charge that drug laws singled out African-Americans, said in an interview in 1995: "Too many whites are getting away with drug use. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river too."
Three years later, he is alleged to have begun his own white-man's odyssey into a life of addiction and crime.
Let me be on record as being strongly opposed to sending Limbaugh up the river, even though that is the penalty he wished to inflict on others. Just chalk me up as one of those bleeding-heart liberals who believe that drug addiction should be treated as a medical rather than a criminal matter.
If convicted and imprisoned, Limbaugh could come back a hardened criminal, most likely having learned only how to get away with convenience-store stickups to support his habit. Although in prison he might also be educated by fellow inmates to drop the OxyContin that he allegedly was hooked on, for heroin, which has a similar high but may be less damaging to the body. We don't know why he didn't turn to pot for relief, but I suspect that prescription-drug abuse is just more acceptable in right-wing circles.
But those are his choices, and I support his right as an adult to pick his own poison. I don't endorse the tough-love hard line that because Limbaugh has failed in his two previous attempts to end his addiction by voluntarily checking into a medical program, he shouldn't be given a third chance. He should get as many more as he needs. As one who has had bouts of addiction with truly dangerous drugs -- good red wines and only the most aged of Scotch -- I don't want them throwing me into jail just because I fall off the wagon.
Although Limbaugh is obviously a hypocrite, that is no reason to compound the madness of our drug problem by punishing him in what seems to have been a victimless crime -- unless he pressured his housekeeper/supplier into the Florida narco-underworld, which would make him far more culpable. But we liberals believe in innocent until proved guilty.
Limbaugh's experience is the best argument against the demonization of all junkies -- this one throughout his addiction held a big job and presumably paid a lot in taxes. The considerable harm he inflicts daily on the larger society can hardly be blamed on his addiction. The drugs may have even tempered his verbal brutishness. In any case, there is no evidence that the drugs caused him to daily savage others -- he was equally offensive before and during his drug abuse. To put it another way, his drug use, if it has caused pain to others, is the least of his crimes.
But why be mean about it and wallow in the suffering of another?
Let's hope that Limbaugh emerges from this experience more tolerant of the weaknesses of others. Perhaps he could then prevail upon his buddy, Attorney General John Ashcroft, to end his vicious crackdown on cancer and AIDS patients attempting to use marijuana to manage their pain without running afoul of the law.
|
|
||
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
||
You mean like you've done in this entire, twisted piece, you miserable scumbag?
Rush's "abuse?"
and the word is "faux" as in "fake."
The same way he's treating himself- as people who failed to meet a reasonable standard.
He would also be very critical of media efforts to glamourize or excuse their failure.
You know that, you don't need to pretend to ask.
Anti-WOD types are making fools of themselves on this.
"Dave's not here man!"
I have often heard the argument that we as a nation spend huge amounts of money on the "War on Drugs" and have accomplished nothing positive or beneficial to show for all that money. Is this a valid argument? And if so, why continue to pursue a policy or course of action that has failed?
If the "War on Drug" fails to prevent even a staunch supporter of said war from becoming addicted (and perhaps even resorting to criminal acts to support his addiction), what does the war as currently fashioned accomplish?
P.S. If this has already been discussed ad naseum, please direct me to the thread(s) .
This quote is taken somewhat out of context, as he was referring to people that use drugs for recreational purposes. There is no evidence that Rush ever did it for the "high" but rather the pain relief, and fell into the abyss of the body's constantly increasing resistance to a given drug. But addicted is addicted, and now he has to take the long road back.
Three years later, he is alleged to have begun his own white-man's odyssey into a life of addiction and crime.
It is sad when you have to go back eight years to make a guy look hypocritical. If he had said that last Thursday, Sneer (oops!) would have a case.
If anything, Rush is going to come back even more opposed to drugs, with this personal experience in his resume.
"Addicted" people can carry on perfectly normal lives provided that they do not have to resort to crime to obtain the substance their body is accustomed to.
Many of our founding fathers were fond users of opium and laundenum, yet they managed to put together a coherent constitution and lead a revolt against England. Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison .. where would we be without these guys who had the same "vice" that Rush had ... opiates.
If people want to drink, they are going to drink. We saw this in the early 1900's. If they want to smoke, they will stand outside in the rain to smoke. If they want to take Oxycontin, they will do so. If people want to drink 5 triple latte's with similar a similar stimulant pforile to Dexadrine ... then they will do so. If people want to eat a Mig Mac which is worse than all of these above, then they will do so.
It's not the substance, it's person as a whole. What do they do? Do they contribute, or do they rape, rob, and steal?
Rush is indeed a hypocrite, I think all rational people would agree on this. But he did serve to demonstrate how silly some of the propaganda can be.
Rush - 300mg+ of Oxcontin daily, and he didn't run around eating people's children. As a matter of fact, nobody could even tell he was taking them.
It's not the drug, everyone takes drugs whether they wish to admit it or not. All drugs have psychotropic properties. Even aspirin can be hallicinatory.
It's not the drug, it's the person. Just as you have mean drunks, and jovial drunks - you have a^^hole opiate addicts and responsible, productive opiate addicts.
There is no real link between the drug and the type of person. If you're a jerk before you pick up a habit, you will likely be a jerk while on the habit. If you're decent, you will likely remain decent.
Not quite everyone.....not Bible believing Evangelical Christians...who contest the great lie of the ACLU...
The lie of "separation of church and state" being in the Constitution of the United States..
100% agree. The ACLU claiming to defend the Civil Rights of everyone is probably more hypocritical than Rush decrying drug use.
IMO there isn't much in Rush's fiasco that applies to a discussion of the drug laws. The drugs involved are dangerous and rightfully strictly regulated, unlike some drugs. More follow-up by physicians in the use of addictive medicines is all I see indicated from this story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.