Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drug Rush Limbaugh to listeners: I belong in jail!
Reason ^ | October 17, 2003 | Jacob Sullum

Posted on 10/17/2003 10:34:06 AM PDT by RJCogburn

Rush Limbaugh may not be arrested, let alone spend time behind bars, for illegally buying narcotic painkillers. "We're not sure whether he will be charged," a law enforcement source told CNN earlier this month. "We're going after the big fish, both the suppliers and the sellers."

If the conservative radio commentator escapes serious legal consequences, there will be speculation about whether a pill popper who wasn't a wealthy celebrity would have received such lenient treatment. Yet the distinction between dealer and user drawn by CNN's source is both widely accepted and deeply imbedded in our drug laws.

That doesn't mean it makes sense. If drug use is the evil the government wants to prevent, why punish the people who engage in it less severely than the people who merely assist them? That's like giving a murderer a lighter sentence than his accomplice.

Another argument for sending Limbaugh to jail was suggested by the talk radio king himself. Newsday columnist Ellis Henican has called attention to remarks Limbaugh made in 1995 concerning the disproportionate racial impact of the war on drugs.

"What this says to me," Limbaugh told his radio audience, "is that too many whites are getting away with drug use....The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. 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."

Before we start building a boat for Limbaugh, perhaps we should consider arguments for letting him keep his freedom. The strongest is that it's nobody's business but his if he chooses to take hydrocodone and oxycodone, for whatever reason, as long as he's not hurting anyone else.

When the painkiller story broke, the New York Daily News reported that Limbaugh's lawyers "refused to comment on the accusations and said any 'medical information' about him was private and not newsworthy." But on his show the next day, Limbaugh already was moving away from that position, promising to tell his listeners "everything there is."

A week later, he announced that he had started taking opioids "some years ago" for post-surgical pain, and "this medication turned out to be highly addictive." He said he was entering treatment to "once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me."

By emphasizing the addictive power of narcotics, Limbaugh suggested that the drugs made him do it, belying his declaration that "I take full responsibility for my problem." He also reinforced the unreasonable fear of opioids that results in disgraceful undertreatment of pain in this country. Contrary to Limbaugh's implication, research during the last few decades has found that people who take narcotics for pain relief rarely become addicted to their euphoric effects.

Limbaugh's quick switch from privacy claim to public confession was reminiscent of Bill Bennett's humiliating retreat on the issue of his gambling. Before renouncing the habit, the former drug czar noted that losing large sums of money on slots and video poker hadn't "put my family at risk." Nor does it seem that the time Bennett spent in casinos interfered with his family or professional life. It certainly did not keep him away from TV cameras and op-ed pages.

Likewise, drug use did not stop Limbaugh from signing an eight-year contract reportedly worth $285 million in 2001, or from maintaining a demanding schedule that included three hours on the radio five days a week, or from retaining his status as the nation's leading talk radio host, reaching nearly 20 million listeners on some 600 stations. His case illustrates the distinction between the strength of one's attachment to a substance and its practical impact, which is only made worse by drug laws that transform private problems into public scandals.

Whatever toll Limbaugh's drug habit may have taken on his personal life, it does not seem to have affected his professional performance. If his former housekeeper hadn't ratted on him, we might never have known about all those pills.

I'd say that's how it should have been, except that Limbaugh seems to prefer a different approach. "If people are violating the law by doing drugs," he told his listeners in 1995, "they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." Maybe the government should respect his wishes.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: jacobsullum; libertarianchurch; limbaugh; lovablefuzzball; ourladyofthebuzz; pillsapopping; proselytizing; reasononline; rush; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

1 posted on 10/17/2003 10:34:06 AM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
But what has Rush said about drugs in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2003?...I am sick of seeing those same couple quotes from 1995.
2 posted on 10/17/2003 10:37:44 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Maybe the twit should shut up and conmsider that there is a difference between taking painkillers and doing marijuana for recreational purposes.
3 posted on 10/17/2003 10:38:11 AM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (I see dead (?) people with flashing heads. www.paul-is-dead.com Links page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: will1776
Which twit? Rush or RJCogburn?


4 posted on 10/17/2003 10:39:45 AM PDT by EggsAckley (..........................God Bless and Keep Terri.....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Oh brother, here we go again.
5 posted on 10/17/2003 10:41:06 AM PDT by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
But what has Rush said about drugs in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2003?

My money would be on "When can I get some more, and how much money will it cost?

6 posted on 10/17/2003 10:43:25 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: will1776
Likewise, drug use did not stop Limbaugh from signing an eight-year contract reportedly worth $285 million in 2001, or from maintaining a demanding schedule that included three hours on the radio five days a week, or from retaining his status as the nation's leading talk radio host, reaching nearly 20 million listeners on some 600 stations.

That Rush could accomplish all that he has while addicted to drugs makes me think that sometimes drugs are not as evil and dangerous as the government claims they are. Would he have come clean without being 'outed' by the Enquirer??

Whats wrong with smoking marijuana for recreational purposes?

7 posted on 10/17/2003 10:43:49 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
a law enforcement source told CNN earlier this month. "We're going after the big fish, both the suppliers and the sellers."

Horse hockey....if this were true then the prisons are filled to overflowing...(the most amount of
criminals of any nation)...with "Big Fish"...and that simply isnt true

8 posted on 10/17/2003 10:44:02 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn

9 posted on 10/17/2003 10:44:27 AM PDT by Denver Ditdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
Which twit? Rush or RJCogburn?

I am underwhelmed by the power of your logical statement.

But, then, the liberals do use emotion, not reason, don't you?

10 posted on 10/17/2003 10:44:56 AM PDT by RJCogburn ("I want a man with grit."..................Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
That's like giving a murderer a lighter sentence than his accomplice.

Um, excuse me? A murderer is violating someone else's LIFE, not just his own.

11 posted on 10/17/2003 10:45:57 AM PDT by mamaduck (I follow a New Age Guru . . . from 2000 years ago.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Denver Ditdat
Loving your "dead horse!!"
12 posted on 10/17/2003 10:47:19 AM PDT by EggsAckley (..........................God Bless and Keep Terri.....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
By emphasizing the addictive power of narcotics, Limbaugh suggested that the drugs made him do it, belying his declaration that "I take full responsibility for my problem."

Not at all. Not only can both statements be true simultaneously, both statements are true simultaneously, and not just for Limbaugh. Narcotics are insidious, as anyone who has ever used them or counselled users (I have) is fully aware. That does not relieve the user of taking responsibility for the use, nor can any honest adult hide behind the drug's addictive qualities, nor is Limbaugh attempting to. This one's a cheap shot, IMHO.

13 posted on 10/17/2003 10:48:59 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamaduck
I refuse to get suckered into a bogus argument with Mr.Cogburn. This is a set-up, and I'm outta here.

Fight the good fight. Following the Florida case is MUCH more important than this WOD boxing match.
14 posted on 10/17/2003 10:49:43 AM PDT by EggsAckley (..........................God Bless and Keep Terri.....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
The "War on Drugs" - which I wholeheatedly supported for DECADES - is, and was always, doomed to failure. Keeping people from the things they want will always be a losing cause.

I'm a big Rush fan, but he's got a lot to answer for on this one. He has, in the past, espoused legal action against drug users. Now, it comes out that he, too, is a drug user. For whatever reason, his actions do not fit with his words. I don't think he should go to jail, but we (and the rest of us) cannot ignore the hypocrisy between the two.

When he returns, he would best be served by resolving this hyprocisy. I don't believe he's tried to excuse himself, but many people who've posted here have done just that.
15 posted on 10/17/2003 10:53:20 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Denver Ditdat
LOL! This horse just keeps on twitching!
16 posted on 10/17/2003 10:58:14 AM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Another day- another swipe at Rush is posted on this site!Rush actually said very little about the WOD after 1995. In fact- he made some very suggestive remarks in the last couple of years in regards to tobacco and drugs that indicated he was against the WOD. If Rush has to face legal charges- he will. But I am sure that is the last thing on his mind right now.
17 posted on 10/17/2003 11:04:30 AM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
You should not be sick of these quotes. You are implying that during his addiction Rush never said such things, hence he is not a hypocrite.

There is also an inverse relationship here: the one who said the quoted words in 1995 should not have gotten hooked in 1996. That is hypocricy, and the accusers are correct.

18 posted on 10/17/2003 11:08:52 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"...perhaps we should consider arguments for letting him keep his freedom. The strongest is that it's nobody's business but his if he chooses to take hydrocodone and oxycodone, for whatever reason, as long as he's not hurting anyone else."

And here is the constitutional basis for the above remark:

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."

Every U.S. citizen has the "retained" right to ingest the chemical of their choice.

In addition, there is no constitutional basis to the contrary.

And if you do not think chemcial ingestation of your choice is a "retained" right, it is only a matter of time then, before you will not be able to ingest a cheeseburger and fries without FDA approval.

19 posted on 10/17/2003 11:13:48 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Is it just me, since I haven't heard anyone else mention this, but don't you have to get arrested while in possesion of illegal drugs? I didn't know that you can get arrested because you maid said she bought them for you.
20 posted on 10/17/2003 11:25:40 AM PDT by marlon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE; All
All this arguing over whether or not Rush is a hypocrit is skirting the underlying issue, and that issue is the war on drugs. Only now it's getting emotional because Rush is caught (or has put himself) in the middle of it. Let's just get right down to it: What is the federal governments legitimate role in drug prohibition? If some people don't want to even have the discussion, fine...just say so, but name-calling and condescension on BOTH sides of the argument isn't going to advance any ideas or take Rush off the hot seat. Since nothing is ever done half-way forever, this is going to resolve itself in a generation by either the drug war being abandoned or the establishment of an all-out police state. Either way, the drugs are still going to be here on the streets, in the boardrooms, in private homes and even in the jails where we put people to keep them from dealing.
21 posted on 10/17/2003 11:29:00 AM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: will1776
"Maybe the twit should shut up and consider that there is a difference between taking painkillers and doing marijuana for recreational purposes." And that would be that taking the painkillers is extremely dangerous and destructive?
22 posted on 10/17/2003 11:31:53 AM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marlon
I don't know. I guess if they really wanted to- prosecutors could bring charges against him based on eyewitness testimoney and his emails- but it would be unusual to do so without physical evidence in such a case against a user.
23 posted on 10/17/2003 11:33:53 AM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Denver Ditdat
lol, thanks.
24 posted on 10/17/2003 11:35:06 AM PDT by eyespysomething (As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: will1776
Maybe the twit should shut up and conmsider that there is a difference between taking painkillers and doing marijuana for recreational purposes.

It still boils down to ingesting something without the permission of the government.

25 posted on 10/17/2003 11:38:42 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I'd say that's how it should have been, except that Limbaugh seems to prefer a different approach. "If people are violating the law by doing drugs," he told his listeners in 1995, "they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." Maybe the government should respect his wishes.

Too bad that Jacob Sullum, who wrote the otherwise excellent For your own good : the anti-smoking crusade and the tyranny of public health, (1998) is taking such an inconsistent stance with respect to another substance of choice.
26 posted on 10/17/2003 11:39:05 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Contrary to Limbaugh's implication, research during the last few decades has found that people who take narcotics for pain relief rarely become addicted to their euphoric effects.

Far too much ink has been spilled over this matter already, but I have to point out that this statement is not contrary to Limbaugh's implication. People rarely become addicted to the euphoric effects of prescription pain relievers, but they become addicted to them all the time. They don't take them to get high, they take them because they are addicted.

The fact that this author would so obviously misconstrue both Limbaugh's statements and the meaning of the research in this area tells me that he is a partisan hack, out to do a smear job. I don't really need to read any further.

27 posted on 10/17/2003 11:39:58 AM PDT by gridlock (Way to go, Bambino!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
NO they could noit. It's absolutely impossible to arrest someone on drug charges based on someones saying they witnessed someone buying drugs. I believe that's part of the 4th ademendment. That's why all this media speculation about when or if Rush is going to get indicted is so silly.

Even if they had tapes of him during a buy without being caught in the act of buying, selling or in possesion it means nothing.

28 posted on 10/17/2003 11:40:56 AM PDT by marlon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: marlon
Maybe your right- I am no lawyer. I tend to believe all this talk about charges against Rush is silly as well.
29 posted on 10/17/2003 11:44:04 AM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: will1776
Maybe the twit should shut up and conmsider that there is a difference between taking painkillers and doing marijuana for recreational purposes.

Rush did both

30 posted on 10/17/2003 11:46:34 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Another argument for sending Limbaugh to jail was suggested by the talk radio king himself. Newsday columnist Ellis Henican has called attention to remarks Limbaugh made in 1995 concerning the disproportionate racial impact of the war on drugs.

"What this says to me," Limbaugh told his radio audience, "is that too many whites are getting away with drug use....The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. 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."

But what has Rush said about drugs in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2003?...I am sick of seeing those same couple quotes from 1995.

That's the quote on what he said. Now it's your turn, show where he changed his tune. You will of course reference his comments as those above have done.

31 posted on 10/17/2003 11:46:49 AM PDT by Protagoras (Hating Democrats doesn't make you a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Once again, a man ahead of my time (Well, OK, only three days this time). From 16-year-old sentenced to 20 years in prison [addicted to OxyContin].

To: Tall_Texan

The media would love to see Rush in jail.

We'll be seeing a lot more stories like this over the next few months, saying, "If poor little Johnny has to go to jail, why not the rich and powerful Rush Limbaugh"? It's only fair.

16 posted on 10/14/2003 6:39 AM EDT by snopercod (CAUTION: Do not operate heavy equipment while reading this post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


32 posted on 10/17/2003 11:47:13 AM PDT by snopercod (WARNING: Concepts in this post are larger than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
And if you do not think chemcial ingestation of your choice is a "retained" right, it is only a matter of time then, before you will not be able to ingest a cheeseburger and fries without FDA approval.

The ONLY part of the Constitution that gave the Federal Government the power to regulate what ANY kind of drug was the 18th Amendment. It was limited to alcohol, and only to it's manufacture, sale, and transportation. There was nothing in it that ever gave the federal government the power to outlaw it's use:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

A constitutional amendment was required to do this with alcohol, and that amendment has since been repealed. What amendment gives the federal government the power to outlaw any other drug?...answer: There isn't one! Why can't the drug warriors see this as an opportunity instead of an obstacle? If it is true that the feds do not have the authority to ban drugs, then it also proves that it does not have the authority to establish federal departments of education, houseing, energy, transportation, health and human services and God knows what else? If you tollerate ONE of these then we will forever be inflicted with ALL of them.

33 posted on 10/17/2003 11:48:45 AM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Let's face it: that maid saved his life. He could not have gone on forever like that. G-dspeed and get well, Rush.

Here is a post I made on another thread about why Rush cannot be a hypocrite:

Wouldn't "hypocrite" mean that Rush thinks illegally obtaining drugs is OK for him, but not for others? Knowing Rush's views from his show, I would assume that his behavior IS NOT OK WITH HIM. I am sure that he is feeling worse about himself being in this situation than any of his detractors.

I am sure that he does not wish for special treatment and that he reserves the harshest judgement for himself at this point. He is not proud to have ended up an illegal drug abuser.

Therefore, cries of hypocrisy are inappropriate. Rush never thought drug abusers were cool, nor does he think his own behavior is hunky-dory. It's all wrong. It all comes from taking a wrong turn on a moral path. Rush made that wrong turn when he first felt himself becoming addicted to his prescription pills, and rather than go to his doctor for help in getting off them, he chose to say nothing and see how long he could keep the pleasure/relief from pain going, ignoring what he knew to be the consequences. Oh, he knew.

Hypocrisy does not apply here.

And another thing: I think that if Rush is guilty of a crime of either possessing or purchasing illegal drugs, he needs to pay his debt to society. That would be an essential part of his rehabilitation. Jail time for Limbaugh is unthinkable and serves no one. A fine would not be much of an atonement for the man. However, speaking out humbly on prescription drug abuse would be perfect as his community service. No voice would resonate better.

34 posted on 10/17/2003 11:48:56 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
How about one from 1989 thru 1994? Don't see anyone posting those either!! Lexis/Nexis searches have been on HIGH HEAT SEEKING since Rush's admission and all I see is the 1995 quote being used in 'various' forums and under different headlines.

Remember to a LIBERAL there is NO greater crime than HYPOCRISY. That is, of course, THEIR definintion of HYPOCRISY, which is this: If someone ever said, "I hate sleeping." They are rendered to a LIFE without sleep, lest they be branded, HYPOCRITS!!

35 posted on 10/17/2003 11:50:07 AM PDT by PISANO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
....remarks Limbaugh made in 1995...

This is idiocy. I said a lot of things in 1995 (8 freaking years ago). I'm sure the mensa who wrote this tripe did, too.

I want transcript of every word this clown has ever uttered so I can compare it to every action he has ever taken. Betcha' I could find some "hypocrisy" somewhere along the line.

36 posted on 10/17/2003 11:53:35 AM PDT by Skooz (All Hail the Mighty Kansas City Chiefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
I'm not here to explicitly call Rush a hypocrit. I believe he is, but the larger issue is, as you said, the "War on Drugs". It took me a long time to come to that realization, but I finally got there.

Rush brings new focus on the issue, because it's found another prominant media figure. This time, they guy's a Conservative, not a Liberal Holly-weird actor/activist. If handled correctly, we might be able to use this to enjoin an honest and open discussion on the WOD's failures.
37 posted on 10/17/2003 11:58:51 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
makes me think that sometimes drugs are not as evil and dangerous as the government claims they are.

Nothing is as evil or dangerous as the government claims, except those that truly are but the government wants you to do.

38 posted on 10/17/2003 11:59:21 AM PDT by StriperSniper (All this, of course, is simply pious fudge. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
If handled correctly, we might be able to use this to enjoin an honest and open discussion on the WOD's failures.

Maybe, but not around here. The knee-jerk reaction is for the faithful to start in with the playground crap. They automatically assume that anyone who wants to end the WOD just wants to do it so they can get high, even though it sounds like they have just finished off a 12 of Old Milwaukee's based on the maturity level. Either that or their paycheck depends on this "war" continuing.

39 posted on 10/17/2003 12:24:01 PM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
well said.
40 posted on 10/17/2003 12:40:06 PM PDT by Kiss Me Hardy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mamaduck
"That's like giving a murderer a lighter sentence than his accomplice."

Yeah, but only if that accomplice was making money by giving multiple murderers the means to commit murders that they otherwise would not have committed.

41 posted on 10/17/2003 12:46:51 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
I'm a big Rush fan, but he's got a lot to answer for on this one.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing he has to answer for is his foolish opinion about drug abusers. All he has to say is, "I was wrong about that," and I'll be satisfied.

Of course, considering how many people I genuinely respect on FR hold the same foolish opinion, I obviously won't be too disappointed if he decides not to change his mind.

It's really no more skin off my nose if he's a hypocrite on this issue, than it is if he takes drugs. I'm more concerned for his recovery, than I am for his ideological consistency.

42 posted on 10/17/2003 12:59:33 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
And the answer to a man becomming addicted to pain killers that may have destroyed his hearing and could have ended is careers is -- to sell them over the counter like Pez?
43 posted on 10/17/2003 1:01:21 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
That Rush could accomplish all that he has while addicted to drugs makes me think that sometimes drugs are not as evil and dangerous as the government claims they are.

That Rush may have destroyed his hearing almost ending his career, may have strained his marriage hiding his addiction from his wife, and may have engaged in illegal activity that could put him behind bars suggests to me that often drugs are as evil and dangerous as the government claims they are.

Whats wrong with smoking marijuana for recreational purposes?

What's wrong with just using legal tobacco or alcohol for recreational purposes, instead?

44 posted on 10/17/2003 1:04:15 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
They have to go ALL THE WAY back to 1995.
45 posted on 10/17/2003 1:06:42 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
Whats wrong with smoking marijuana for recreational purposes?

You mean, like, volleyball?

46 posted on 10/17/2003 1:07:18 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I propose that FR adapt new guide lines which would automatically ban posters that call someone a "liberal"/sarcasm off
47 posted on 10/17/2003 1:10:26 PM PDT by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I love Rush. Have been listening to him since the late eighties. Trust me when I tell you I am a huge and supporter fan of his. One has to be consistent, however, so my take is that if he committed a chargeable offense, and if he is charged, and if he is convicted, he should do time. It's as simple as that and to rationalize it any other way is to play the Clinton game.
48 posted on 10/17/2003 1:13:28 PM PDT by Slehn (No one will ever associate the word "courage" with "Ivy League")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
We are politicizing this issue...both sides are.

One side is quick to defend it's franchise player, by trivializing the issue. The other, is attacking the player in order to trivialize the issues he champions.

The true issue here is a disease.

Rush has an incurable disease, the disease of addiction.

It matters very little whether the addiction is to a substance, or a behavior, it is self-destructing, and incurable.

Pray for Rush.
49 posted on 10/17/2003 1:13:42 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
""We're going after the big fish, both the suppliers and the sellers.""

Rush is neither.
50 posted on 10/17/2003 1:15:49 PM PDT by lawdude (Liberalism: A failure every time it is tried!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson