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.
Agreed. I'd just like to see the feds out of the mix. It's more power than they need to have. Giving more power and money to Washington is like giving a bottle of Jack Daniel's and car keys to teenage boys...it's asking for problems. And the states need to get out of the asset confiscation business. Way to much room for abuse there.
It's the darker half of human nature to try to rule over others. Those who have that desire but don't have the drive to make it happen themselves are happy to cheer on the ones who do and sign onto whatever their agenda happens to be. That way they get to feel like being part of the pack mentallity as well as being on the side of authority. Kinda like high school cheerleaders, but with pitch-forks and torches. It's sick, but it's part of the human condition.
First, the problem with speed limits is often not a limit but where the limit is set and how it is enforced. People have a sense that limiting speed is a good idea but often think the limit is two low. Second, speed limits advise drivers and moderate the speed of most drivers. Many drivers will go 5-15 MPH over the speed limit but few exceed it by 20 MPH or more. Third, speed limits are casually enforced and police normally overlook reasonable levels of speeding. Drivers object much more to thinks like camera enforcement, even for red light laws (which you cited as a useful and respected law).
Comparing to drugs, I think that most people think that limits on drug use are reasonable, even if they think the War on Drugs goes too far. I think that most people believe that anti-drug laws moderate their use. And I think that most people believe that drug enforcement generally targets the worst abusers and casual use is often overlooked. And just as most people don't want to get rid of speed limits no matter how many tickets they get, they don't want to legalize drugs.
I agree with all of those points, with the exception that I think the Federal government does have a role in interdicting the importation of drugs, especially hard drugs such as heroin. And I agree that asset confiscation is a major problem.
I am dead on right on this. Addiction an incurable disease? What a joke by liberals who think no one is to blame for their actions. Even terrorists who kills 3,000 people aren't to blame. Everything is genetics or a disease, nobody is responsible for anything. Give me a &*(@*&! break.
No, its liberal psychobabble. Let's just take individual responsibility out of the equation and blame everything on something else.
Most people with at least a quarter of a brain cell understand the question and therefore, understand how to draw a straight line to THE FRICKIN' SOURCE (Jacob Sullum) of the article!
No?
Didn't think so.
I hear yo mama calling over at DU...You'd best get going.
Oh, did I mention that oxy contin is said to be 7 TIMES MORE ADDICTIVE than cocaine and that MILLIONS of Americans are hooked on it by simple prescription every year?
I would agree with your contention, prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment, that the 10th amendment is relevant in the regulation and prohibition of drug use by state citizens.
But the enactment and ratification of the 14th amendendment and it's application by the Supreme Court as the constitutional justification of federal jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state, has now been the mechanism to overturn state laws as unconstitutional.
For example Roe v Wade is the most infamous case of applying federal jurisdiction with in the boundaries of a state in modern times.
Originally, federal jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state was defined in Art I, Sec 8, Cl 17.
As the federal constitution is applied now, within the boundaries of a state, using the 14th amendment as the constitutional basis and justification for federal jurisdiction, the 10th amendment has almost been rendered superfluous.
Most of those who like you are apologists claim he didn't even take that drug or there is no way to tell. They have been excoriating me for days for even suggesting it. And I find it amusing that all you folks have never questioned any part of what Rush said, It is apparently gospel that he needed them for back pain. But everyone else who says anything about the case is a liar. Funny stuff.
Oh, did I mention that oxy contin is said to be 7 TIMES MORE ADDICTIVE than cocaine and that MILLIONS of Americans are hooked on it by simple prescription every year?
Prove it, particularly the MILLIONS part. I'll believe it when you do, it may be true, but your word is no more believeable than anyone elses.
And, make excuses for all, not just radio entertainers.
Btw, what has Rush said since? Anything to take it back?
I suppose you have the proof to back up your statement?
No?
Didn't think so.
Rush has admitted to both. Better do your home work before you call people names.
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.