Drug Rush Limbaugh to listeners: I belong in jail!

Reason ^ | October 17, 2003 | Jacob Sullum

[F.J. Mitchell]

Maybe after you have been here for more than five months, you will begin to see more clearly.

Rush has not killed, robbed, or sold dope to support his habit. As far as we know he has never missed a day of work because of it. He has never beat his wife of step children or even kicked the cat. He never complained or whined or missed a day of work while going totally deaf, except the days he saw his doctor and the time neccessary for the implant operation.

You say you will never listen to Rush again if he doesn't accept all the blame for his addiction-he already has. If you ever listened to the Rush Show as you pretend, you would know that.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"No, its liberal psychobabble."

The only one babbling here is you.

There is medical proof of the genetics of addiction, you on the other hand, have nothing but your "opinions" to back up your ridiculous assertions.

[Always Right]

There is medical proof of the genetics of addiction, you on the other hand, have nothing but your "opinions" to back up your ridiculous assertions.

Oh puh_leeez. The so-called proof you speak so highly shows about a 5% more probability to be an alcholic if you have a certain gene. That's far from proving much. Certainly there are genetic and environmental influences in everyhthing, but that in no way makes it a determining factor, just an influence. Even with external influences, all behavior comes down to your personal choice. Blaming a behavior purely on genetics is asnine. An addiction is a condition that is a result of a behavior. Just because it may have some genetic influence in no way makes it a disease. If someone is a recovering alcoholic, they are just that. They are no longer addicted, just more susceptible to becoming addicted. Pychologists play loose with words to promote some agenda, but no matter how many letters they put after their names, they are flat out wrong. End of discussion...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Have you ever been an addict?

have you ever done any serious reading on the disease of addiction?

I venture to say that some ego maniac with a handle like "Always Right" has not bothered to actually take the time to figure out whether thry truly are right or not.

Well, you are wrong, and quite the ignoramus on this subject.

[Republican Wildcat]

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

This article is a joke.

[Always Right]

have you ever done any serious reading on the disease of addiction? ,p> Yes I have and if you had you have maybe you could dispute what I said about the so-called studies which 'prove' genetics links to addiction. The gene is not really that strong of an indicator. As far as you go, you are pretty shallow to judge people based soley on their screen names. BTW, it would be nice if you could try to stick to discussing ideas and cut the insulting crap. You are not exactly short on arrogance yourself.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Yes I have and if you had..."

Clean, one day at a time, for several years now.

[PISANO]

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."

To the LEFTISTS in the media and throughout the country, ONLY ONE NEGATIVE reference about drug users OR ANY illegal or abnormal behavior is enough to brand any CONSERVATIVE a hypocrit.

You see LEFTISTS condone and even encourage most illegal and all abnormal behavior so they can NEVER be accused of what they consider the most evil of all crimes.......HYPOCRISY!!

[tahiti]

You bring up excellent points and ask pertinent questions.

For example, you state,

"The 14th Amendment in no way changes the clear meaning of that amendment unless you mean to argue that the 14th Amendment forces state governments to abide by the restricted powers of the Constitution and prohibits the states from excercising any powers not delegated to the United States."

With that said, consider the following, as posted at FreeRepublic.com:

US Supreme Court Mull Whether Police Can Demand Identity

WASHINGTON (AP)--The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether people have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

Justices will review the prosecution of a man under a Nevada law that requires people suspected of wrongdoing to identify themselves to police, or face arrest.

Isn't this action by the Supreme Court, in effect, stating that the 10th amendment is meaningless?

So, you then ask the next obvious question:

"Would you aregue that we should disband the state governments? If not, what purpose do you think they serve?"

I would not argue that we disband state governments, but the Supreme Court is slowly but surely rendering them obsolete and superflous.

I would like to see a return to the times before the 14th amendment when the people of each state could create the state of their choice, totalitarian or libertarian, as extremes, and the citizens would move to the state of their choice that best met their personal needs.

In effect, there would be a "market" of states to choose from.

[Question_Assumptions]

You are actually engaging me in a dual argument when you ask me what the Constitution says and then bring questionable Supreme Court rulings into question. Clearly, I have a problem with quite a few Supreme Court rulings dealing with the scope of the Federal Government. As the recent medical marijuana case in California made clear, they are going to have to get their act together about this matter at some point. But I think we do agree that states are the place where things like anti-drug laws (or drug legalization) should take place.