It still boils down to ingesting something without the permission of the government. 
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.
It still boils down to ingesting something without the permission of the government.
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.
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.
Rush did both
"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.
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 ]
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.
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.
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!!
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.
Nothing is as evil or dangerous as the government claims, except those that truly are but the government wants you to do.
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.
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.