Drug Rush Limbaugh to listeners: I belong in jail!

Reason ^ | October 17, 2003 | Jacob Sullum

[Always Right]

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.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

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

[EggsAckley]

Which twit? Rush or RJCogburn?

[fml]

Oh brother, here we go again.

[headsonpikes]

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?

[conserv13]

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?

[joesnuffy]

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

[Denver Ditdat]

[RJCogburn]

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?

[mamaduck]

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.

[EggsAckley]

Loving your "dead horse!!"

[Billthedrill]

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.

[EggsAckley]

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.

[SJSAMPLE]

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.

[Orangedog]

LOL! This horse just keeps on twitching!

[Burkeman1]

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.

[TopQuark]

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.

[tahiti]

"...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.

[marlon]

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.