Posted on 01/12/2004 4:29:11 AM PST by tornado100
Whoever you think you are referring to, it is not Rush Limbaugh, who never talked about the evils of drug abuse, let alone "continually".
I am concerned for him as I read on this thread from those with experience, that they are hearing signs that do not bode well for his recovery. It'd be nice if you and others who harbor ill will toward Rush summoned up a little compassion. He would if it were you.
And spare me how "mean" he is to the clintons and dems. They deserve everything they get and more, and the criticism aimed their way is of a different sort than the lies such as you have alleged against him.
Deut. 12:3-4. We Jews believe that we may not cause the name of G-d to be destroyed. A Rabbi may cause the name of G-d to be destroyed during a special ceremony. Scrolling off the screen constitutes such destruction, in rabbinical eyes. I was unaware of this until I spoke to a rabbi in about 2000 or so about it.
I went from married in a nice house gearing up for getting a new professional job, to divorced, then arrested (for possession) inside of 5 weeks, so yeah, you can come down quick.
That's what "hitting bottom" means.
There is nothing wrong with his addiction. He is in pain and he is taking the medication for pain. The rest is for the pure sake of humiliating him.
There was only two warrents because there was only two doctors offices. Several doctors were in the same office and shared the same records. One of the reasons that the doctor shopping rational is bogus. They just want to find something to use later, either as an arrest or leak to the Enquirer. Things such as having VD in the past, or he's a Homo, whatever they can use against him.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting my daily "I learned that on FR" fact.
Maybe so, but you need to read the Bibl , God is not even close to the name of God. His name begins with a J or Y depending on the Hebrew translation.
The summary of this call is pretty much how I remember Rush's pre-95 discourse regarding illegal drug use:
Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
for Monday, December 13, 1993
by John Switzer
This unofficial summary is copyright (c) 1993 by John Switzer. All Rights Reserved.
Phone Quinn from Ft. Collins, CO
Quinn would like to say "ditto" but he has to disagree with Rush over drug legalization. First, he doesn't think everyone who advocates drug legalization is "totally selfish" because he for one doesn't use drugs of any form, yet he supports their legalization. He does think, though, that by Rush's own logic, Rush is being selfish by not wanting to ban the drugs he uses: tobacco and alcohol.
Rush says that prohibition didn't work before with alcohol and it wouldn't work now; alcohol has been a legal drug for generations upon generations. However, the experience the nation has with alcohol should show that legalizing drugs would be a bad idea, compounding the damages that alcohol bring to society.
However, alcohol is not the same as crack and cocaine, as alcohol can be used in moderation, without it destroying your life. Other, more addictive drugs, however, can't be used in such a manner, and Rush points out that nobody talks about snorting a couple of lines of cocaine before dinner.
Quinn says that alcohol has ruined people's lives, and Rush agrees, which is his point - why legalize these other, more dangerous drugs and make a bad situation worse? Quinn says that Colorado does have a prohibition party on its state ballot every year, and cocaine was legal at one point, so Rush's points about alcohol being okay because of its legality seem to be without merit.
Rush, though, notes that cocaine in the 1800's was used far differently than it's being used today, and he is amazed that anyone could be making a case for the "benefits" of drugs. Quinn, however, says that this is not one of his arguments; rather, he agrees with Milton Friedman who, noting that 10,000 people are killed a year because of the drug trade, believes that legalizing drugs would reduce these crimes and their accompanying deaths.
Rush says that this is another argument altogether, but while drug legalization may stop certain crimes, the result of legalization would be far more devastating to society at large than anything that's happening today. The destruction of the population that would occur should drugs be legalized would be tragic and would far outshadow what's going on now.
People don't live in a vacuum; they can't do drugs without their habit affecting someone else. People on drugs become worthless, useless, and unproductive human beings, and the rest of society will have to take up the slack for these people; as it is now, there are already far too many people who are becoming a burden on the law-abiding and responsible in society. The country doesn't need more people like this.
Quinn, though, thinks that the legalization of drug distributors would help reduce drug use, especially as the black market is far more effective in distributing these drugs than any legal industry could be. Rush says regardless of whether the black market is "more efficient," the answer is not to make government bigger and let it tax these substances.
There will always be a black market for drugs, no matter what, and even those who support legalization would ban its use by minors. And nobody is saying that legalization would reduce the number of addicts. There is also evidence from those countries that have legalized drugs that their experiments are failing.
Rush notes that he says those who advocate drug legalization are selfish because most of these people are drug users who are angry and jealous that their habit is illegal, while those who imbibe alcohol have a legal habit. Human beings, though, by virtue of their birth have a responsibility to help make the world a better place, both now and in the long term. If everyone lived just for the day and for their own pleasure, society would crumble, and there would be nothing left for those generations that would follow.
People cannot dismiss their obligations in this. It is irresponsible to have the government sanction a crime and a destructive habit by legalizing drugs; doing so contributes to the wanton destruction of society. Rush admits that this is a long-term view, but those who disagree with it on the basis of "I want to do my drugs" are being selfish and are thinking of nothing more than their own life. If everyone did this, then what kind of life would be the result? Had modern-day Americans' lived like this, the current generations would have a far different America than now exists.
<end of transcript excerpt>
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.