Rush Limbaugh: Open Line Friday [Confirms Some Aspects of Drug Story, Checking In To Rehab]

[LloydofDSS]

>>What law did Bennet break to deserve to be invoked in this sentence? He never talked about gambling. His own religion doesn't even call gambling a sin.<<

I apologize for lumping Bennet in to this statement. He has skirted the edges of the laws very carefully. I guess what has always upset me about Bennet was when he was appointed drug czar he jokingly said he probably should give up smoking. And he did. He is also well known to be a pretty serious two fisted drinker. Then when I find out he has a monster gambling addiction, it becomes pretty obvious he has an addictive personality. He has managed to barely keep it within the law. So I guess that deserves some kind of respect.

Addictive personalities are something like bipolar head cases. They are often brilliant, often very productive, but prone to self-destructive behaviors. The most brilliant man I ever met was a serious alcoholic. He was my mentor for over 10 years. I watched him waste most of his potential on his addiction. Rush fits that profile well, as does Bennet.

Both Rush and Bennet seem to approach things from a religious perspective, yet the use of addictive substances is not a sin. I wonder why they support putting people in jail for behavior that is not a sin?

[Qwinn]

"Both Rush and Bennet seem to approach things from a religious perspective"

Bennet, yes, from what I know of him, he's decidely speaking from a Catholic viewpoint. And, btw, apology graciously accepted and thank you, but I still don't see where he came even close to not "barely keep[ing] it within the law". He could've drunk like a fish, and never would that have been breaking the law (unless he drove, but that charge is very serious, has never been made, and can't simply be assumed). He could've smoked 50 packs a day, and that wouldn't have been breaking the law. He could've gambled every last cent he had away, and that wouldn't have been breaking the law. Sorry. I just still don't see any known way in which he "skirted around the law". But you retracted including him in that sentence, so I won't push the point anymore. Thanks again.

Now as to Rush... I am not a regular listener (in fact, have listened very rarely), but I do check out his website a lot. I've never seen or heard of him make any religious references whatsoever except during his confession yesterday, and that was minor. Many religious people here have actually lamented the fact that he doesn't mention religion.

I think you have "religious" and "conservative" inextricably linked in your mind - which is understandable in a way, as the Left does so love to demonize "the Religious Right" any time it's appropriate and when it isn't as well.

But take this as an example - I am agnostic. I attend no church and I do not consider myself religious, although I do have a great deal of respect for religion and none of the animosity and amazing hostility toward it that is prevalent amongst most agnostics and atheists of the Left. I am also very very conservative, including socially. I am pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, I don't believe that the 1st amendment was ever meant to cover pornography, I don't believe there's a constitutional right to sodomy (and while I don't care much about any implied immorality in it, I kinda think it was a bit WRONG that in all the political correctness no one even -discussed- the tremendous health dangers it poses), I do believe the institution of marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman for the health of society, and I would vote for a FMA if it was proposed... and yet I'm not religious. I arrive at all these conclusions from a purely secular analysis - to me, they just make sense with or without a Greater Being to command them. And frankly, I don't think Rush is particularly religious either. He probably is to some extent - he did ask people to pray for him, and if I was in that much trouble I might too, can't hurt! - but I don't think he "approaches" his conservatism "from a religious perspective" any more than I do. Admittedly, I don't listen to him regularly, so I could be wrong on that. But I think it's just as likely that you feel that way because there's been a massive propaganda campaign for decades underway to make you react exactly that way - "conservatism" = "religious zealotry". It just ain't true.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

"yet the use of addictive substances is not a sin. "

By the way - I believe at least according to the Catholic Church, it IS a sin when you let it interfere or affect the lives of those who depend on you. The same rule that applies to gambling would apply to alcohol and cigarettes in that respect, I believe. If you "spent the milk money" to support your habit, basically (which Bennet didn't), then it would be a sin.

And IMHO, since Rush did not seem in any way particularly effected in doing his job (other than the breaks he took once in a while which were apparently to go to rehab), I don't know that he really "spent" the moral "milk money" either, necessarily. It didn't seem to affect his job performance or his mental faculties, at least when he was on the job. Barring any family problems it may have caused that we don't (and shouldn't) know about, I don't think from a "sin" perspective you could nail him for much more than the time he lost going to rehab (and even that is in an attempt to get cured).

It's an interesting question. I got a Catechism around here somewhere, I'll see what it says. You'd be surprised how often it makes some excellent secular arguments, as well.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Hmmm, seems I was only half-right in my last post (which I failed to ping, sorry).

Here's what the Catechism has to say on drugs:

2290: The virtue of temperance disposes us to [i]avoid every kind of excess[/i]: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291: The [i]use of drugs[/i] inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

(italics in the original)

So their concern seems to be with abuse rather than use. They do make an exception for therapeutic drugs, and at least originally, that certainly applies to Rush. I suppose the circumstances under which he continued to use them would matter a great deal - if he was still taking them under a doctor's advice, I think it would have to fall under "therapeutic grounds" all along and he'd be pretty safe. If he went and continued using them on his own by getting them illegally, then yeah, it's pretty clear cut, he sinned big time, at least according to the Catholic Church. But even then, I think they would take the fact that it was "therapeutic grounds" that got him hooked in the first place into consideration and not make him have to do as much penance as would, say, a recreational junkie who got himself hooked, "optionally", so to speak.

By the way, just to restate my position - I'm for the favor of decriminalizing users (because of A) compassion, B) not all users are addicts and can function just fine) and C) we realllllly have better uses for the prisons), plus we need and decriminalizing marijuana altogether, because in EVERY conceivable way it's far less harmful than alcohol. In fact, I would recommend criminalizing alcohol and legalizing marijuana simultaneously. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work the first time, but we didn't replace it with anything, so we don't know if it would work. If marijuana were the only legal drug, we'd have a hell of a lot less car accidents. Stoned people don't want to drive - the only thing that'll drag 'em out on the road is the munchies, and even then only if no one's delivering. *chuckle*

Qwinn

[jimt]

Pity those around you should you ever develop such excruiating pain that can't be alleviated through surgery and you choose not to take any pain pills. You have no idea what it's like.....

You completely misunderstood what I said, so perhaps I didn't say it well.

I am not unsympathetic to chronic pain. I am not criticizing Rush for taking doctor prescribed pain medication. I am not even criticizing him for taking illegal drugs.

I am criticizing him for his hypocrisy. Once he began buying drugs illegally, he was not different than any other illegal drug user. Yet he continued to rant about drug users and wax eloquently on the glories of the War On some Drugs. That is the problem.

Rush never discussed this "pain" problem until he was caught. I hope your sister gets relief from her pain, and am not calling her a doper. A doper is someone who buys and uses illegal drugs.

[jimt]

I've listened to him quite a bit. Can you be specific?

There's a quote here.

[Aquinasfan]

Good news. For future reference, should I have need, I'd appreciate the names of the new drugs.

Enbrel, Remicade and Humira. They're classified as "anti-TNF" drugs. My rheumatologist told me that 2 of 3 patients with RA respond to the drugs. They're also very expensive. $12-18k/year, but well worth it. You may have seen the commercials for Enbrel on TV.

Enbrel requires self-injection 2x/wk. Humira is self-injected once biweekly. Remicade is administered by IV in a hospital or doctor's office every 4-8 weeks. I'm using Remicade and having great results.

[secretagent]

Thanks!

Anti-TNF is a name given to a new class of drugs available for the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis. Currently this group consists of three drugs, infliximab (trade name Remicade), etanercept (trade name Enbrel) and adalimumab (trade name Humira). These drugs work by blocking the action of TNF (tumour necrosis factor) a molecule responsible for increasing levels of inflammation in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

Not for use on other forms or arthritis, though.

[Aquinasfan]

Not for use on other forms or arthritis, though.

That's right.

[Dooderbutt]

I didn't have the time to read all of these posts, and I'm sorry if I am posting this again, but this has got to be the most sickening display of liberal media bias....crap! This is what MSN has on their website's home page, from Newsweek...

...But Limbaugh’s story owes more to the “Wizard of Oz” than “The Scarlet Letter.” The man behind the curtain is not the God of Family Values but a childless, twice-divorced, thrice-married schlub whose idea of a good time is to lie on his couch and watch football endlessly. When Rush Limbaugh declared to his radio audience that he was “your epitome of morality of virtue, a man you could totally trust with your wife, your daughter, and even your son in a Motel 6 overnight,” he was acting. He “regards himself as an entertainer who is very pleased that people pay attention to his political views,” says Wall Street editorial writer John Fund, who collaborated with Limbaugh on one of the radio host’s books (“The Way Things Ought to Be”).

Granted, Limbaugh’s act has won over, or fooled, a lot of people. With his heartland pieties and scorn for “feminazis” and “commie-symps” like “West Wing” president Martin Sheen (“Martin Sheenski” to Limbaugh), he is the darling of Red State, Fly-Over America. Former president George H.W. Bush, always eager to cover his right flank, personally carried Limbaugh’s bags into the White House when Limbaugh stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom in 1992. After the Republicans won control of the House in 1994 for only the second time in 50 years, lawmakers called to personally thank Limbaugh and made him an honorary member of Congress....

http://www.msnbc.com/news/979355.asp

[LittleJoe]

It certainly looks like the pharmaceutical industry is trying to hook as many as it can, knowing that these people will have to go to illegal drugs when they are cut off.

You have a point


Yeah, and I can expand on it.
In 1980 California had 2,600 prison gaurds. Today, California has over 29,000 prison gaurds.

Their union contributes to politicians who support the War On Drugs. I wonder why?

[solitas]

What I meant was that the drugs are "clean", not tainted with impurities that might blow out a part of your neural circuit or otherwise poison the user. ... But that's what you risk with home-made drugs.

You take enough of any kind of drug and it could have the capability to 'cook' you...

[solitas]

A doper is someone who buys and uses illegal drugs.

I would offer this correction to you: a doper is someone who uses drugs in a non-prescribed manner. All drugs are useful for either corrective or palliative purposes when used properly (i.e. a prescribed manner wherein a physician is monitoring the performance/results/effects of the drugs and can control their amounts and frequency of use).

[solitas]

No offense, but since RL is supposed to be a part-time Methodist or some such (posting # 1425), the Roman-rite Catechism is only so-much paper. :)

[LloydofDSS]

2290: The virtue of temperance disposes us to [i]avoid every kind of excess[/i]: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291: The [i]use of drugs[/i] inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

I tend to agree with the 2290, but 2291 is obviously in error. The Bible very clearly condones the use of alcohol on happy occasions, yet it also clearly says drunkenness is a sin. This claim that simple use of a "drug" (like alcohol) is a grave sin is ridiculous on its face. This is the overriding of the wisdom of the Bible by idiotic Catholic clerics.

The problem I have with both Rush and Bennet is that they support laws that imprison people for simple use (or even possession) of a dozen or more drugs.

I also have trouble with demonizing "drug pushers" on this thread. Drug pushers are nothing more than the equivalent of liquor store owners, which I consider simple merchants. Just because some people abuse the product does not tranfer responsibility back on the merchant. Any more than a gun seller is responsible for a murder committed with a gun that he has sold.

[Qwinn]

I thought it was made quite clear that alcohol wasn't being counted as a drug in 2291, that alcohol was directly referenced under 2290 as something that could be done with temperance. You seem to be wanting to pick a fight with them.

"This is the overriding of the wisdom of the Bible by idiotic Catholic clerics."

Pardon me, but even though I am not Catholic, I have seen too much belligerent Catholic bashing in my time to have much remaining tolerance for it. This comment was just obnoxious. I think I'll leave this conversation now.

Qwinn

[cinFLA]

Our prisons are filled with people, black, white, hispanic, who's main "crime" is simple possession of an illegal substance to which they are addicted.

Druggie propaganda alert!

[xrp]

So would you be in favor of Rush, a druggie, being locked away in prison for years?

Would you favor Rush having his house ransacked by the federales looking for Rush's stash?

Would you be in favor of Rush 'accidently' being shot during a drug raid gone bad?

[cinFLA]

Why are you in favor of eliminating the SecDef?

"I favor the elimination of executive cabinet spots, especially the Departments of Education and the Interior. Here I am at odds with Republicans."

[xrp]

So would you be in favor of Rush, a druggie, being locked away in prison for years?

Would you favor Rush having his house ransacked by the federales looking for Rush's stash?

Would you be in favor of Rush 'accidently' being shot during a drug raid gone bad?

I posted my questions in English yet you are unable to answer them. Shall I post them in your native language of Spanish?