Posted on 10/13/2003 10:36:31 PM PDT by Diddley
Rush Limbaugh and the Grandmother Test
Jim Quinn Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003
Ed Asner is out there bloviatiing about how "we got Limbaugh, and Hannity's next" and how he wants to play the life of the "misunderstood" Joe Stalin. OK, so Uncle Joe did starve 100,000 people to death, but he was a good dancer.
One wonders if we have a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy going on or just the ravings of a delusional old Commie who longs for a return to the days when we could all sit around at the Free Store in Berkley listening to Paul Robeson sing the Soviet International. Time to bring back the black list.
Since all you lefties out there are having such a gosh darn good time reveling in the "misfortune" of Rush Limbaugh, it pains me to tinkle in your punch bowl, but I will none the less. From Newsweek to Michael Moore, the underlying criticism of Limbaugh is that he is a hypocrite. But that charge is intellectually dishonest and here's why.
From the moment a recreational drug user puts the first straw to his nose, the first joint to his lips or the first needle in his arm he KNOWS that what he is doing is illegal.
For whatever reason, he has made a moral choice that his "normal" state is insufficient and needs to be augmented – so much so that he is willing to assume the risk of arrest and/or incarceration. And his resulting addiction should come as no surprise. He knowingly operates outside the law from the get-go. This is vastly different from Limbaugh's scenario.
In Rush's case the drugs were legal and prescribed for the management of pain. He had no reason to question his doctor about the propriety of their use. There was no need for him to wrestle with any moral question in the beginning. By the time morality became an issue, the drugs had pinned him to the mat.
Still, he managed twice at least to try to break the hold. What happened to Limbaugh could happen to your grandmother. It HAS happened to grandmothers – and grandfathers and aunts and uncles.
Limbaugh took a dim view of recreational drug use. He preached against the importers and the dealers and the users. Because of this he is now gleefully proclaimed to be a hypocrite by his perennial detractors and by some fans acting like jilted lovers.
So, let me ask you a question: How do you think Rush's view of the importation, distribution and use of recreational drugs differs from the view held by your grandmother? You know, the one who broke her hip and got strung out on her pain meds. I'd dare say not very much. So, is your grandmother a hypocrite too? Well, is she? If the truth be known, more than a few of those who are pointing fingers at Rush are indulging in the forbidden themselves. They love it when they can point their fingers and say, "See, he does it too." But he really doesn't, and deep down inside you people know it.
So do an extra line for me. Maybe it will help you cope with the uncomfortable truth that your charge of "hypocrite" just doesn't pass the Granny Test.
Jim Quinn hosts the morning drive-time program "Quinn in the Morning with Radio Rose" at Pittsburgh's WRRK-FM.
This may be the most important thing Rush has ever done--make people consider the damage done, in addition to the damage done by drugs, by our federal drug laws. I submit that you and I should try to subtly make these points and watch them germinate, rather than alienate. Just a thought, not meant to be confrontational, and worth what you paid for it.
Then again, he might be less charming than a warthog with amoebic dysentery.
Diddley
I especially liked this part:
If the truth be known, more than a few of those who are pointing fingers at Rush are indulging in the forbidden themselves. They love it when they can point their fingers and say, "See, he does it too." But he really doesn't, and deep down inside you people know it.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that I can safely say that you are assuming facts not in evidence.
Diddley
You could be correct -- but what I'm seeing is not germination of any enlightened views on the drug war, but rather a series of false claims that Rush is not a hypocrite because "he (a) hasn't said anything lately in support of the War on Drugs and/or (b) has only condemned users of recreational drugs (or recreational users of drugs) -- and even if he is a hypocrite, so what, he's a conservative hypocrite so he should be given a get out of jail free card."
You can try soft peddling the realities of the War on Drugs to Rush's apologists, but I prefer the direct approach. Right now people are sorting out their thoughts on Rush and the drug laws, and I prefer to directly confront those who may want to still support Rush and the War on Drugs with the blatant inconsistency of such a position.
I am a lawyer, and what I am doing is drawing reasonable inferences from the facts -- primarily the admissions of Rush and his high-priced, nationally renowned lawyer (who is most famous for getting William Kennedy Smith off the hook on a rape charge).
No, the best defense against hypocrisy is to be consistent -- especially on important issues like the foolish War on Drugs.
Hannity amused me on his show tonight by telling a drug rehab program operator he shouldn't get any federal funding for his unproven experiment. I wholeheartedly agree -- but it's too bad that Hannity can't see that the same reasoning mandates the termination of the failed federally funded (>$100 billion per year) experiment of drug prohibition.
IF, they were bought in the fashion bantered about, IF, then no they were not Legal. IF this turns out to be the case, he's no different from any one of the several hundred thousand people sitting in prison today. Blackbird.
A National Enquirer editor said on Geraldo's show Sunday that Rush had other suppliers and that someone close to him is involved. You can count on the fact that Rush (who claims to be cooperating fully with the authorities) has been required to reveal all of his suppliers as a condition of any leniency in prosecution.
Oops. Too late.
I looked into the definition of addiction. You can find 20 different sources with 20 different definitions. I ran into the following quite a bit -- the only problem is that they're looking at addiction from the "prescribed opiate for pain" side, very similar to Rush's situation. I'm not sure of the applicability to say, a recreational drug user, although it would appear to cover it.
The American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Pain Society, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine recognize the following definitions and recommend their use:
I. Addiction Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiologic disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use,compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving.
II. Physical Dependence Physical dependence is a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug class specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist.
III. Tolerance Tolerance is a state of adaptation in which exposure to a drug induces changes that result in a diminution of one or more of the drug’s effects over time.
What is important to note is that they're not tying physical dependence or tolerance to addiction. Addiction may or may not include physical dependence or tolerance.
First, that definition really is a change from the classic definition, perhaps in order to further causes such as the one you mentioned, anti-tobacco. I don't argue with the definitions of the components--I believe I posted something similar this weekend.
Second, I have to suspect the motivations of the organizations you quoted, or at least the Addiction organization. It seems to me that they have an economic motivation to change the definition--which they indisputably have done.
The more "addicts", the more patients who are eligible for and come under the care of the members of this organization. For the pain medicine people, certainly the more dangerous the treatment by people outside their societies, the more their societies benefit. I realize that that is an ad hominem argument. But in this case, I believe it is appropriate.
I think, if you disagree, that we will continue to disagree. I will take the conservative position of regarding tradition and classic definitions as the wiser choice.
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.