Posted on 11/11/2005 6:43:26 AM PST by Cindy_Cin
I've got a bridge I'd like you to take a look at...
I am not IMPLYING anything. I am observing, and summarizing. His back pain was an excuse. My daddy taught me that an excuse is first cousin to a lie. What about all the golf outings, while during this period of physical duress? Do you think he may have been overstating his pain, a little?
Nah, you wouldn't think that, because he is a good a American. No, he is just a plain old addict, that got caught. When confronted with the reality, he had nowhere to go, so he went to rehab, AGAIN. Get real.
I like to listen to him, for S&G. He is not my idol. He's just another mouth, that happens to say things I support. He's successful, due to being in the right place, in the right time, and being able to command an audience for his schtick (sic). Thank Roger Ailes, for that, along with FoxNews!
Got proof?
Maybe just once you should have chronic pain so severe that medication barely works. And maybe you'd should become dependent on medicine in order to function daily.
Maybe, too, you should become addicted to prescription pain medicines.
Then we could make snide remarks about your struggles to deal with pain and addiction.
I'll bet you wouldn't be so cavalier about it then.
I contracted Lyme disease in 1994. I understand chronic problems. I take meds daily.
I also understand when I get things that I am not supposed to have, that I am breaking the law. I use marijuana sometimes, PRN. I have a VALID prescription. I wish I could get the feds to respect that one.
Rush is not out of the woods, in his legal problems. He is too busy trying to "frame the question" as political attacks. I'd bet if this was about Michael Moore, or some other lib idealist, you would feel differently. I'm sorry, if you feel he is justified.
I have been on another thread this morning, about a cop who is being fired for pilfering drinks at a mall, after hours, while investigating something. The same apologists are over there, justifying the cops actions. The thieves are indefensible.
Your "back pain" argument is overstated, if the man could go play 18 holes... He admitted he took the drugs, because he "liked them". He admitted to being blackmailed. Maybe you don't know how to count, but 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4, where I come from...
I know, he is innocent until proven guilty, IN A COURT OF LAW. That is for the courts to decide. They don't want me on the jury. I have a decided predisposition! I don't believe the words of an addict, trying to justify his actions.
I never said anything about back pain. Is that an indication of your value for accuracy?
He admitted he took the drugs, because he "liked them".
Even if your quote is in remote context, I doubt that he 'liked them' and was taking them simply for a buzz. I have no doubt that he liked feeling better--relief from pain and probably relief addiction symptoms.
Now we have two issues: the drug laws in general and your hypocracy.
First, if the government would allow doctors to treat patients without interference we wouldn't have to deal with limiting essential medications or having conflicting jurisdictions.
Second, we wouldn't see those like you with arrogant, holier-than-thou attitudes looking to prosecute people because they sought relief brought on by medical conditions and their treatment.
Every one of these alleged 'crimes' could have been prevented if doctors didn't have to look over their shoulder because Big Brother was watching the way they treated their patients.
Isn't it richly ironic that you need pot to cope with life and you'd like to see Rush prosecuted because of his drug problems.
Personally, I don't care how much pot you smoke or how many pills guys like Rush take. Or if either of you snort coke.
I do find a pothead calling a pill popper a criminal extremely ironic.
Just as ironic as I feel about you. Rush made the statement about why he was using them, not me. I included my personal mention, to allow you to complete your own hypocricy! Thanks for the satisfaction.
I am not favoring his prosecution. I am favoring a single standard...
Isn't it richly ironic that you need pot to cope with life..
Isn't it richly ironic that you need Rush to cope with life? Do you think that there is nobody to replace him?
I like to be entertained by him. I don't feel any need to make excuses... for his abuse of drugs. It represents YOUR double standard.
Sorry, but your ASSumptions are quite revealing. I haven't listened to Rush regularly for nearly three years now. It just isn't and hasn't been available.
I like to be entertained by him. I don't feel any need to make excuses... for his abuse of drugs. It represents YOUR double standard.
Hey, Pothead, I'm not the one smoking dope while calling someone else a criminal!
I don't have a double standard. I really don't care how a person medicates themselves as long as it doesn't adversely affect them and even then it may not be any of my business.
I really wish you didn't have to risk prosecution for using marijauna just as I think it is nonsense to fish for a case against Rush.
Somehow I'll bet your tune would change if you absolutely needed your Rx but couldn't get it through normal channels.
Prescriptions should be between a patient and doctor and not include the DEA.
"He admitted to being blackmailed."
Just a tiny correction - Rush's lawyer at one point said he was being blackmailed. I don't think that this was ever repeated. To my knowledge, Rush himself has never said anything about this.
Rush has never filed any official report of this accusing anyone, which is surprising since, if true it would be a great opening to a lawsuit against the Enquirer.
"Even if your quote is in remote context, I doubt that he 'liked them' and was taking them simply for a buzz. I have no doubt that he liked feeling better--relief from pain and probably relief addiction symptoms."
How about in exact content, as heard by his many listeners, live on air ?
"I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling. "
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/17/235030.shtml
Liking them and "finding excuses" does not equate to seeking relief.
Rush didn't do anything worse than what Brett Favre did. How much time did he serve? Oh - that's right - Brett's not a political target. By the way, I think the war on drugs HAS been a disastrous mistake.
So he says he liked them...big deal. Did he also mention anything about seeking out drugs before they were prescribed for his injury?
My point still stands that he had a medical condition that neccessitated medication that got him hooked.
Look at the whole Betty Ford Clinic clientelle--mostly high functioning abusers and addicts that can afford costly treatments. Some enter only after getting busted and put into diversion plans pending treatment. Others have to face death or other catastophe to seek help. Many of these were social and recreational abusers who lost control. Under current law they deserve prosecution more than the Rush's and Favre's of the world that get hooked by their medical conditions.
And, if anyone were consitent, they'd see this as ANOTHER failure in the War on (some) Drugs.
I'd feel a bit hypocritical if I was addicted or required marijuana or narcotics and was being critical of someone else.
But I'm not, and I'm not, so I don't.
"Did he also mention anything about seeking out drugs before they were prescribed for his injury? "
I didn't know that was required for one to be guilty of doctor-shopping in order get supply of drugs that you like.
Are you saying it's fine to break the law when you become addicted for "acceptable" reasons rather then "unacceptable" ones ?
Oh, no, all laws must be obeyed to the fullest extent and intent of the law. It is not accepable to merely meet the letter of the law, we should and MUST comply fully with the spirit and intent of the laws. Anything less is dereliciton of our duties as citizens.
Now that is out of the way, there is a difference between someone whose medical needs lead to addicition and abuse and those whose recreational activitites lead to abuse and addiction.
And yes, I can be more lenient to the former.
Does that bother you?
Actually, Florida has a right to privacy in its constitution. There's no problem with states granting citizens additional rights.
"And yes, I can be more lenient to the former."
Sure, but when the party insists that they have broken no law ?
Silly me, I thought acknowledgement of wrong-doing and repentence were necessary in order to be forgiven.
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.