Limbaugh returns after drug treatment (Says, "More honesty to come")

cnn ^ | 11-17-03

[steppenwolffe]

Rush Limbaugh returned to radio Monday after what he called "five intense weeks" of rehab for an addiction to painkillers, promising listeners "even more honesty to come."

The conservative commentator thanked his listeners for their concern, and assured them that his ordeal would not affect his radio program.

[tallhappy]

He began with, "... as I was saying..."

Allusion to Jack Paar seems to have totally missed.

[xrp]

In the past, Limbaugh had decried drug use and abuse on his bluntly conservative show, arguing that drug crimes deserve punishment.

So does this make Limbaugh a hypocrit? Maybe he should have been flogged or something since he advocates punishment for non-violent drug users/abuserrs. Similar to liberals' "spend money as long as it isn't my own", Rush's admitting to his addiction to painkillers shakes the establishment.

[steve50]

When he takes a position on imprisonment vs treatment will be his test of character.

[martin_fierro]

	FReeper Cigar Aficionado
"Never mess with a man willing to suck on a raging trash fire." -- Tijeras_Slim Send FReepmail if you want on/off FCAP list

[Great Dane]

A man who smokes cigars, can't be all bad. :-}

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I remember when Jack Paar quit, then returned with that line.

[Hatteras]

"He admitted he had to study up to see what has gone on while he was away, and quickly returned to familiar topics -- attacking Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat."

Funny how they didn't care to elaborate on that "attack"... I thought that was terrific how he got that jab in during the first segment when he knew the entire liberal media was tuning in.

[MamaB]

Did you hear his closing statement? "The party's over, I'm back!!!"

[colorado tanker]

I kid you not.

[mhking]

So does this make Limbaugh a hypocrit?

It makes him human.

Am I disappointed in his faultering? Yes.

Am I going to sit here and kick him when down? Heck, no!

But for different steps, "there fore the grace of God go I."

I wouldn't wish his issues and problems on anyone. He's human, he made a mistake and life goes on. That simple.

[familyofman]

"He also said "there is a whole lot of stuff I can tell you that I can't tell you yet." He said it's not because he's afraid, adding, "There's even more honesty to come." "

What next - Rush admits to being gay, a tree-hugger, a closet liberal, a member of a femi-nazi underground movement....what, what is Rush hiding from us?

[tallhappy]

I remember when Jack Paar quit, then returned with that line.

So apparently does Limbaugh. I heard about it as history.

[bc2]

He's human, he made a mistake and life goes on.

I agree, but don't you think this should be the standard for all people who did time for a drug offense that did not involve any actual crimes?

There are plenty of reasons to lock people up. They are called crimes, and the criminal litmus test is "did your actions initiate force or fraud against a person or their property?". If the answer to that question is "no", you are not a criminal.

People incarcerated for possesing illegal drugs are no more criminal than people incarcerated for possessing banned firearms. Simple ownership of objects can not be criminal, no matter how illegal. It is the actions of individuals that initiate force or fraud against people and/or their property that are, and always will be, criminal. Nothing more.

[Sloth]

I keep hearing about the numerous drug comments and then everyone quotes his comment from "l995" on drug use. Is there a more recent one than that?

Good question... Even the 1995 comment was not really aimed at drugs, it was about race & crime.

[mhking]

I agree, but don't you think this should be the standard for all people who did time for a drug offense that did not involve any actual crimes?

My personal feeling? Yes. But the standard is not and cannot be as simple as that.

Did the actions of the person in question involve force against another? Did they involve defrauding another?

Finally, you point out that "simple ownership" cannot be criminal. Does this mean that someone who "owns" something harmful with the intent to use that item to harm others (i.e., explosives or toxic substances) is doing nothing criminal?

This is a prime example of where I have to draw the line between myself and the "L"ibertarians. It's not the only place where we part company, but a big one.

[mlmr]

on his bluntly conservative show,

...and their bluntly radical leftist news network (CNN)

[bc2]

Mr. King-

Thanks for your reply.

Firstly, why is it the standard can not be that simple? Is the the intent you refer to?


Actions which do not initiate force or fraud can not be crimes. It is impossible. The possessions of unliscensed guns in New York, for example is illegal, however not criminal. The possession of unregistered machine guns is again another example. The BATF and the DEA would argue otherwise, I'm sure, but these actions are not criminal, unlike robbing the liquor store, whether with a bolt action .22 or a H&K MP5 submachine gun. Those are crimes. The difference is clear. If these people have committed acts which are forceful or fraudulent, that is reason enough to convict them and lock them up! Drug use / dependancy should not come into question, any more than "I was drunk" is not a defense in a drunk driving case.

Now for intent. In the case of firearms, explosives, toxic substances, or weapons of any kind, it is easier to argue that possession with intent is criminal, than in the instance of narcotics. Unless you intend to force an individual to ingest narcotics. I could see no other reason other than murder, or rape. Both of which are already criminal acts. So I would say that while we could debate a law of intent with weapons, to do so with narcotics would be silly.

I guess I would rather live freely, where people can make decisions and be held accountable for those that are bad, than have freedoms taken away from all as a precautionary measure. I would much rather have widespread ownership of machine guns and prosecute people who use them to commit force or fraud, than to license them because you "might" do harm with them. The same for drugs. You hurting yourself is no concern of mine. When you hurt other people, you deserve punishment.

I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this matter.

[Brian Allen]

<< He's human, he made a mistake and life goes on. >>

His so-called "mistake" involved his willfully ego-driven and deliberate and admitted criminality over a seven or eight years-long time-span.

That is not "a mistake." That is serial criminality.

This from a man who sucks up cigars by the yard, the while boasting of having quit smoking and of his "formerly-nicotine-stained fingers," constantly derides pot smokers [While boasting of his own former pot use and to having "so-easily quit"] -- and who who on-air raved and ranted all day for days and for weeks after the death of Kurt Cobain that that poor man, "addicted," as by his own admission, is Mr Limbaugh to once-upon-a-time-prescribed opiates, was "just another dead doper."