Posted on 10/13/2003 6:56:17 AM PDT by Pokey78
Today marks the first broadcast day of Rush Limbaugh's four-week hiatus for treatment of his dependency on prescription pills, and many on the left couldn't be happier. The left typically shows more compassion for a mass murder who lost his latest appeal than they are showing for Limbaugh. So, where is all of this much-celebrated liberal compassion? I suppose we forgot that liberals usually show their compassion by spending someone else's money.
Some on the left are looking at Rush's month of drug rehab as the perfect time to do a little "kicking while they're down." Evan Thomas writes this in a current Newsweek article: "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. Nice."
It's odd, isn't it? The left can't find a way to criticize a welfare brood mare who downloads a succession of future jail inmates she can't possibly afford to raise, but they're eager to apply the "childless" label to someone who can afford to raise a child, but has none.
NOW --- ABOUT THAT WAR ON DRUGS
A question for those of you out there who are so adamant about pushing this illogical war on drugs. So, you like to see drug pushers in jail, right? And those people who buy drugs from those pushers? You want them in jail too, right? Yeah, damn right! Lock them all up!
Most of the people who adopt this "take no prisoners" attitude on drugs are conservative. Most, not all. Read the law. If Rush Limbaugh was doing those things that the National Enquirer says he was doing, then he could conceivably face quite a lengthy jail term. Is that what you want? Are you grumbling to yourself that Rush ought to be getting his treatment in a hospital jail ward somewhere?
What's the deal here? You're celebrating (as you should) Rush's decision to seek treatment. If this is such a good option for Rush (and it is) then why isn't it a good option for some sap from the inner city who succumbs to neighborhood peer pressure and gets hooked on drugs?
Then who would all those drug reps ply with endless supplies of pizzas, donuts, free dinners, and other 'perks'? If anyone is a 'pusher' in this situation, it's those guys. Follow the money (and there's LOTS of it in pharmaceuticals)...
Now, there you go, bringing the Big Picture into the debate!
That's not fair to the WODdies. ;^)
True, but it shouldn't be very powerful ammo. I was once addicted to nicotine, does this mean I have no right to rail against cocaine?
I know of no USERS "just like him" that are going to jail, anyone?
As for what I have heard from a couple of very liberal people I know is best wishes for recovery when this very subject came up, and were pointedly opposed to legal harm coming to him over this.
Thinking about it, it makes sense to apply the medical problem model even handly if indeed one believes drug problems are medical in nature and recovery is more logical then to seek stronger and stronger retribution for use and sale to remedy the situation involved with drug use. Sometimes liberals try to remain consistent in this way.
I bet that anyone who posed it to someone who was gleeful at the woes of a fellow human being with a medical problem, I bet they would quickly agree that they need to lighten up on Rush.
Many feel like Rush is a part of their family, and nothing really has changed. Hype or no hype, nobody ever seriously thought Rush was not a fallible human being anyway you look at it. Life goes on.
Who's reading minds here? I asked a question that was sincerely meant.
If you think a child born in poverty without solid family support has an equal shot at life with those born in better circumstances, I am at a loss for a response.
Rush has taken sixty days off? (That would be two rehab stays which are at a minimum--30 days).
Hasn't he tried detox twice; a brief period 48 - 72 hour hospital stay to cleanse the system of the drug?
Detox without rehab never works.
Rush now has the chance to get this monkey off his back once and for all.
What he has to focus on now is going through the program successfully--whichever program he, his family and his doctors have chosen. He also he needs help with pain management for his back. He also doesn't needed added stress, pressure from those who expect him to be back on the air on day #31 and pressure from those who have other agendas. His recovery is going to be difficult, and relapses are common.
That said, I am deeply disappointed that he would allow drugs to take over his life, the same disappointment I'd have if he'd allowed alcohol, gambling or another addiction to control his life. I'm angry because those like my daughter, who has rhuematoid arthritis, pay the penalty because they do not have access to medication they need (in my daughter's case, one of her prescribed drugs is Oxycontin) because others have abused it.
I also don't wanted him treated any differently by the law than anyone else.
Did you break any laws while you were addicted?
Were you punished by the legal system?
BS.
What you're saying is that because we are all short of the mark in one way or another that no one has the right to take a moral stand. That's liberal/libertine/libertarian Baloney.
Your gratuituous insult to all Priests demonstrates my point exactly. If you had one ounce of wit you'd know that the per centage of pedophilia w/i the clergy is lower by far than any other segment of society, yet you would use the (human) failure of the few to cast disgusting insults at an institution that does more humanitarian work in this world than any other man made organization.
The difference between a hypocrit and an honest man is the honest man takes responsibility for his own failings, like Rush did and Bill Bennett did. Look at the clintonites of this world to see true hypocricy where they pass "sexual harrassment" laws and then twist the judicial system onto its head to avoid the consequencies of the laws they passed.
Sorry, but there is a difference. becoming addicted to a substance because one has chronic back pain is far different then becoming addicted because you hang out with n'er do wells and partied all the time so you got hooked.
The drug war has failed, just like the war on poverty failed.
That may be true. But you libertarians and libertarian/conservatives need to wake up and consider all the ugly fun liberals could have with a populace more dependent on drugs-- giving them more welfare, more social security, more free drugs and needles for the "poor" addicts, skyrocketing medical costs for overdosers et al.
If you think that's all automatically going to transfer itself into "smaller government" than you have certainly once again underestimated liberals and their mischief.
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.