1 posted on
10/14/2003 4:04:21 PM PDT by
ambrose
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: ambrose
'I was wrong about our approach to drugs,' Rush wouldn't be in rehab were it not for our "approach to drugs".
55 posted on
10/14/2003 4:47:19 PM PDT by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: ambrose
The whole problem here is trying to make a political case against the WOD on the basis of Rush's addiction. The only reason we have a WOD is to control access. I know our Libertarian friends will not hear of this but the rationale is both valid and clear.
For example, white male physicians have a substance habituation history (especially for prescription narcotics) many times that of the general population. The reason is simple--they have both access and the money to become addicted. Every State Board of Medical Examiners has noted this and has developed tough standards to deal with the problem.
Our WOD has been almost entirely restricted to dealers. I know a few users with large amounts in posession sometimes face a prison sentence but this is an anomoly of the courts and the law as much as anything else. In Singapore (right in the middle of the dope producing area of the world) substance abuse or habituation is virtually unknown. The reason is if you use even once, you are incarcerated and treated or just incarcerated. If you are a recividist the legal roof falls on you. If you are dealer and are caught you get a mandatory death sentence. Initially, there were death sentences but now there are few since any dealer knows his or her life span is brief once they are arrested. Users are so legally and socially punished there is little incentive even to experiment. Of course, such Draconian legal measures cannot be instituted in a modern, Western democracy.
In a certain sense, the WOD is a misnomer. We should call it a war on dealers. In the meantime, users are not prosecuted with any vigor; hence, we have a schism between what we think we want --control of access--and what we actually want--dealers only punished--resulting in a failing WOD.
To: ambrose
The guy is dreaming. Rush CANNOT change the attitudes of his fans by coming out for the decriminilization of drugs. His audience are just what he says they are, individuals. We do not look to him to supply our opinions. We already have those and he has similar opinions. He is much better than most of us at supplying the facts that support those opinions. He is not idolized in the manner of a movie star whose every quirk and change is inhaled by his followers. I have never agreed with Rush's point of view on drugs and if he switched to my point of view because of his current situation I would not cheer because it would show that his ideas are changeable with circumstances and my respect for him would diminish considerably.
68 posted on
10/14/2003 5:05:02 PM PDT by
arthurus
(When the other shoe drops, look out for the cleats!)
To: ambrose
Who is Bill Maher in the scope that anyone would or should care?
69 posted on
10/14/2003 5:06:03 PM PDT by
TSgt
(No longer a mooch - Proud financial supporter of Free Republic)
To: All
70 posted on
10/14/2003 5:06:41 PM PDT by
Bob J
To: ambrose
Three cheers for Maher. I don't buy the whole "crack is just like booze" thing, but the central point that the government has no business telling me what I put in my body remains.
To: ambrose
For many years, I've been asked 'why do you read the Enquirer?' and have always said, "because I want to know what's going to be in the New York Times next week."Nice try, Bill, but you'll never convince me that the New York Times is that reputable.
On a recent radio program, he amplified his point:
"Rush has been the coward popping pain pills from 2,000 miles away," Maher said. "That's cowardly. Snorting cocaine off the stomach of a 14-year-old prostitute, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
82 posted on
10/14/2003 5:18:59 PM PDT by
Imal
(Say, didn't the United Nations General Assembly also vote for the pink M&M?)
To: ambrose
Forget the gun thing, can you explain to me how one mans addiction to opiates is an argument for making opiates more readily available?
83 posted on
10/14/2003 5:20:03 PM PDT by
jwalsh07
To: ambrose
A true test of the man. If he comes out of rehab and says, 'I was wrong about our approach to drugs,' he could single handedly change the way America looks at this problem. If he admits that what separates him and Noelle Bush from crackheads is nothing. Nothing except money, race and lawyers. OK, well that is actually quite a lot. But nothing in the way that makes one of them a stronger or better human being. Okay, the Reagan gun analogy in the article was stupid, but *this* is valid, except for the "race" part.
Rush is not going to do time. He will probably continue to support the WoD, because his money protects him from it's tyranny.
At Rush's income level, the only reason we even know about it at all is because politics makes the story newsworthy. If he were a banker, it would be swept under the rug, no problems. If he were a construction worker, he would be in jail, given the quantities involved.
96 posted on
10/14/2003 5:32:54 PM PDT by
Yeti
To: ambrose
I am too stupid to understand exactly what it is Bill wants Rush to do when he gets out or rehab and having had to relearn how live with daily pain. If his point is that everyone uses drugs, in one form or the other, big deal.
97 posted on
10/14/2003 5:33:04 PM PDT by
Republic
To: ambrose
I have no doubt there's lots of things rattling around in Bill Mahers' closet.
102 posted on
10/14/2003 5:37:03 PM PDT by
Bullish
To: ambrose
these people must be hearing a different Rush than me. I never have heard Rush act superior to anyone. I have, sometimes, disagreed with him; but I don't believe he feels morally superior to anyone.
To: ambrose
For a self-professed alleged "libertarian" I found his gun-control comment pretty amusing.
117 posted on
10/14/2003 5:48:01 PM PDT by
Conservative til I die
(Scratch an evangelical long enough and you'll uncover a heretic or even a blasphemer.)
To: ambrose
Who gives a f**k, that's why. What a nice, examined, and thoughtful opinion.
Bill Maher should go back to the kennel from which he was inadvertently released.
To: ambrose
All of this talk about Rush and drugs being a double standard confuses me. did Rush ever campaign against drugs. I have listened to him on and off for the last ten years, and can't honestly recall him getting on the drugs thing. Has he ever discussed drugs as a bad thing?
To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; Bill D. Berger; ..
WOD Ping
135 posted on
10/14/2003 7:13:50 PM PDT by
jmc813
(Proud to be a Willie Brown Republican!)
To: ambrose
That is probably the most intelligent thing I have ever heard out ofBill Mahr.
151 posted on
10/14/2003 8:46:20 PM PDT by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: ambrose
Mind you, it is not that I am saying it is intelligent or even that I agree with him, just that considering the source, at least part of it makes sense, and at least he isn't joining into the liberal hypocrisy.
153 posted on
10/14/2003 8:50:22 PM PDT by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: ambrose
I prefer morphine.
163 posted on
10/14/2003 9:30:45 PM PDT by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: ambrose
If he admits that what separates him and Noelle Bush from crackheads is nothing. This from the folks for whom, when it's one of THEIRS on the ropes, there are no absolutes.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson