Replies

It doesn't matter if a doctor put him on it for pain. He choose to become addicted to them and he choose not to do anything about it until he got busted for it. Those are the facts that you cannot dispute.

I can't dispute them because the actual facts aren't known. And you shouldn't assert them as indisputable for the same reason.

There is a difference between getting addicted to something you start for recreational purposes, ans getting adicted to something you start for medical purposes.

What facts am I asserting that aren't known?

There isn't a difference between those two. If you abuse anything in life you choose to abuse it.. you choose not recognize you have a problem... you choose not to deal with it.

That's why if someone does cocaine once in their life they aren't an abuser while if someone takes pain medication over their prescribed amount then they are an abuser.

There is a difference between getting addicted to something you start for recreational purposes, ans getting adicted to something you start for medical purposes.

You're probably right about this but it reminds me of the distinction made between a murder committed during a burglary and a murder commited because of racism (i.e., a "hate" crime). Either way, the victim is just as dead.

Furthermore, Rush's doctor probably stopped prescribing oxycontin to keep him from getting dependant. If he still had pain issues, he really should have consulted his physician, not his housekeeper.

"There is a difference between getting addicted to something you start for recreational purposes, ans getting adicted to something you start for medical purposes."

Yes, but there is no "constitutional" difference.

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."

The people have the retained right to ingest the chemical of their choice for whatever reason.

If you do not have this right, then it is only a matter of time before you won't be able to get a cheeseburger without FDA approval.

Also, if it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol during the 1920's, what has constitutionally changed since then that a constitutional amendment is not needed to prohibit the use of any other drug?

What has changed is the Democrats and Republicans working hand in hand denying and disparaging our rights over time and having those actions validated by the communist/socialist judges they have confirmed over the years.

"There is a difference between getting addicted to something you start for recreational purposes, ans getting adicted to something you start for medical purposes."

What you and I may percieve as recreational use could be in actuality, self medication. I had an aunt who used Boonesfarm wine to increase her appetite. A friend who uses marijuana to relieve anxiety after a tramatic car accident. In some instances people are seeking a remedy to their pain, emotional or physical.