Posted on 10/16/2003 10:48:07 AM PDT by noprob
No, that's where you're confused. In your rush to come to Limbaugh's defense, you falsely accuse those of us who agree with the LP's take on the wod of wanting Rush jailed on a National Enquirer article, while using the same article as proof he didn't break the law by acquiring controlled substances in an unlawful matter.
When the truth is, those of us against the WOD believe a man like Rush; a successful, wealthy, upstanding member of society. A man who spent much of his time in the public eye and always seemed sober as a church mouse, should have the right to buy as much medicine through his doctor as they deem neccessary, and on his own time, get as numb as he wants, untill his actions affect others.
Wih no dea restrictions on prescriptions, Rush wouldn't have been forced to obtain medicine from someone other than his doctor, who might have noticed Rush's addiction and convinced him to seek treatment.
On the other hand, the drug laws you pro-wod types champion is what's demanding Limbaugh do time if it's proven he commmited a federal offense by acquiring a schedule 2 controlled substance without a prescription. Regardless of whether he obtained them for pain or a buzz, a law is a law, right?
And in the five years Rush did those pain pills, I wonder how many times Rush drove while having that oxy in his system, breaking the dui drugs laws you pro-wod types champion. The law is for everybody, right?
If you were intellectually honest, you pro-wod types would admit to yourselves that you are the ones to blame for giving the leftist media all this ammo to bash Rush while us anti-wod types think it's nobody's business but Rush's and his doctor.
But no, like you do with the failed presidential campaigns of Bush1 and Dole, you blame the libertarians. You lash out by answering logical posts like mine and others by slinging the doper slur, while refusing to take the responsibilty of your posistions.
Just for fun, I'll post what I think the intellectually honest posistions should be side by side:
Anti-wod : Rush would be in no danger whatsoever of going to jail.
Pro-wod : If Rush was proven to be purchasing schedule two prescription narcotics from someone other than a lawful source, then he broke the laws I champion and should be prosecuted.
Do you agree with that?
This is a famous quote. I have no idea if it's true. Do you know of any specific instances in recent times? It may be the most effective way but there are many sitting out mandatory minimum sentences who may argue it's not the best. The idea of enforcing it ruthlessly, including the powerful, is certainly a means of bringing the conversation to a meaningful level.
Agreed. Prayers for Rush.
"Pro-wod : If Rush was proven to be purchasing schedule two prescription narcotics from someone other than a lawful source, then he broke the laws I champion and should be prosecuted.
Interesting. But the evidence is long gone. And the subject has put himself into rehab for an acquired abuse due to failed surgery.
Interesting. We don't know either way what the evidence is. That's how y'all defend his innocence.
"And the subject has put himself into rehab for an acquired abuse due to failed surgery."
After a national enquirer story everyone claimed was false, until Rush admitted being addicted.
Notice my pro wod argument started out with the word "if".
No, he didn't, and he was accused of being involved in an illegal act.
First off, if he had a perscription, the drugs WERE NOT ILLEGAL. We simply don't know what his involvement was with this woman. Remember who she's being represented by...
The simple fact is that he admitted to being addicted to perscription drugs, not that he has done anything illegal or wrong! Try to remember that an addiction to perscription pain killers happens easily, while controling chronic pain.
Mark
My point is this: We cannot pretend to know what is best for an individual. It should be up to the individual to make the right decisions in their life, not the government to make those decisions for you.
We don't lock people up because they might do something bad, we lock them up WHEN they do something bad.
Crack addicts on the street, so long as they don't do any real harm to anyone but themselves, are no burdan to me. Same with steroids... Who cares if some dude wants to juice up, unless he throws that steroid rage on someone and punches them out, then lock them up.
People have lots of reasons why they should or should not take drugs. Were not children, we can make decisions on our own.
Actually I'm WAY more hostile towards Social Security, Medicade, and forced income tax. They could have the WOD if I got that control of my money back.
Had he had prescription, he wou;d have already said so, he didn't.
You can politicize and hope all you want, but facing the truth will be Rush's only chance of getting through this.
not everything in the world is a conspiracy.
You need to try remembering that ANY addiction happens easily.
But you presume there is an actual intellectually honest side to the LP. As with your other presumptions, that is where the LP comes up seriously lacking.
And I believe the exact opposite. Making drugs legal does grave damage to all three areas you mentioned.
People want and need boundaries.
Your right meth is a hard drug. I have to ask though, what would have throwing this mother or dad in jail have helped?
BTW, I have also seen first hand what damage it can do.. The person I saw, did lose his "normal" life, and eventually did get sent to jail, only county jail.
As soon as he was released, he spent a few weeks apologizing and trying to come clean, but then lost it again.
It's tragic, but treatment is the only thing that could help these people, jail doesn't. The WOD doesn't..
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.