Posted on 10/17/2003 10:34:06 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Rush Limbaugh may not be arrested, let alone spend time behind bars, for illegally buying narcotic painkillers. "We're not sure whether he will be charged," a law enforcement source told CNN earlier this month. "We're going after the big fish, both the suppliers and the sellers."
If the conservative radio commentator escapes serious legal consequences, there will be speculation about whether a pill popper who wasn't a wealthy celebrity would have received such lenient treatment. Yet the distinction between dealer and user drawn by CNN's source is both widely accepted and deeply imbedded in our drug laws.
That doesn't mean it makes sense. If drug use is the evil the government wants to prevent, why punish the people who engage in it less severely than the people who merely assist them? That's like giving a murderer a lighter sentence than his accomplice.
Another argument for sending Limbaugh to jail was suggested by the talk radio king himself. Newsday columnist Ellis Henican has called attention to remarks Limbaugh made in 1995 concerning the disproportionate racial impact of the war on drugs.
"What this says to me," Limbaugh told his radio audience, "is that too many whites are getting away with drug use....The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river too."
Before we start building a boat for Limbaugh, perhaps we should consider arguments for letting him keep his freedom. The strongest is that it's nobody's business but his if he chooses to take hydrocodone and oxycodone, for whatever reason, as long as he's not hurting anyone else.
When the painkiller story broke, the New York Daily News reported that Limbaugh's lawyers "refused to comment on the accusations and said any 'medical information' about him was private and not newsworthy." But on his show the next day, Limbaugh already was moving away from that position, promising to tell his listeners "everything there is."
A week later, he announced that he had started taking opioids "some years ago" for post-surgical pain, and "this medication turned out to be highly addictive." He said he was entering treatment to "once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me."
By emphasizing the addictive power of narcotics, Limbaugh suggested that the drugs made him do it, belying his declaration that "I take full responsibility for my problem." He also reinforced the unreasonable fear of opioids that results in disgraceful undertreatment of pain in this country. Contrary to Limbaugh's implication, research during the last few decades has found that people who take narcotics for pain relief rarely become addicted to their euphoric effects.
Limbaugh's quick switch from privacy claim to public confession was reminiscent of Bill Bennett's humiliating retreat on the issue of his gambling. Before renouncing the habit, the former drug czar noted that losing large sums of money on slots and video poker hadn't "put my family at risk." Nor does it seem that the time Bennett spent in casinos interfered with his family or professional life. It certainly did not keep him away from TV cameras and op-ed pages.
Likewise, drug use did not stop Limbaugh from signing an eight-year contract reportedly worth $285 million in 2001, or from maintaining a demanding schedule that included three hours on the radio five days a week, or from retaining his status as the nation's leading talk radio host, reaching nearly 20 million listeners on some 600 stations. His case illustrates the distinction between the strength of one's attachment to a substance and its practical impact, which is only made worse by drug laws that transform private problems into public scandals.
Whatever toll Limbaugh's drug habit may have taken on his personal life, it does not seem to have affected his professional performance. If his former housekeeper hadn't ratted on him, we might never have known about all those pills.
I'd say that's how it should have been, except that Limbaugh seems to prefer a different approach. "If people are violating the law by doing drugs," he told his listeners in 1995, "they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." Maybe the government should respect his wishes.
I'm not convinced by the claimes underlined above.
The first web site I found with drug use figures (the home page looks pro-marijuana to me), gives figures of 62 million tobacco users, 111 alcohol users, under 1.8 million cocaine users, 0.6 million heroin users, and 9.9 million marijuana users (a figure several times higher than a government site I also found provides). The disparity in the number of users between marijuana (the most innocuous of the illegal substances) and alcohol (comparable in effect) and tobacco (similar in delivery) suggests that illegality does suppress the use of these substances. And while a six-fold increase in marijuana use (to match tobacco use rates) might not be the end of the world, a six-fold increase in the use of heroin or crack could be. People believe that illegality suppresses use and there is some evidence that it does, so simply claiming that it doesn't is not convincing. Not to me, anyway.
That Rush Limbaugh and other people caught taking illegal drugs are often forced into rehabilitation programs suggests that they do force some people to quit. I'd agree that rehabilitation, rather than jail, should be the focus of anti-drug laws, but would Rush Limbaugh be seeking help for his pain killer addiction if he could buy them over the counter at CVS?
Legalization of drugs and the taxiation thereof demanded by a rational populace, would create no noticable increase in the use of drugs, while not only removing the burden of the WOD from the back of tax-payers but would actually become a source of revenue for the government, while returning drug pushers and drug lords, back to the penny ante pursuit of being the mugging and scam artists they were before the government set out to convince them that crime pays.
See above. Can you prove the underlined statement?
As for organized crime and tax revenue, that's the cost that people are balancing against the cost of increased use. No doubt that's a problem. And I do not doubt that no-knock raids and asset siezure are also a problem.
From an article previously posted by Freeper SlickWillard on October 20, 2003:
Despite his fervent moralizing, he smoked a little pot and watched a little porn (as he has publicly admitted). His first two marriages failed. His second wife, Michelle, told Vanity Fair that Limbaugh’s father never quite approved of his career path, and that Rush would be depressed and deflated every time he got off the phone with his dad. He struggled with his weight, which ballooned to as high as 320 pounds (he now weighs between 250 and 275 pounds).
Did you run out of your prescription drugs?
I think it is a stretch to say that Prohibition almost destroyed the country, just as it is a stretch to say that Bill Clinton almost destroyed American. America is a pretty resilient country.
Prohibition had more people using alcohol than ever before, and made billionaires of bootleggers to the extent that their family dynasties are still screwing up the country to this very day.
You can find people who claim it did or didn't increase alcohol use. From the web searches I've done, it seems that people can find facts to support either conclusion. But more importantly, alcohol is not crack or heroin. As I've said in the past, I think people can draw legitimate parallels between Prohibition and anti-marijuana laws but you should note that bans on opiates and many other drugs pre-date Prohibition and have survived its repeal.
Had there been no prohibition, Teddy you know who, would be just one more drunken slob, wallowing around in his own puke,pee and feces in some nameless gutter, instead of being in a position to block every rational bill that his bleary blood shot eyes behold.
If it weren't Teddy, it would be someone else. The country has no shortage of rich leftists.
I think that's an oversimplification. Some people take recreational drugs because their social circle expects them to. And I would hardly characterize taking pain medication for severe or chronic pain "the easy route". Pain can be incapacitating. Rush Limbaugh apparently has ruptured spinal disks. Take a look into the quantity of pain that can cause. He tried surgery to fix the problem. It failed. And the spine is a very dicey thing to be cutting into.
This is true of both Legal and illegal drugs. Both are serious errors in judgement. both are symtoms of poor character.
I'm sorry, but I do not equate taking pain killers to end severe and chronic pain with poor character. Indeed, I think it is common for people of good character to overestimate their resistence to addiction. And I don't necessarily equate giving into an addiction a sign of poor character, either.
It is true that the manner in which Rush became addicted is, to a degree, less culpable than one that becomes addicted to outright illegal narcotics...and is certainly less criminal. But, he is DEFINITELY NOT AND INNOCENT BYSTANDER.
He is not innocent, to the degree that he may have gotten his drugs from an illegal supplier. But do you fully understand all of the risks of each and every medicine that your doctor prescribes to you? A doctor prescribed the pain killers to Rush. He became addicted to them. Should I expect a medical doctor or a radio announcer to have a better grasp of the health effects of pain killers? Or do you simply think Rush should have endured the pain of a ruptured spinal disk? Or do you discount the idea that addiction can rob an otherwise strong person of their willpower?
He is deserving of severe criticism for his actions especially considering his strong opinions on the subject.
I think the only criticism he deserves is over his lack of sensitivity and understanding toward addicted users. Perhaps he'll display a more well-rounded understanding of drug addiction in the future. As I've asked others, should I draw the conclusion that these pain killers should be sold over the counter like Life Savers or Tic Tacs from Rush's hearing loss and addiction?
Apparently, rush just doesn't have the "intestinal fortude" to be trusted with pain killers as a mature adult would.
I think you miss the point that many mature adults don't have the "intestinal fortitude" to deal with highly addictive substance because the problem with them is that they rob you of your "intestinal fortitude". The brain is a chemical machine that reacts to the chemicals put into it, regardless of your "intestinal fortitude". Just as the famous case of Phineas Gage showed that brain damage can change a person's personality and will:
In 1848 a hardworking young man by the name of Phineas Gage entered the annals of medical history when he survived a horrible accident that drove an iron spike through his head, obliterating part of his frontal cortex. While he could still function after the accident, his demeanor changed. No longer the sober, hardworking young railroad foreman he had been, he now swore profusely, drank, and got into fights.
...so can changing the chemistry of the brain through drugs. As much as we like to romanticize the soul and thing in terms of the mind and body being seperate, the mind is a function of they physical brain. Change the brain and you change the mind. That's what addictive substances do. They rob people of the ability to make rational choices by making their use seem rational and necessary, as necessary as breating, eating, and sleeping.
He took the easy route. He caved in to his appetite...
In what way? By seeking relieve from severe chronic pain? By giving in to a chemical addiction that is a known side effect of the pain killer?
not surprising considering his weight problem...I guess. Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised at his weaknesses.
Ah, so you are one of those people who believe that all weight problems are caused by weakness, too.
Lot me ask you a few personal questions. Do you gain weight if you consume more than 900 calories a day like some overweight people do, yet manage to remain thin? Do you suffer from debilitating chronic pain and manage without pain killers? Have you ever taken a highly addictive substance such as the pain killer that Rush Limbaugh was taking and then stopped taking it? If so, good for you. But all too many people who can eat whatever they want, who live painfree lives, and who can take addictive substances without developing a dependency on them (different people react differently to different substances -- see allergies for examples) seem quite willing to pass judgement on those who have a harder time than they do.
I could eat a box of cupcakes a day when I was growing up and not gain weight (I can still eat cupcakes and not gain weight). Friends I know cannot. Our metabolisms are different. I am one of the thinnest people in my group of friends but that is not because of willpower. It is because (A) my metabolism is slower and (B) I can simply stop eating meals as a way to diet (my hunger pangs are often not very strong).
Note that Rush defeated his weight problem. I'm sure he believed that he had a strong enough will to avoid addiction. And that may have been his problem. Taking your perspective, Rush probably believed that he'd never stoop so low as to engage in illegal activity to get a hold of drugs and would never risk his hearing and his career taking a dangerous substance in excess quantities. He was wrong, because it isn't just about willpower. Willpower can't change the chemistry of your brain but drugs and other substances can. It isn't just people of poor character, low willpower, or who are immature that can't handle addictive substances. They destroy good people, too.
a very disgruntled rush fan.
Stop expecting people to be perfect. They aren't.
Nope, because I make a distinction between the addicted state (e.g. alcoholism) and the act of abusing alcohol. The former is out of an individual's control; the latter is not.
LOL, you really think first time drug offenders get sent to prison. We don't even know if Rush was caught with anything. But say even if they did find some illegally obtain prescription drugs, it would be 'preferential treatment' if the did prosecute him. Usually in these type of cases, when there was a prosecution, the sentence would be rehab, which Rush already did voluntarily.
First, I would like to say that I thought your complete response to my post was well thought out and presented coherently.
As I had suggested to another Freeper who responded to my post concerning my contention that 9th amendment is the constitutional basis for the right to ingest the chemical of our choice, that Freeper also responded to my contentio by quoting the 10th amendment as the constitutional basis for the "states" to prohibit that right, I then reminded that Freeper that the 14th amendment appears to have rendered the 10th amendment superfluous.
With that being said, I would like to ask you, how do you reconcile the 10th amendment with the 14th amendment?
Your reply is welcomed.
Opium was used on the mass scale in XIXc Western countries and the world did not end. To see - search google for "Laudanum". I suspect that the problem is with the artificially enhanced/purified modern drugs, for example cocaine use is worse than original chewing of coca leaves and crack is worse than cocaine.
Where did I say that? Rush should get treated like anyone else in the same circumstances, which would not be jail time.
First, I think that the 14th Amendment is interpreted far too broadly and a clear example can be found in Reynolds v. Sims (Alabama), and Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, which forced state legislatures into representative apportionment by population only under the ideal of "one man, one vote". The idea that the Constitution demands "one man, one vote" is absurd in light of the Senate. Similarly, Everson v Board of Education changed the clear meaning of the 1st Amendment (which starts out with the word Congress) to include the states, and was followed by McCollum v. Board of Education removing religion from schools. It is notable that these cases rely on "due process" and not "immunities or privileges". And constrast these post-Roosevelt decisions with the pre-Roosevelt Slaughterhouse cases.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, one of the privileges granted by the Constitution is that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The 14th Amendment in no way changes the clear meaning of that amendment unless you mean to argue that the 14th Amendment forces state governments to abide by the restricted powers of the Constitution and prohibits the states from excercising any powers not delegated to the United States. If that is so, then the state governments become irrelevant, since their powers would precisely overlap with those of the Federal government. Would you aregue that we should disband the state governments? If not, what purpose do you think they serve?
He seems to be taking full responsibility for his actions. If you complain that he is using a lawyer and will possibly mount a legal defense to possible criminal charges, that's how the system works. Anyone not doing so would be nuts.
Rush can blame his back, his mother, the liberal media, hypocrites, the weather or whatever he wants, but there is only one person who is to blame,
When has he attempted to assign blame elsewhere? He hasn't. He has blamed no one but himself. Sounds like responsibility to me.
You are attacking him for something he has not done.
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.