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.
Yeah, but only if that accomplice was making money by giving multiple murderers the means to commit murders that they otherwise would not have committed.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing he has to answer for is his foolish opinion about drug abusers. All he has to say is, "I was wrong about that," and I'll be satisfied.
Of course, considering how many people I genuinely respect on FR hold the same foolish opinion, I obviously won't be too disappointed if he decides not to change his mind.
It's really no more skin off my nose if he's a hypocrite on this issue, than it is if he takes drugs. I'm more concerned for his recovery, than I am for his ideological consistency.
That Rush may have destroyed his hearing almost ending his career, may have strained his marriage hiding his addiction from his wife, and may have engaged in illegal activity that could put him behind bars suggests to me that often drugs are as evil and dangerous as the government claims they are.
Whats wrong with smoking marijuana for recreational purposes?
What's wrong with just using legal tobacco or alcohol for recreational purposes, instead?
You mean, like, volleyball?
Rush did NOT announce that he had started taking opioids. The National Enquirer did. The author is mixing information from a reliable source with embellished information from a paid informant.
Not really. Prohibition actually caused a substantial drop in the rate of alcohol-related illnesses and deaths, suggesting that it was either stopping people from drinking or moderating their drinking. And if you believe that Prohibition was repealed because of organized crime, then you need to ask yourself why the organized crime created to illegally traffic in drugs hasn't created a similar public outcry to legalize drugs.
I'm a big Rush fan, but he's got a lot to answer for on this one. He has, in the past, espoused legal action against drug users. Now, it comes out that he, too, is a drug user. For whatever reason, his actions do not fit with his words. I don't think he should go to jail, but we (and the rest of us) cannot ignore the hypocrisy between the two.
If I espouse the death penalty for murderers, does that mean I'm a hypocrite if I get caught shoplifting and don't think I should be executed? Apples and oranges.
First, the drugs that Rush Limbaugh became addicted to were originally proscribed by a doctor in order to relieve pain. They were not bought from a pusher for recreational purposes. His alleged illegal activity happened after he became addicted to the substance legally. Second, the very fact that Rush Limbaugh could not control his consumption of these drugs, may have destroyed his hearing (and almost destroyed his career) using them, and had to resort to hiding his addiction from his friends and family and going to illegal suppliers to feed his addiction suggests that selling these pills over the counter is not a good idea.
When he returns, he would best be served by resolving this hypocrisy. I don't believe he's tried to excuse himself, but many people who've posted here have done just that.
Frankly, I don't personally believe that imposing increasingly draconian punishments on casual drug users is the answer, nor would I necessarily oppose the controlled legalization of marijuana. But I think that the opportunism displayed by those who seek the legalization of recreational drugs, comparing pain killers to recreational drugs, is idiotic.
That could be because the little fish chose to maintain their status in the drug world & not cooperate with the investigation.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.
Keep reading...
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.
You claim:
Every U.S. citizen has the "retained" right to ingest the chemical of their choice.
I claim that the power to regulate chemicals and their ingestion is reserved to the States and to the people. Who is right?
In addition, there is no constitutional basis to the contrary.
Sure there is. First, the Constitution governs the Federal Government, not the states (see Amendment X, above). If judges would simply read the plain text of the First Amendment (which clearly mentions Congress and no other government entity), we wouldn't be having the 10 Commandment debate, either. This means that the states are free to prohibit drugs.
You'll notice that Congress isn't granted to authority to prohibit rape, murder, theft, or a host of other crimes, either. Does that mean that you believe that these are rights retained by the people or do you believe that these are powers left to the states?
Second, the Constitution grants congress the authority:
I'll agree, up front, that this power is used to broadly but unless the chemical you are ingesting is created locally from local components, the odds are good that one of these is involved.To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
And if you do not think chemcial ingestation of your choice is a "retained" right, it is only a matter of time then, before you will not be able to ingest a cheeseburger and fries without FDA approval.
Ahhh, the old "slippery slope" argument.
The accusers have a point, but they are also being a bit dishonest. I always find it interesting on what was left out by the "...." in the quote. Here is the full quote with underline under what was left out:
"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. 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."
Rush wasn't neccessarily talking about cracking down more on drug users, just cracking down on all races equally for the same crime. There was a call by liberals to release all drug crime convicts because too many of them were black, and Rush was responding to that. I can see some hypocripsy, but I think it is also misleading with the "..." because it is clear Rush is not necessarily just talking about drug users, as the quote in the article implies, but drug crimes people are in jail for. In fact I would guess very few people are imprison soley for drug usage, but I don't know for sure.
In my opinion? I believe that the legality or illegality of drugs should be handled at the state level, barring a constitutional amendment. I think that the role of the Federal government should be to regulate the trade in substances made illegal by the various states. Is that a terse enough answer for you?
Since nothing is ever done half-way forever, this is going to resolve itself in a generation by either the drug war being abandoned or the establishment of an all-out police state.
I think this assertion is false. Almost every law we have is done "half-way" and does not inevitably get abandoned or result in a police state. That crime exists in almost all areas suggests that no law can be 100% effective. Abuses occur when people expect 100% enforcement. Don't feed that beast, because if you make the only two choices 100% or 0%, people will pick 100% on you and then you'll have your police state.
Either way, the drugs are still going to be here on the streets, in the boardrooms, in private homes and even in the jails where we put people to keep them from dealing.
And? We've got laws against theft, rape, and murder and these things still go on in the streets, in private homes, and in the jails. Are you suggesting that we should make these things legal?
The commerce clause of the Constitution grants congress the authority to regulate the drug trade. All other drug laws belong at the state level. Do you acknowledge that states have the authority to regulate drugs?
The last joint I smoked was to relieve stress from a hard day at the office. I prescribed it myself. I don't buy from pushers, period. Let me or any other common working man go in front of a judge for what Rush has admitted to, with those excuses, and the judge just gets a good laugh before ruining our lives by handing out a prison sentence.
Rush used illegal drugs for years. Rush engaged in a criminal conspirancy to obtain illegal drugs countless times over many years. If I get caught with a joint in my own house, I'll go to jail. Rush'll never see the inside of a jail.
One other thing I've yet to see the Rush kool aide drinkers address... I wonder how many crimes were committed by Rush's dealer while obtaining his illegal drug supply. How many burgularies were committed in Rush's name? Armed robberies? Murders? If my hypothetical purchase of weed from some southern redneck grower supports bin laden, what evil does Rush's drug money do?
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.