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.
Oh, lost my head; I forgot about the double standard:
1. For Conservatives:
Values are respected, do not change with the calendar or situation, and accountability is a way of life.
2. For LSP:
Anything goes anytime it is desired along the lines of "if it feels good, do it", and if someting turns out badly it's GOT to be mistaken identity or someone elses fault (NO accountability).
Rush is taking responsibility and is not making excuses or trying to blame anyone else. He's got more class in his little finger than any LSP ever had in their entire being.
Hurry back, Rush! Your substitute hosts do an excellent job, but we miss your particular flair!
Addiction is incurable???? I guess no one has ever quit alcohol, smoking or drugs. I don't even buy that it is a disease. Drug addiction is a condition, one that is partially self-inflicted. Rush is addicted to a particularly harsh drug and will need our prayers and a lot of hard work to beat it, but if anyone can beat it is Rush. Rush is partially to blame for his condition, and I am sure he would be the first to admit that.
Thank you again for your nice post.
I suppose we are all gay too, we just don't admit it....
The commerce clause grants congress the power to regulate commerce that crosses from one state to another. Yes, the states do have the right to regulate the drug trade within their respective borders by means of their state constitutions and laws as long as they doesn't run afoul of rights granted to individuals by the US Constitution. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been bastardized over the last century to grow federal power.
This is a lie. A quick google turned up these two recent references from Florida -- this, from by no means a comprehensive search.
In addition, Sheriff’s detectives arrest 28 St. Lucie County, FL residents on prescription fraud, “doctorshopping” and other drug-related offenses. http://www.stluciesheriff.com/annual-report/2001/ar_2001_11-15.pdf
In July, 24 people were arrested as part of a drug sting in St. Lucie County, where law enforcement and pharmacies cooperated to disrupt an informal distribution network. Most of the 24 who were arrested were once legitimately ill or disabled and living off Social Security or veteran’s benefits that enabled them to get prescriptions. FDLE Office of Statewide Intelligence Prescription Drug Abuse – August 2001 http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:NiC8jgWB6LcJ:www.fdle.state.fl.us/OSI/CrimeBriefs/RxAbuse.pdf+oxycontin+arrest+statistics&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
I pray Rush is treated compassionately, medically, not criminally. I pray his case is the catalyst for all people suffering like he is to be cleared of criminal charges.
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.