Rush and Drugs - Conservative Dilemna

Daily journal ^ | Steve Dasbach

[twittle]

Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh has confirmed the rumors -- he's addicted to prescription pain medication. It's obvious that he has broken our nation's drug laws. Which poses an interesting dilemma for his fellow conservatives.

According to Rush and other conservative drug warriors, "Drug users ought to be convicted and sent up" as Rush himself put it.

*Sent up, as in sent to prison.

*So here's the conservative dilemma: Should Rush, a self-admitted "drug user," be "convicted and sent up"?

*If they say yes, they're advocating silencing the most powerful and influential conservative voice in America -- imprisoning a man they admire and respect. If they say no, they're contradicting everything they've claimed for years about the need to fight the War on Drugs with stiff criminal penalties, including jail time, for drug users.

Do conservatives think that society will be better off if their friend and idol Rush serves a long stretch behind bars as "punishment" for his drug use? Or that a long prison term will somehow "rehabilitate" him? If not, then why would they advocate such treatment for the sons and daughters and friends of ordinary Americans?

*Conservatives argue that stiff criminal penalties, including jail time, are necessary to deter drug use. But such penalties failed to deter Rush, a strong-willed individual who preaches self-reliance, responsibility and the importance of the rule of law for three hours every day. If draconian drug laws and mandatory minimum sentences didn't deter him, how likely are they to deter lesser mortals?

One presumes that conservatives embrace the ideals expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance, including "justice for all." That means the same laws are supposed to apply to everyone, whether it's a wealthy celebrity like Rush or a faceless inner-city man mired in poverty. In fact, Rush himself has advocated jail time for athletes and Hollywood celebrities who use drugs.

So if conservatives still believe that drug users should be sent to prison, doesn't that mean that Rush should be imprisoned too?

Some conservatives seem to be having problems coming to grips with this dilemma. When the bombastic Ann Coulter was repeatedly asked if she thought Rush should be sent to prison, the best she could come up with was a lame comment that if her mother committed murder, she wouldn't want her sent to prison. Sorry, but that really isn't an answer.

Another prominent conservative focused on the fact that Rush got hooked on legal drugs, conveniently ignoring the fact that he bought them illegally, and that the drug laws conservatives support make no such distinctions. As far as the law is concerned, Rush is no different than the person who buys marijuana, cocaine, or heroin.

So how will conservatives resolve this dilemma? Some will probably decide to sacrifice Rush on the altar of principle. Others will demonstrate by their actions that they are simply hypocrites. They'll support Rush in his time of need while continuing to advocate prison for other drug users.

But perhaps, just perhaps, Rush's addiction will be the catalyst that prompts fair-minded conservatives to reevaluate their unquestioning support for the War on Drugs. Perhaps they'll decide that if it makes sense to let Rush decide for himself how to deal with his drug problem, perhaps it makes sense to let other drug users make their own decisions as well.

*This isn't an abstract issue for me. As the father of four nearly grown children, I've had to face the challenges posed by tobacco, alcohol, and drug availability that all parents must confront. Of all the fears associated with confronting these issues, my greatest fear has always been the one Rush's friends are confronting now -- the possibility that someone I care for will make a bad choice and have their lives destroyed by the criminal justice system that is supposed to protect us.

Nothing will be gained by sending Rush to prison. Nothing is gained by imprisoning other less-famous drug users either. If Rush's fellow conservatives resolve their dilemma with compassion, perhaps we can all agree to stop treating drug use as a crime and stop wasting lives. And we can continue to enjoy "Excellence in Broadcasting" for many years to come.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

How are things over at du these days?

[Protagoras]

How are things over at du these days?

Which of course, avoids the question altogether.

[Physicist]

If they say no, they're contradicting everything they've claimed for years about the need to fight the War on Drugs with stiff criminal penalties, including jail time, for drug users.

Well, not me boss, but suppose for a moment that I am in favor of the drug war. So what if I give Rush a pass? Why does everyone seem to agree that for Rush (or conservatives, or conservatism) simply to remain inconsistent on this one minor issue is some sort of inconceivable, intolerable disaster? It's not like there aren't other issues where people are open to charges of hypocrisy.

[trebb]

Funny how the "libs" only see a dilemma as a convenience for dealing with conservatives. Amongst themselves, there is no dilemma because they can spout off on whatever they want and then do the exact opposite, with malice and just chalk it up to their "Constitutional rights". I admit to being disappointed with Rush, but am willing to give him the opportunity to do the rehab thing and get on with business.

[Wonder Warthog]

"So here's the conservative dilemma: Should Rush, a self-admitted "drug user," be "convicted and sent up"?

No dilemma whatsoever. As of the current instant, Rush is innocent of criminal activity (as must be assumed by our legal system).

If, in future, he is tried and found guilty of illegal activities in association with his addiction, then he should get whatever the punishment mandated by the law.

[hobbes1]

But perhaps, just perhaps, Rush's addiction will be the catalyst that prompts fair-minded conservatives to reevaluate their unquestioning support for the War on Drugs.

Fair Minded ones already have. Small minded ones have not.

[don'tbedenied]

This article is fair and not a hit piece. It accurately states the logical dilemma Rush's unfortunate addiction gives to hard core drug warriors.

[Rudder]

Nothing will be gained by sending Rush to prison. Nothing is gained by imprisoning other less-famous drug users either.

Doesn't sound like a liberal to me.

[ThanhPhero]

Theere is no inconsistency here. Rush never said that people addicted to pain meds should be incarcerated. He has expressed pity for such and perhaps a bit of contempt but has not condemned them to prison. It is like saying that drivers of little red cars are crazy and 5 years later being shrilly accused of saying that drivers of semis should all be sent to the nuthouse.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

This isn't a hit piece.

If the allegations of Rush's lawbreaking prove true in a court of law, he should be sent up the river as a major narcotics trafficker/dealer . . . if we're to be consistend w/r/t the Drug War. What's so difficult about that?

[TazforPrez]

As a Libertarian I still feel that only crimes against others should be punished. Introducing chemicals into your body is probably not the smartest thing to do, but millions of people do it everyday in America. Between coffee, cigs, alchohol, and a couple of thousand over the counter medications half the people in this country are on some kind of drug at any given time. Oh I forgot the GOVERNMENT told us these were okay to take. Although I think Rush was a bit of a hypocrite I still think he needs treatment, not jail time.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The crime of which he's accused of (allegedly) is purchasing his drugs on the black market. According to reports, Rush was trafficking a large about of Hillbilly H . . . enough to make him a dealer/distributor in the eyes of the law.

[SpinyNorman]

"So here's the conservative dilemma: Should Rush, a self-admitted "drug user," be "convicted and sent up"?

If prosecuted, he would get what most every other first offender gets, probably a suspended sentence, probation, and/or community service.

If he is a repeat offender, then let the law take its course. I think he covers the community service angle every day, but a little extra anti drug talk wouldn't hurt.

I still differentiate between pushing, procuring for purely recreation use (prescription or non prescription), and addiction via painkillers (I have three friends and two family members that are fighting addictions, and I see it first hand). Always have, always will. Before and after Rush.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

My apologies. I should have read the piece closer. This is an anti-woddie hit piece.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

As I said to rudder. My apologies. I have now realized that this is an anti-woddie hit piece.

[SpinyNorman]

The crime of which he's accused of (allegedly) is purchasing his drugs on the black market. According to reports, Rush was trafficking a large about of Hillbilly H . . . enough to make him a dealer/distributor in the eyes of the law.

Whoa, big fella!! How did Rush get promoted to pusher/trafficker? Who said anything about that? Why would he need to? More money? The glamorous aura of a pusher?

When you have evidence of him selling drugs, let me know.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

By the way, if Rush did the crime, he should do the time.

[Physicist]

Theere is no inconsistency here.

That's not the point. People are reacting as if the slightest whiff of inconsistency means the final ruin of conservatism. It just isn't so.

[Scenic Sounds]

What purpose would be served by punishing for becoming an addict?

I hold absolutely no animosity toward Rush for having developed this health problem. However, I do have to confess that some sort of uncontrollable weakness leads me to wish that I could be an observer at a few of the group therapy sessions he's participating in. ;-)