Replies

Legalities aside, what Rush did was wrong- period and it is beyond debate.

Wrong in the legal but not moral sense since he took those drugs for pain, not pleasure. Last night I had a minor case of food poisoning. If someone could have given me medication last night to relieve that excruciating stomach pain, I probably would have taken it and worried about the legalities later. It's not like Rush was taking those drungs to get a well, er, rush.

He has condemned this type of behavior for years so he really has two choices:

I've been listening to Rush for years and don't recall him on an anti-drug bandwagon. When he does mention folks taking drugs it was usually done humorously.

He is trying to steer a middle course by blurring his moral failings and hiding behind Roy Black of all people.

After seeing the antics of the judge it is a GOOD thing that he does have a GOOD lawyer.

Rush's behavior is scandalous. I predict the slow and tormented decline of a coward and I am surprised by the support he receives on this forum.

Let us know the date and time of your heavenly accension, Oh Perfect One, so we can wave bye-bye.

It's not like Rush was taking those drungs to get a well, er, rush.

Well, then, if he was in such excruciating pain, why wasn't Rush, with all his wealth, able to find a doctor that would say he needed to have them and prescribe them?

Why did his regular doctors cut him off in 1999?

1. Your emergency analogy is interesting but misplaced. That is covered by the a "justification" defense in most instances. But when the illegal conduct goes on and on, the imminent threat of harm disappears and is no longer excused by society.

2. They have dusted off the old quotes and printed them. I couldn't say if they are true, but I suspect they are. However, most would agree that Rush has generally taken a tough line with law breakers. I agree he doesn't speak out much on drug abuse...perhaps now we know why.

I agree that when you break the law you need a good lawyer and there is none better than Roy Black in that part of the country. That should also tell us something. Most folks go a lifetime without needing a really good criminal lawyer.

If I sound like I was moralizing it was for fun and to provoke a reaction.

Bottom line is that Rush is a admitted drug addict. If we all had a nickel for every entertainer that got hooked on pain killers for a bad back, knee, etc...... this guy is nothing special.

My point is that instead of just owning up to his behavior he is going to drag it out like Clinton. His supporters back him and his detractors will attack him and the rest of us will just listen to Tony Snow...or Prager or whoever. This unfortunately is the Clinton legacy.

Add Rush to the list of celebs that had it all and pissed it away! That's all.

And as far a heavenly accension and perfection. I lay claim to neither - I wonder if you can say the same for El Rushbo!

Well pleasure is allowed too. Morally allowed. Nor are aggravation, mortification and self-denial meritorious in and of themselves. The law does not and should not compel us to wear hair shirts, whip ourselves or lacerate ourselves.

Rush was obviously a hoghly functioning, astute, hard-working adult and there are no reports of violence, of theft, of reackless behaviour that endangers others ... or even himself.

What exactly about his oxycontin use was *criminal*? Do we hold to absolute values? -- The Founder's Natural Rights doctrine also implies absolute "natural" values, that is that there are acts which are criminal, by their very nature.

Drug use is NOT one of them.

What is *criminal* is holding people to harsh account for acts which by Natural Rights are not criminal!