Limbaugh Takes Off Gloves: Blasts Coverage, Investigation of Drugs

The Rush Limbaugh Show via The Drudge Report ^ | December 23, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[_Jim]

Get real... deal with the issue or back off and allow someone with guts and knowledge to handle it ...

SINCE we can't actually 'force' a belief or anything on anyone - the marking of such rabid individuals as yourself on these topics is the only recourse left AFTER having exhausted the more rational course of argument -

- THAT'S where we stand.

If you wish to stray of on some tangent inspired by loonacy - make yourself at home.

You'll be pleased to note, too, that the *two* judges who signed the search warrant did so NOT knowing certain facts (such as Wilma Cline's husband was a convicted drug trafficker because and was living under an assumed name and was a fugitive from a federal conviction) as withheld by those persuing said search warrants.

Also, counsel for Limbaugh arges that the state a) did not follow the least intrusive mans to obtain Limbaugh's med records; rather than a subpoena with hearings in court before and after said subpoena request - FORCE was used via a search warrant obtained under near fraudulent conditions as presented to the two judges who issued said warrant and b) proper procedure under Fla state law was also disregarded.

You're down points now brother - squirm out of this headlock why don't ya ...

[_Jim]

Well I realy [sic] DON'T know it..

I'm not really here to act as your "trainer"; if the training wheels have come off your trike - do some studying of your own:

Court proceeding transcript - Hearing on Rush's Medical Records

[RS]

You'll be pleased to note, too, that the *two* judges who signed the search warrant did so NOT knowing certain facts (such as Wilma Cline's husband was a convicted drug trafficker because and was living under an assumed name and was a fugitive from a federal conviction) as withheld by those persuing said search warrants.

Bull - first that they did not know it , second that they thought it would make a difference......

[jagrmeister]

In the context of this debate, you are comparing "doctor-shopping" for legal prescription drugs (comparable to jaywalking) with use of hard drugs like cocaine. The severity of each crime is night and day.

[jagrmeister]

Yes, I am Rush. No, I am a cynic when it comes to this investigation and I doubt the integrity of the prosecutor's office.

[jagrmeister]

We're evaluating the severity of crimes. Acquiring legal drugs, even indirectly through doctor-shopping (the equivalent of jaywalking), is one thing. Using hard drugs like cocaine is another. Limbaugh has always spoken on the latter. The psychotropic influence of hard drugs are such that they are often found in the system of those committing violent crimes. How many violent criminals are "under the influence" of Demoral? Not many.

[Nanodik]

Using hard drugs like cocaine is another

Oxycodone isn't a hard drug? Better tell that to RL's ears. Oh yeah, they won't hear you.

The psychotropic influence of hard drugs are such that they are often found in the system of those committing violent crimes.

So is alcohol, but I don't see a big temperance movement to reduce crime. The reason drugs (hard or not) are often associated with crime is because THEY ARE ILLEGAL SO CRIMINALS ARE THE ONLY ONES WILLING TO ENGAGE IN SELLING THEM. Drugs, legal or not, do not make you commit crimes. Some drugs to have an effect of removing inhibitions so if you were criminally inclined before taking the drug, you will be more so after. The drug did not create the criminal, it only helped embolden him.

[templar]

In the context of this debate, you are comparing "doctor-shopping" for legal prescription drugs (comparable to jaywalking) with use of hard drugs like cocaine

I don't think I've compared anything to anything. Posession of prescription drugs, a narcotic in this case, without a prescription, or posession of a narcotic of any sort that has been obtained without a prescription even when the user has other quantities legally obtained with a prescription, is a violation of Federal narcotics laws. This does not make any comparisons with anything. The fact that these drugs can be obtained by prescription does not nescessarily make them less dangerous than any narcotic that cannot be obtained by prescription (which is why they are restricted), or their illegal posession and use any less illegal or any less dangerous. The restriction of being prescription only (for their legal use) is a means of minimizing the danger of their use by placing them under strict supervision of physicians. Circumventing that restriction in any manner is a violation of the laws covering their use.

[Brian Allen]

#109 -- the degeneration of your attempted defense of your favorite criminal drug habituated degenerate into ad-hominen attack is all that this thread notes -- and records.

Every word I have written on this thread and on others during the fifteen years I have listened to and corresponded with Mr Limbaugh is verifiable fact -- and a part of the Public Record -- and the best you can project here -- and every time you spew forth is emotional vomitus.

The Mr Limbaugh I know and -- his Human falibility notwithstanding -- love, cannot possibly subscribe to nor support your modus operendi and you aught afford Mr Limbaugh the courtesy of putting a bloody sock in it.

While meanwhile I continue to do Mr Limbaugh the courtesy of affording him the dignity of the consequences of his own voluntarily-criminal actions and activities.

[RS]

Is it that you believe that EVERY lawyer tells the absolute truth, or is it simply Mr. Black ?

Remember Black filed an EMERGENCY petition under the resoning that Rushs doctors could not treat him without the records.

Was this a lie or incompetance ?

In the transcript he says he subsequently found out that they had made copies... so he is pleading incompetance, but I suspect he is a liar.

But from not filing the appeal in time to prevent the DA from opening the records, it appears there is some incompetance there also.

[jagrmeister]

Your post illustrates one of the problems with butting into a conversation where you are obvlivious of the context. Next time, read the thread more carefully. This discussion had to do with whether or not Limbaugh is a hypocrite on the matter of drug use. Now re-read the posts and evaluate whether your post is even relevant in that context.

[jagrmeister]

Discussing alcohol is a red herring. The comparison is pain-killers to hard drugs. The latter factor into violent crime, the former do not.

[blackie]

Rush Will Persevere!

Be Well ~ Be Armed ~ Be Safe ~ Molon Labe!

[Nanodik]

Discussing alcohol is a red herring.

Not really. You are trying to justify your distinction using the fact that you can make an association between illicit drugs and crime, suggesting that there is a causal relationship between the two. I pointed out that alcohol could also be related to crime and made the point that the relationship would at best be a very weak correlation. I think we could agree that most people who drink alcohol do not commit crimes. We could also agree that most people who take prescription narcotics do not commit crimes. I think it also follows that most people who take illicit narcotics do not commit any other crimes other than the fact that govt considers such activity itself criminal.

I actually hope RL does well with his recovery from addiction. I am sure it is a tough road to travel. I just wish he would mature a bit with his views on drugs. Hypocrisy may be a far harder addiction for him to kick.

[templar]

I've reviewd my posts and find them relevant. You are seem to be defending illegal use of narcotic drugs by Rush by because such drugs can be obtained by legal prescription and discounting their narcotic nature for this reason. I am simply pointing out that you are wrong about the nature of the drugs and that using prescription drugs in violation of laws governing their use (i.e. 'doctor shopping' and 'maid shopping') is illegal and just as much of a drug crime as is street purchase of the same or other regulated narcotics. I haven't taken any side on the issue of Rush at all; whether his is or is not being persued for political reasons. Just the issue of his drug use being illegal by pointing out that this is what the law makes illegal.

Perhaps you also should review the thread ot determine that this is one of the topics being discussed here; the illegality of the drug use in the manner in which it was being used.

[jagrmeister]

If the doctor-shopping crime sticks, it should be punished with the same "ferocity" we punish jaywalking. It doesn't merit the inordinate amount of resources and manpower that the prosecutor's office is putting into it. It's a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

[jagrmeister]

In that case, you have to measure the percentage of people who drink alchol, which is quite high, compared to the percentage who commit crimes under the influence, which is quite low. There is not a high correlation. In contrast, you must compare the percentage that use hard drugs, quite low, with the percentage of violent crimes in which the perpetrator is under the influence of hard drugs, which is not insignificant. We have drawn distinctions in society between drugs based on their addictive qualities, and while we can have a separate discussion on the war on drugs, our penal code treats prescription drugs and hard drugs differently. Rush's comments on hard drug users bear only superficial comparison to the charge against him of "doctor-shopping".

[Nanodik]

with the percentage of violent crimes in which the perpetrator is under the influence of hard drugs, which is not insignificant

I am not sure that one could get a good measure of this, but I would assume, that since the people who use illicit drugs are obviously not as concerned with the law, and that since the supply of illicit drugs is controlled by the criminal element that you may in fact be correct. However, this does not make the relationship between the two causal. I would argue that the WOD in fact is the causal factor here.

We have drawn distinctions in society between drugs based on their addictive qualities

This is an absurd statement. It is obvious that opiates are very addictive yet some are legal and others are not. Tobacco is very addictive as is caffeine. They are also very legal. Cannabis in not addictive (physically) yet is illegal. We could go on here. The fact is that the WOD is supported by prudish people who want to control what others do in privacy of their own home. RL is one of those people. I remember him berating some guy wanting to legalize pot as being "selfish", yet he was railing at the same time against those who want to outlaw tobacco. Make any sense? My drugs are good because they are legal and yours are bad because they are illegal. And don't think of trying to make mine illegal.

Like I said I hope this opens up RL's eyes to the fact that treating the recreation use of drugs as a criminal activity will only drive those in most need of help to a place where they are least likely to get it.

[jagrmeister]

Where do I begin? Marijuana is not physically addictive, but considered psychologically addictive. Is caffeine addictive? Probably in the same sense that trial lawyers contend that fatty foods are addictive. The problem with those who argue the war on drugs is a sham is that they make absurd comparisons between the addictive qualities of caffeine versus harder drugs like heroin. Finally, I addressed the fact that the therapeutic qualities of a drug are taken into consideration which is why pain-killer opiates are legal, and in some states, marijuana for medical purposes is legal.

[Nanodik]

and in some states, marijuana for medical purposes is legal

A law was passed in AZ for medical marijuana but doctors were afraid to prescribe it as the feds threatened prosecution.

I can point to a least 4 places in the US constitution that would make the WOD illegal. If a drug was used recreationally by a large portion of the populace prior to the WOD, it is considered legal. If it was not, well then it is illegal. There is no real rational for the WOD other than it is to appease prudes who are afraid that someone might be something to have a good time in an "unnatural way". The same thought process leads to people in some states getting busted by vice cops for selling someone a vibrator.

My real concern here is not drugs. It's donuts. You see, I consider the choice of what you put into your own body to be a basic God-given, inalienable right second only to the right to life. If we can not say that we can choose what to eat, drink or smoke, can we really say that we are free? Today it is drugs, tomorrow it will be tobacco and then you will see people like RL bitch and moan and complain about the over-reaching federal govt. But you see, by tolerating the WOD you have already admitted that govt ought to be able to make those decisions for us. You could not argue that tobacco is not addictive (I quit smoking, I know) or that anyone really needs it. It's just like donuts. Sure they are bad for you, but man I just love them. I could go my entire life without one and not suffer any harm. Is there any justification for letting someone sell me donuts? I'll let you answer that.