What Rush Should Do

Vanity | 10-24-03 | Always Right

[Always Right]

Rush Limbaugh needs to resolve this malicious prosecution as quickly as possible and do so to the benefit everyone. The case the prosecutors are building against Rush appears likely to be trumped up charge of money laundering and doctor shopping. Rush’s real crime was becoming addicted to pain-medication, which he has admitted and has sought appropriate treatment for. Rush is a first-time offender and should be punished as such. The prosecutor however has given immunity to the maid for much more serious charges to pursue these minor charges against Rush. It is unheard of that a prosecutor would do this, and the only explanations can be the prosecutor is seeking personal gain from this case or is on some political vendetta. This type of prosecution is unethical and should stop. If this was any other person, this case would not have been pursued or there would have been a reasonable plea-bargain long ago. This is will be a very expensive case if it goes to trial, and the level of this crime is clearly not worth spending more tax dollars on.

So what should Rush do? If I were Rush, I would immediately pledge $2 million dollars to drug treatment programs in Florida. However, for every dollar the prosecutor spends from now on this over-zealous prosecution, I would reduce that pledge. I would also volunteer to speak out against drug abuse around the state and give Florida a few PR announcements on his program. It is a joke of that prosecutors are apparently seeking to put Rush in jail for this. Rush has been as open as possible on this subject without putting himself at the complete mercy of this over zealous prosecutor. Yes, Rush should pay for his crime, but the punishment must fit the offense. The politics of personal vendettas and personal gains has no place in criminal prosecutions.

[Conspiracy Guy]

No argument there. You're Always Right.

[Hildy]

You're joking, right? You are suggesting that Rush buy his way out of this? Yea, that'll go over well.

[zencat]

Almost completely right with the exception of: "Rush’s real crime was becoming addicted to pain-medication."

1. It's not a crime to be addicted.
2. He started on it legitimately for back pain.

That said, he's already admitted it was wrong to continue to use it, particularly in the quantity he was using which constitutes abuse.

[Always Right]

You're joking, right? You are suggesting that Rush buy his way out of this? Yea, that'll go over well.

What I propose is a win-win proposition. Why should millions be wasted on lawyers on this case? Under the current path, there will be no winners, except for those with some personal vendetta. There is no state interest in pursuing this case.

[Always Right]

Bump....

[Don Corleone]

The smell of the Clintons and the DNC are all over this thing!

[Catspaw]

Roy Black, Rush's lawyer, was a Clintonista talking head during impeachment times.

[ContemptofCourt]

Oh, I see...Rush should buy his way out of this, while others who are going to be prosecuted under the new FL doctor-shopping law will go to jail. Tremendous logic.

Do you know for a fact that Rush was not doctor shopping?

[Nick Thimmesch]

To be an "addict" -- which Limbaugh himself has described as his condition -- one must be addicted to some substance and/or behavior. That "addictive" substance -- be it Oxy, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, or tobacco & alcohol -- may be a controlled substance or it may not. If the addiction is to a controlled substance -- even if, as Limbaugh continues to hide behind, the substances are "prescription" drugs -- then that substance must either be legally (eg methadone is distributed by authorized medical or criminal justice facilities) obtained or illegally obtained (eg "the black market", dealers, friends or even manufactured by the addict themselves). If Rush became an "addict" to Oxy and other "presciption" drugs and illegally obtained, possessed, used and possibly distributed to others those drugs, then like it or not, in terms of "the law", he is a criminal. Please refer to U.S. Code (federal penalities) and Florida state laws for the prescribed penalties of these crimes. If tried and convicted, Rush should be held accountable, as we would expect of any other criminal. IMHO: he should stop taunting and accusing and either get himself REALLY straight or shut up.

[ContemptofCourt]

There is no state interest in pursuing this case.

Thisis a ridiculous statement. There is a huge state interest in pursuing this case. They are making Rush the prime example of the new doctor-shopping law. What better way to impress upon the citizens of FL the state-perceived importance of the law, than by going after a high-profile celeb?

[LIBERTARIAN JOE]

There is no state interest in pursuing this case

Sure there is... to increase the power of the state over the sheeple. To make a political point (destroy the "conservative" voice). To employ cops, judges, lawyers, prison employees. To punish Rush for possesion of gov't-unapproved intoxicants. To punish his conspiracy to obtain those intoxicants. To perpetuate a war on the people & their liberties 100 years old and still going strong.

Rush probably has too much money to see the inside of a jail, but they'll get a lot of that money from him before it's over & it'll provide a good lesson to the sheep: "if we can take down someone like Rush, just think what ewe can do to you!"

[JFC]

The smell of the Clintons and the DNC are all over this thing!


Your right there... I was listening yesterday and thinking, I would not be suprised if Bill and Hillary would have hired a hit man. The LEFT has had it out of RUSH for a long time, not to mention the Barbara Streisands of the the world.

THOSE of us who KNOW Rush..... SUPPORT RUSH.

[ContemptofCourt]

State senator calls for investigation into prescriptions

By Bob Mahlburg and Doris Bloodsworth Tallahassee Bureau Posted December 3 2003

TALLAHASSEE · The head of the Florida Senate's health committee said Tuesday he is requesting a legislative investigation into doctors who overprescribe the powerful prescription painkiller OxyContin.

Sen. Burt Saunders, R-Naples, said he was prompted to act by a series of articles about prescription drug abuse in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Orlando Sentinel.

"It's not only very damaging to the public but costly to the state, so there's every reason to do this," he said.

OxyContin has been linked to more than 200 deaths in Florida, and many victims were taking prescriptions but suffered accidental overdoses or addiction. In addition to the human toll, Saunders said, billing abuses and Medicaid fraud involving the drug are wasting taxpayer money.

"The state is losing tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars because of this," he said. "It's a huge issue."

Saunders said he will ask Senate President Jim King next week to name a select panel of legislators to investigate problems, hear testimony from experts and recommend changes in state law.

Gov. Jeb Bush on Tuesday directed his drug czar James McDonough to "lay the groundwork for a comprehensive solution to this fatal and expensive form of drug abuse" during a meeting set for Dec. 12 with several state agency heads and Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist.

Among the issues Bush cited in a letter to McDonough was "doctor shopping and pharmacy hopping," suspect Internet pharmacy sales, adulteration and illegal importation of prescription drugs "and other various allegations of illegalities."

"We must preserve the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, guarantee the best possible pain management and medical services, and ensure the privacy of the individual. At the same time, however, we must halt the widespread abuses …and decrease the deadly and expensive consequences that come with such abuses," Bush wrote.

Am I missing the state interest?

[Conspiracy Guy]

I don't think that the state offering his source immunity for turning evidence against him the buyer makes sense. Some WOD.

[jraven]

I love the double standards. When this happened I predicted to friends that some folks in the end would blame the whole thing on Bill and Hillary and so would Rush. Somehow we have lost the days when conservatives stuck to unflinching principles that were applied to everyone, including themselves, the days when Barry Goldwater and Will F Buckley and, yes, Ronald Reagan were at the vanguard of conservativism. Now what we do is demand certain things (punishments, etc.) for others and react in a certain way (demand a hard line on sentences for drug offenders) for some...but not for those our side. Everything in the world is not because of Bill and Hillary's power....because if they were that powerful the Democrats would still be in control. NO matter what evidence ever came out, there are some who will defend Rush because he is our friend. So our friends can't behave in the way we would demand it of others. Similarly, I don't see a lot on this site about the case of the governor of Connecticut.
Yes, it's all because these are all partisan Democrats out to get Rush because he has articulated views many (including me) agree with.
In the end Rush may be 100 percent innocent and he IS innocent until proven guilty and, yes, there is no accusation of illegal drugs. But I am amazed how immediately some will blame "the Clintons" as behind behind it and conclude it is all "trumped up." No one on our side can ever do wrong, and if they do we will excuse them because their hearts are pure. But let a Democrat or someone not famous do the same thing -- stiff sentences, get them off the street, their lawyers are merely hired hacks lying to save their skins.
(It's raining outside. The Clintons did it)

[Always Right]

Oh, I see...Rush should buy his way out of this, while others who are going to be prosecuted under the new FL doctor-shopping law will go to jail. Tremendous logic.

Oh puh_leeez show me one case in Florida where this has been pursues as the major offense. Every case I have seen also has more serious charges of dealing and fraud involved. Here the prosecutor by-passed more serious charges to go after Rush. This case is a malicious prosecution.

Do you know for a fact that Rush was not doctor shopping?

Do you know he did? From the details I have seen it depends on the interpretation of the law. If Rush obtained prescriptions from different doctors for different ailments, there may have been no doctor shopping offense. Reguardless, it is a stupid law, IMHO, in response to a serious problem (people are using doctors to obtain multiple prescriptions to re-sell to others). The real problem is the dealing those drugs to other people and in a lot of cases these are kids. This law was made so presecutors did not have to prove the real offense (re-selling the drugs), so convictions would be easier. Which makes it a bad law, IMHO.

[KDD]

A JUDGMENT TO RUSH


by


Russell Madden


http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Judgment_to_Rush.html


The recent brouhaha regarding radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, and his self-described addiction to prescription pain medicine has revealed the moral bankruptcy of those who occupy the supposedly opposite ends of the political spectrum. Both liberal and conservative commentators have evidenced their usual propensity for selective focus and their utter disdain for anything remotely resembling logic and consistency. As for principles...that remains a creature shrouded in mystery and terror to those who swim in the mainstream.

While Limbaugh has admitted to a dependence on painkillers following an unsuccessful back surgery, he has not yet discussed the source for those pills he "abused." Allegations continue to float that he obtained illicit medicine via a connection provided by a former housekeeper. Florida police acknowledge an on-going investigation but decline to provide details as to Limbaugh's alleged involvement in illegal drug transactions.

As stories swirled throughout the media, Limbaugh announced to his audience that he intended to check himself into a rehabilitation center for a third try at breaking his addiction. He said he was "not making any excuses," that he was "no role model" given his reliance on pain medication to make his life bearable, and that he is "not a victim" but takes "full responsibility for [his] problem"...even though he said it was the _medication_ that had a "hold" on him.

For decades, our culture has been polluted by both Demicans and Republicrats condemning those who purchase or use drugs without the explicit permission of the State. The reason did not matter. Terminal patients racked with pain from metastatizing cancer were verbally lacerated for seeking the solace of marijuana and its THC as a means of alleviating their pain or of providing a way to quell the nausea preventing them from retaining their medicines. Indeed, some who dared defy the edicts of the State found themselves locked behind bars and, essentially, condemned to death because of their desire to live. Better, it seems, that truly sick people die or go blind or suffer excruciating agony than for the State to weaken its hold on its power over us.

Citizens who approved statewide referendums to offer a measure of mercy to those using "medical" marijuana found their wishes usurped and discounted by the Feds. The latter vowed to wage their war regardless of what any mere state said. Objections be damned. Even with regard to legal drugs, some doctors faced loss of their licenses, fines, and/or jail time for prescribing "too much" pain medication to patients with intractable pain (with the definition of "too much" left to the "expert" opinions of grossly ignorant bureaucrats and politicians).

Even worse treatment than that meted out to sick folks awaited individuals who sought illicit drugs for mere "pleasure." The compassionate politicians running this country into the ground declared that mandatory sentences for nonviolent acts; that sentences of 99 years for growing "too many" marijuana plants; that even execution for selling drugs to willing buyers; that all of these punishments represented acts of justice for those "destroying" our society and "aiding" terrorists.

Limbaugh, of course, never shirked from supporting draconian measures against those involved in the drug trade. Indeed, he believed the treatment of white drug "criminals" was not harsh enough; that too many of them received passes on their evil actions or, at best, suffered nominal punishment.

Perhaps one day soon we will learn why Rush did not turn himself into the police and demand the hard jail time he maintains all drug users deserve rather than treating his problem as a medical condition by checking into a rehab center.

Perhaps we won't.

After all, others who are most eager to see drug users rot in jail have abruptly discovered the power of rationalization. Unlike the poor schmuck in a ghetto hoping for a bit of solace from a lousy job or a bad relationship or a life that sucks, Rush's problem, we are told, "is personal and human." Unlike the penalties pushed by Drug War supporters -- such as life-sentences given to marijuana growers or the loss of all one's assets (even if one never used drugs) or death when DEA agents raid the wrong house -- the Left's unpleasant words about Limbaugh are "ruthless and cruel" treatment. Unlike dying cancer patients withering in pain who are denied narcotics or who are arrested if they use such drugs illegally, Rush has "big-time pain" that justifies _his_ consumption of painkillers. Unlike those ordinary citizens caught up in the nightmare world of guilty-until-proven-innocent-and-probably-not-even-then, Limbaugh is being wronged because his opponents offer him "no sympathy for his medical ordeals." Unlike recreational drug addicts who only want to get "high" and feel better and thus deserve Limbaugh's unremitting censure, Rush should receive "slack" because he wanted to feel better. Unlike many patients who use illicit drugs in order "to live as normally as possible" but who should still be tossed in the slammer or have their lives ruined, Rush should not be in jail merely because he advocated such penalities for others yet wanted painkillers "to live as normally as possible" himself.

No. No inconsistencies there. None at all.

As bad as the conservatives in their reactions to this story are the liberals who have flocked to the airwaves to discuss the issue of addiction. The left-leaning morning talk shows consistently aired the views of "experts" who called addiction a "disease" over which no one has "control." (Compare this to Limbaugh's statement regarding the "hold" the drugs had on him.) Naturally, no one is responsible for getting sick. (Unless -- according to many conservatives -- you are a gay with AIDs....)

These liberals desperately want to co-opt Rush into their wacky world of medical voodoo. They want him to reject and renounce his negative judgments regarding lifelong welfare recipients, those too lazy to work, or those desperately clamoring for increased government largesse. In weakness and helplessness lie his salvation from jail. "Join us," they implicitly say. "Accept the dark side and be free."

None of these proponents of powerlessness and passivity would accept the fact that addiction is a _choice_, not a disease. (See, for example, the work of Stanton Peele for a further discussion of the latter.) To acknowledge this reality would cost these compassion-junkies their livelihoods and the source of their "self-esteem." To accede to the truth would be to admit that addiction reflects people's "values, skills at living, and personal resolve -- or lack of it." (Peele, p. 3.)

Despite his self-contradictions, Limbaugh at least does not call himself a victim or deny his responsibility for his situation. After all, "there is no biological urge to form addictions." (Peele, p. 4.) Addictions "are known by the goal-directed behaviors they describe." (Peele, p. 6.) While some such actions are destructive, others merely enable people to cope with their problems.

But neither the gurus of addiction-as-disease nor Limbaugh himself can admit that, at times, addictions perform a positive function, that addicts "get something" from being addicted. Abandoning obvious error is a task many find beyond their ken, especially those intent on forcing their views upon others or seeking absolution for their own shortcomings. Rush could say, "Hey, the Drug War is ridiculous. I haven't hurt anyone. Why am I the subject of a criminal investigation? Most drug users do not abuse their drugs. I needed mine to deal with a problem I could not solve by surgery. What business is this of the State? Go away and leave me alone!"

But he won't.

After all, the Drug War is not an exercise in _disease_ control. It is merely an example _of_ control.

Sadly, many libertarians similarly fail to recognize the centrality of this assault upon our liberty. They fear the Great Unwashed will "misunderstand" our opposition to drug prohibition, and thus we should soft-peddle the issue. It appears that loss of (potential) control motivates even otherwise reasonable people.

But the Drug War encompasses a hell's half-acre of abuses in its restrictions upon our right to keep and bear arms; upon our right to due-process; upon our right to properly limited and conducted searches and seizures; upon our right to financial privacy; upon our right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. No-knock raids, the militarization of our police, asset forfeiture, money-laundering laws, military patrols of our borders, promotion of violence and disrespect for the law, corruption of public officials, an explosion in our prison population, destruction of innocent lives... It is difficult to find a single program that manages simultaneously to increase State power and decrease individual freedom in more areas than does the Drug War, a.k.a., the War Against People.

Limbaugh does not see this. His conservatives apologists do not see this. His liberal enemies do not see this.

The status quo will remain intact. The privileged and the connected -- like the daughter of Florida governor, Jeb Bush, who likewise abused prescription drugs -- will skate through the system relatively unharmed. The poor, the lonely, the uneducated: they will continue to receive the brunt of the santimonious and wrong-headed policies that have afflicted the people of this nation for so many decades.

No. Limbaugh should not be jailed. No drug user should. But for his hypocrisy, for his championing of a policy that undercuts all he claims to believe, for his failure to see the facts; for these actions, we who truly comprehend what is required of us to be free should not fail to deliver a judgment to Rush: a _moral_ one.

That kind of a judgment, Rush fully deserves.

[Always Right]

Am I missing the state interest?

THe state interest is reducing the harm from the abuse. Since Rush has sought treatment, the state interest has been addressed. What I am proposing is Rush volenteer to further this state interest. What state interest do you see in putting Rush in jail?

[Catspaw]

You know what's really annoying? My daughter, who has rheumatoid arthritis, was really helped by Oxycontin because it's a time release pain medication. Because of those who abuse Oxycontin, she cannot get a prescription for Oxycontin (she used to)--and even if she could get a doctor to give her a prescription for Oxycontin, she can't find a pharmacist in her area to fill it. No one's selling it, or even stocking it. The only time that Oxycontin is available to her is when she's an in-patient at the hospital.