Rush admitted that he became addicted, and isn't shifting the blame for becoming addicted. To assume that you would have admitted the addiction before ever breaking the law is close kin to asserting that you could never become addicted in the first place. Which is, one assumes, about the way Rush thought when he took the first non-prescribed pill.If you are addicted to a drug, and your doctor hasn't been the enabler by continually writing the scripts you want (think you need), then you obviously obtain the pills illegally or not at all. There does not seem to be any claim that the doctors were deliberately acting as enablers, and--on face value the idea that Rush was "doctor-shopping" by being seen by Dr. B who was in group practice with Dr. A and was covering for Dr. A, and had access to Dr. A's medical records is fatuous--is a smoke screen for a fishing expedition.
It's pretty clear where Rush got his pills--his maid was married to a pusher, and blackmailled Rush after selling the stuff to him. I have no patience with claims that Rush is an adult, but the maid and her husband get a pass. Pushing dope is a crime, and one which is not traditionally overlooked as easily as uverusing prescription drugs is. And blackmail?! I await your explanation for the assigning of victim status--implied by immunity from prosecution--to this lovely couple.
The crux of the issue is that a routine case of failed drug therapy degenerating into illegal use of a controlled substance was elevated into a high-priority law-enforcement project, for the self-same reason that the drug pusher's blackmail succeeded--that the person with the weakness was unpopular with a politician and a large portion of the people who voted for him.
Giving prosectutors carte blanche to make mountains out of molehills is a sufficient condition for tyranny.
Like so many others who are willing to jump on Rush, you too are coming to conclusions. Rush has only made the allegation of the blackmailing, it has never been charged or proven.