[goldstategop]

Of course I do. But the reality is prominent people should be held to a higher standard. True, an exception was made for Clinton but I wouldn't want to see our standards kept lowered on account of him.

[The Electrician]

Then I don't understand what you are saying, because you are both supporting equal protection and against equal protection by suggesting that it ought to be denied to some people (based on some arbitrary distinction of whether or not a person is "prominent").

[longtermmemmory]

what higher standard? All are EQUAL before the law. No seperate standards. If this was EQUAL the case would have been dropped entirely or place in the diversion program. Period.

You NEVER have this type of fishing expedition in user cases where the user was not caught red handed by the police. (altering perscriptions, buying in a sting operation, false phone in of perscriptions etc.)

The one thing that is missed is that the "good faith" was alledged to have been found but is this based on MERE SUSPICION or probable cause? If you get a speeding ticket does that justify the police taking your car apart to see if you altered any parts? It may be suspicious you were able to go 10 miles over the limit on a highway.

[JimSEA]

I think you can draw some parallel between Martha Stewart and Rush. They both have large gare groups of opponents and political hay can be made with their prosecution. Both cases are weak on general practice support. Neither would be in the situation they are in if not for their celeberty.

That said, I think Rush should take a long hard look at his harshness on some subjects. We can and should condem the act (drug addiction in this case) but it is up to some higher entity to condem the addict.