Posted on 01/04/2004 2:26:31 AM PST by kattracks
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Rush Limbaugh was wrong when he accused prosecutors of singling him out, but not by much. Palm Beach County prosecutors investigating the right-wing radio host for his prescription drug abuse have filed "doctor shopping" charges against one other person in the past five years, according to records.Limbaugh's lawyer said the court documents, reviewed by The Palm Beach Post yesterday, prove his client was unfairly targeted.
"Rush Limbaugh has been singled out for special prosecution because of who he is," Roy Black told the paper. "We believe the state attorney's office is applying a double standard."
State Attorney Barry Krischer denied the accusation, saying, "Whether Mr. Limbaugh is subject to prosecution for any crimes is still under investigation."
Investigators seized Limbaugh's medical records in November after discovering he got more than 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors, at a pharmacy near his home. Limbaugh's former maid told investigators she supplied him with prescription painkillers for years.
Limbaugh's lawyers had argued the seizure of his records violated his privacy and that the probe was politically motivated.
The commentator, once a harsh critic of drug abusers, recently admitted his addiction, saying it stemmed from severe back pain. He took a five-week leave from his radio show to enter a detox program.
The Palm Beach Post review found only one case in which the county filed charges of illegally acquiring overlapping prescriptions, but the defendant died before trial.
Doctor shopping, a crime that can bring up to five years in prison, is conning more than one physician to write the same prescriptions within 30 days.
Originally published on January 4, 2004
The publication of the list of drugs prescribed to Rush Limbaugh on thesmokinggun.com is in direct violation of the FEDERAL HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) as well as a violation of proper investigatory practices and, I am certain, a host of laws about compromising an on-going investigation. These are far greater crimes than any "doctor shopping" as they imply malfeasance in office and misuse of the public trust.
The fact that this information was released PRIOR to the granting of a search warrant tells lots about the agenda of the person who sent it to the press.
They hate Rush because he's not a relativist like they are and they can't make him champion their agendas.
Who hates Rush? I love the guy. He has brilliantly helped this country by his commentary. Yes, he is a businessman, but businessmen are the ones who make life in America as prosperous and as comfortable as it is.
I like being prosperous and comfortable.
But I do not like selfish egotists who are emotionally immature, relativistic, law-unto-themselves jackasses.
Rush is a nitwit and a piece of garbage. He undermines conservatism.
I wanted Clinton removed from office. Did you?
I am not a libertarian or a libertine, but I take freedom and liberty very seriously. I love America b/c America is the historic cradle of human happiness, for all.
Monogamy, personal moderation, discipline, are all essential to freedom and liberty. But they cannot be imposed. Freedom and liberty are merely aspects of existence. Government cannot and should not impose those prerequisite "restrictions".
Bless Rush. He is a very confused and lovable man. He is also a nitwit and a piece of garbage, for his support of the OJ Society.
I thot FR disagreed with the OJ Society, but apparently not.
Rush never mentioned drugs. You need to learn the facts before spouting off.
Proof please.
On the contrary, libertarians are extremely consistent in their application of principles. "Conservatives" on the other hand, want smaller govt except of course when larger, more intrusive govt suits them. Limbaugh likes his tobacco, and until recently his prescription narcotics but likes the fact that the govt can prohibit others from using the drugs they prefer.
If you want relativism, look into the mirror. Libertarians are about individual liberty. Conservatives are socialist up to the point where the monstrous govt they created comes to gore their ox, then all of the sudden they want individual liberties.
Perhaps you will like this better then:
Or is Worldnetdaily a little too left of center for you?
And laws should not be selectively repealed based upon who will be harmed if they are not. This is a good time for all the Limbots to reexamine their thoughts on the WOD. Unfortunately, from what I have seen here, the Limbots will have to wait for Rush to tell them what their thoughts ought to be...
Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
for Monday, December 13, 1993
by John Switzer
This unofficial summary is copyright (c) 1993 by John Switzer.
All Rights Reserved.
Phone Quinn from Ft. Collins, CO
Quinn would like to say "ditto" but he has to disagree with Rush over drug legalization. First, he doesn't think everyone who advocates drug legalization is "totally selfish" because he for one doesn't use drugs of any form, yet he supports their legalization. He does think, though, that by Rush's own logic, Rush is being selfish by not wanting to ban the drugs he uses: tobacco and alcohol.
Rush says that prohibition didn't work before with alcohol and it wouldn't work now; alcohol has been a legal drug for generations upon generations. However, the experience the nation has with alcohol should show that legalizing drugs would be a bad idea, compounding the damages that alcohol bring to society.
However, alcohol is not the same as crack and cocaine, as alcohol can be used in moderation, without it destroying your life. Other, more addictive drugs, however, can't be used in such a manner, and Rush points out that nobody talks about snorting a couple of lines of cocaine before dinner.
Quinn says that alcohol has ruined people's lives, and Rush agrees, which is his point - why legalize these other, more dangerous drugs and make a bad situation worse? Quinn says that Colorado does have a prohibition party on its state ballot every year, and cocaine was legal at one point, so Rush's points about alcohol being okay because of its legality seem to be without merit.
Rush, though, notes that cocaine in the 1800's was used far differently than it's being used today, and he is amazed that anyone could be making a case for the "benefits" of drugs. Quinn, however, says that this is not one of his arguments; rather, he agrees with Milton Friedman who, noting that 10,000 people are killed a year because of the drug trade, believes that legalizing drugs would reduce these crimes and their accompanying deaths.
Rush says that this is another argument altogether, but while drug legalization may stop certain crimes, the result of legalization would be far more devastating to society at large than anything that's happening today. The destruction of the population that would occur should drugs be legalized would be tragic and would far outshadow what's going on now.
People don't live in a vacuum; they can't do drugs without their habit affecting someone else. People on drugs become worthless, useless, and unproductive human beings, and the rest of society will have to take up the slack for these people; as it is now, there are already far too many people who are becoming a burden on the law-abiding and responsible in society. The country doesn't need more people like this.
Quinn, though, thinks that the legalization of drug distributors would help reduce drug use, especially as the black market is far more effective in distributing these drugs than any legal industry could be. Rush says regardless of whether the black market is "more efficient," the answer is not to make government bigger and let it tax these substances.
There will always be a black market for drugs, no matter what, and even those who support legalization would ban its use by minors. And nobody is saying that legalization would reduce the number of addicts. There is also evidence from those countries that have legalized drugs that their experiments are failing.
Rush notes that he says those who advocate drug legalization are selfish because most of these people are drug users who are angry and jealous that their habit is illegal, while those who imbibe alcohol have a legal habit. Human beings, though, by virtue of their birth have a responsibility to help make the world a better place, both now and in the long term. If everyone lived just for the day and for their own pleasure, society would crumble, and there would be nothing left for those generations that would follow.
People cannot dismiss their obligations in this. It is irresponsible to have the government sanction a crime and a destructive habit by legalizing drugs; doing so contributes to the wanton destruction of society. Rush admits that this is a long-term view, but those who disagree with it on the basis of "I want to do my drugs" are being selfish and are thinking of nothing more than their own life. If everyone did this, then what kind of life would be the result? Had modern-day Americans' lived like this, the current generations would have a far different America than now exists.
<end of transcript>
Nope, I simply think it is funny that a Libertarian is so determined to tear down Rush that he would use FAIR as a source.
Why would that surprise you? I often hear republicrats use the CATO Institute as a source of information, but they obviously don't agree with them. What you fail to see is that I don't see a dime's width of difference between Demoblicans and Republicrats.
Oh? Changing your story now, are you? What about the rest of what you said he said?:
Nanodik: ".. you might want to listen to a few of those old programs before you go on defending the guy."
So when reality gets filtered through your (drug impaired?)mental processes, VOILA! - what I'm doing is "defending the guy", instead of what alert, cogent thinkers know I'm doing, which is: "looking to determine what's true and what's false."
The evidence of your behavior so far shows that you seem to have a propensity for misrepresenting the facts and slanting the truth to suit your purposes/agenda. You even did it to me.
And yet you have the gall to accuse Rush of being a dishonest hypocrite?
Thanks to the efforts of Denver Ditdat, we have a transcript summary of one of Rush's radio programs for Monday, December 13, 1993, and can read the exchange between him and his caller regarding the 'selfish' comment in context.
Please ping me when you find the date and quote wherein you tell us that Rush said this: "My drug is good because it's legal and yours is bad because it's illegal. Those who want to make my drug illegal are idiots and busybodies..." . Thanks.
People on drugs become worthless, useless, and unproductive human beings, and the rest of society will have to take up the slack for these people;
This is a unsupported assertion on RL's part. He spent 6 years addicted to hydrocodone. Did he manage to grow his business and keep doing his radio show? Also, using this same argument, we can make the case for banning tobacco. People who develop terminal cancer as a result of smoking tobacco not only become useless, they require that many resources be devoted to them until they die.
Rush notes that he says those who advocate drug legalization are selfish because most of these people are drug users who are angry and jealous that their habit is illegal, while those who imbibe alcohol have a legal habit.
OK, and when he rails against those who want further restrictions on tobacco or it's banning, what does he think he is doing? RL is a drug prude who wants to keep drugs illegal, and there are tobacco prudes who want tobacco made illegal. Is there a difference here? His point is one is legal and the other is illegal. So legal makes one right and the other wrong? I guess he had better change his stance on abortion because that is legal and he keeps calling for it to be made illegal.
Human beings, though, by virtue of their birth have a responsibility to help make the world a better place, both now and in the long term.
This is a nice socialist view, but given the destruction wrought by tobacco and alcohol, should RL not support those calling for it to be banned?
In the end, RL does not have an argument other than 'My drugs are legal and that makes them OK and yours are illegal and that makes them bad'. He then goes on to rail against any attempt to curtail tobacco. Make any sense whatsoever? No because it is a specious argument that anyone with any free thought whatsoever could pick apart in minutes. Does it make him a hypocrite? Yes, he fails to acknowledge that he is being selfish by not supporting the banning of alcohol and especially tobacco. Can't wait until he comes out and starts railing against the FDA ban on ephedra.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.