[Nanodik]

First I want to thank Denver Ditdat for coming up with that summary of the call back in '93. It was not the call I was referring to because the caller was calling in to take RL to task for wailing on the fact that the FDA was looking at the possibility of more restrictions on tobacco but had not supported the crowd that wanted to legalize pot. However, this call is pretty close to what was said on that call and I can use it to demonstrate how RL's argument is circular.

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.

[Nick Thimmesch]

"Can't wait until he comes out and starts railing against the FDA ban on ephedra."

Rush did so today (Monday, January 5, 2003) in the first hour.

Since I have gotten caught up in this thread -- most likely perceived as anti-Rush because I have taken him to task for his so-call stance (or non-stance as some here have put forth) on legal/illegal "drugs" -- allow me to again state that I still listen to Rush as often as possible, admire and like the man, agree with him for the most part on just about everything EXCEPT for the War on Some Drugs. And NOBODY out there can possible assert that they did not think that Rush SUPPORTED the Dems & GOP candidates and elected representatives who have voted for, campaigned on and spoken in favor of our nation's failed, archaic War on Some Drugs over the years. I defy anyone to say otherwise.