Posted on 02/14/2005 1:34:15 PM PST by rface
"He says that, 'I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of drug abuse. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you're making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that.' What he's saying is, that if there's a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it. And I don't know how -- how to do it, but if I was going to do it, I'd do it. If there were a gun here, it wouldn't fire itself. I've got to reach for it and -- and pull the trigger. And his point is, that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we're blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they're weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we're going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn't. It's not our responsibility."
OK, so tell me, how is this intolerant, or even incompatible with how Rush handled his own addiction?
Me too.
No wonder I like you so much. I thought it was the cool aid. It's the Jack Daniels after all. Nothing like that sour mash whiskey.
What irony ? He got hooked on a prescribed drug, if you can't figure out the difference of what happened to him and street drug addicts, you need to visit DU.
I don't know how he handled his addiction/recovery I was not a fly on the wall. I just still find it ironic. I wish him the best and hope he gets due process and is given fair justice.
i think that all drugs should be decriminalized. and no one should go to jail on a simple drug offense.
i also want to know why certain drugs are controlled substances regulated by the state.
I wonder if he had any Canadian drugs?
I don't know...maybe we're too stupid to handle them?
Probably
What's your take on this?
I doubt the prosecutors office would fight so hard in the court of appeals if it was a weak case. Keep whistling past that grave yard.
LOL, one can argue this in many ways.
Search warrants of property were once the only use, then came bank records, phone records, tax records and the like.
The only thing left was medical records, because of the doctor/patient confidentiality, and also religious records for like reasons.
If this bridge gets crossed..............."Houston, we have a problem!"
UUHHGGNNN........
What should the penalty be for getting the same prescription filled by more than one doctor.
Perhaps we should prosecute all kinds of shopping where the buyer benefits from legal purchases. Like stocks, bonds, property and beans.
So now we delve into what was sacred to prosecute shopping.
There are plenty of ways to get doctors into trouble for prescribing narcotics to someone who is abusing, if that is what they want to do, prevent access.
Short of over possession, or illegal possession, sale, or use, which they cannot prove, they invented this new way to prosecute the alleged abuser. Now they want to invade privacy to do it. What are they going to do next, prove he used the prescription or even bought it.
No, they will infer it, from their understanding of the records.
Then they will subpoena the doctor to testify. Totally overriding the medical assurances of privacy.
It just is not worth the loss of these present rights to do this.
My opinion is not that it is a strong case, but that they want to win the fight against a wealthy and Conservative man. There is enough evidence to prove my contention.
I wonder what insurance companies will do with this newly created ability???????
Then we ought to regulate guns just as closely, right?
Thanks, Cold Heat. That's what I meant by a weak case.
Yeah, LOL, worse than weak it is useless.
The common penalty is rehab.
No siree. Get a rope! :)
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.