Do we know this is true? The only sources I've heard for it are the drug dealing housekeeper and her (IIRC previously convicted) drug dealing husband. IIRC Rush said at the time he was eager to tell his side of the story and would when he could (i.e. when his lawyers said he was safe from having his words twisted and used against him.) Rush explained some in the pre- and post- rehab shows, but I don't think he's claimed to have told all. We have heard Rush was being blackmailed, but granting Rush's pre-incident image just the claim he was hooked on narcotics could have been worthy of blackmail without any illegality. I wouldn't be quick to convict Rush on such testimony. After all, the most reliable evidence we have speaks against it. "What reliable evidence?" you ask. The evidence that this partisan prosecutor didn't even try to charge Rush on that charge, trusting the equally partisan liberal Palm Beach County jury pool to convict Rush on slim evidence! Ronnie Earl indicted DeLay on less evidence. This guy is a big a hack as Earl and could certainly call on the entire 'Rat hack network for advice when taking on Rush. ("And still lose," I'm sure Rush would add.)
Okay, the original allegation was a crime. There were some emails and the like that did indicate it was real. What fries my bacon is we treat people who become addicted as a side effect of medical treatment as criminals. It's not justice or mercy. Your mercy point is well taken.
Thanks!
DK