Roeper:Funny how this time there's no Rush to judgment (MOTHER OF ALL BARF ALERTS!!!!)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | October 6, 2003 | Richard Roeper

[DWPittelli]

But as for Rush, if he's going to sell books advocating a War on Drugs, then he had better be prepared to be hoisted by his own petard when his head is caught in a vice.

Yes, he should get the same deal he would get if he weren't Rush Limbaugh.

But it is pretty rare for employed consumers of illegal pills to go to jail or face any serious penalty. Dealers, yes, unemployed junkies who steal for their H, yes, people caught shoting up in public, yes; occasionally a middle-class person caught with a substantial stash. But no one gets busted because the gov't made a deal with their dealer. And in general, middle class people popping pills are more likely to get treatment and concern and understanding, especially from the press if they're celebrities (unless, of course, they're noted conservatives).

[DWPittelli]

If we just got rid of all those inconvenient drug laws, we wouldn't have a drug problem anymore. The same could be said about prison rape, larceny and murder.

Absurd comparison. None of us wants to be victimized by rape, larceny or murder. Any legal system which didn't punish these crimes would result in brutal vigilantism and even blood-feds (with murder legal, any of us could kill a criminal, just as well as an innocent).

In contrast, none of us is victimized when one person sells drugs to another, with the possible exception of the second person's family if he's neglected them. But in general, the state punishes us for what we do (e.g., failing to support our children), not for why we do what we do. And that's generally as it should be.

History also shows that one can have all drugs, including heroin and cocaine, be legal (as in the U.S. before 1907), and still have a stable society, but one obviously can't ignore murder without seeing a huge increase in killings, revenge-killings, etc.

All that said, it is possible that legalizing all drugs would have net negative effects. But I'd rather have our hopeless junkies needing to steal $1 a day for their heroin rather than $100.

[cardinal4]

Anal dump is a good word to describe that hatefilled piece of toilet paper...

[RightWingAtheist]

You offend a lot of people on this board, but you don't care.

Actually, I have (until now) been treated with the upmost respect and acceptance, and in fact, some of the most religous people have been the nicest towards me. The only people I hope to offend are lurking Frankenfans.

[ravinson]

I agree, much better to dwell on Rush's pill problem than to seriously combat the $$$$billions that cross our borders like a sewage flood every year for substances like cocaine and heroin.

By supporting the War on Drugs, you and Rush are encouraging the "$$$$billions that cross our borders like a sewage flood every year for substances like cocaine and heroin."

If we just got rid of all those inconvenient drug laws, we wouldn't have a drug problem anymore. The same could be said about prison rape, larceny and murder.

The same could be said, but not accurately. Laws prohibiting real crimes like "rape, larceny, and murder" do not create a huge black market and result in "$$$$billions" flowing south to off-shore producers.

Rush becomes a flawed messenger because of his own failings, but that does not undermine the inherent truth of what the man said

The "inherent truth" of what Rush says about the War on Drugs was undermined by the real truth about the ridiculous War on Drugs long before Rush was exposed as a pill popping hypocrite, so you're half right.

[Devil_Anse]

From the article: "Gee, didn't Limbaugh rip Bill Clinton for talking like that?"

Presumably, he means, for dancing around the issue and not answering correctly.

Clinton didn't talk like that. He said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, and I never told anyone to lie, ever."

A much more definite statement. Too bad it was inaccurate.

[massadvj]

Rush becomes a flawed messenger because of his own failings, but that does not undermine the inherent truth of what the man said.

I totally agree with this. He may well be a John the Baptist paving the way for the next Reagan.

Nonetheless, if we are to be true to our principles, I think we need not lower our expectations regarding Rush or anyone else. He owes his audience and sponsors the truth about this. He doesn't owe the public, and he doesn't owe the law, and he certainly doesn't owe Richard Roeper.

But he does owe a truthful explanation to the people who have invested their trust and resources in him. I expect no more of him than I would expect of myself in similar circumstances.

[RightWingAtheist]

A while back, there was an article in a communications journal which "analyzed" Limbaugh's rhetoric. As it expected, it made the usual liberal assumptions, about Rush perpetuating racial and patriarchal hegemonies yadda, yadda, yadda. But what really made shake my head was that the people who wrote this article did not acutally listen to Rush's show or make use of offical transcripts or recordings. Instead they relied on the most biased of second hand sources-anti-Rush websites, newsletters, and newspaper columns-as the source of their citations. So much for peer review.