|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 10/11/2003 6:46:30 PM PDT by Destro
Rush to jail?
Posted: October 11, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
So Rush has publicly admitted he's "addicted to prescription pain medication," confirming details of a story broken by the National Enquirer last week.
If he was true to his word, following his broadcast yesterday, the nation's top talker checked himself into a 30-day drug rehab program to shake his monkey.
Beyond his personal support of the drug war, the most intriguing aspect of Rush's current problem is that, since Nixon declared war on "public enemy No. 1" in 1972, conservatives of various stripes have been the biggest boosters of the policy.
Working tirelessly to expand state and federal powers to go after dealers and users, right-wing drug warriors lobbied hard for strict sentences and tough penalties. If people wouldn't stop using drugs on their own, the government was going to force them. A drug-free America was the end, and zero tolerance was the means.
But think about this, you who are conservatives and so vigorously support the war on drugs: Would you really like to see the legal thumbscrews tightened on Rush Limbaugh – a man admiringly thought of by millions as the leading conservative icon in this country – the way you so enthusiastically insist for other violators of the nation's drug laws?
I have no clue how the current police investigation into Limbaugh's situation will turn out, but regardless of the legal facts of the case and given that he's confessed it himself, would you like to see Rush in jail?
Would you feel a) terrible if he ended up behind bars; or b) proud that justice had been done, that yet another drug abuser was locked away from the society that he could so easily harm with his pernicious addiction?
It's easy to forget that Justice is blind. But while that scarf is tied so tightly over her eyes, Justice weighs friends and coworkers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives in her scales. She weighs our heroes and icons, and she doesn't give a hoot about the circumstances of someone's illegal drug use or his ideology, only that he is breaking the law.
The rule of law is a sword that cuts both ways, but if this sword whacks Rush, it will only prove that – despite his own support over the years – it shouldn't be swinging at all.
What possible good could incarcerating Rush Limbaugh accomplish? Would his life, professional or personal, be better off?
Would jail time help his show improve, or his newsletter get better? After 15 years of excellence, surpassing all expectations, proving himself to be the most skilled radio talent in history, it'd be hard to imagine. Consumers of Rush's entertaining and enlightening product have been more than well served over the years. I've been listening to Rush for almost half my life – not half my adult life, half my total life. Drugs didn't destroy his productive output.
The same isn't true for what jail can do. Ask former Congressman James Traficant.
What about his relationship with his family, friends and wife? Stopping Rush's addictive behavior might be a very positive thing in his personal life, but isn't that a matter best left decided among the immediate parties? Outsiders shouldn't step in and forcibly work to improve or salvage personal relationships with regard to finances or hygiene or character flaws. Why drugs?
Taking drugs is a choice – just like making an investment or, for a more negative image, gambling. But as long as Rush isn't harming anyone with his decisions, then the government should stay out of it. Or, government should also step in and make sure hubby isn't poorly investing the family savings, that he flosses daily, and isn't so selfish. After all, pride and egotism (two things at least Rush's public persona isn't lacking) do far more damage to personal relationships than dope does.
And note that it's covetousness, not drug use, that wraps up the Ten Commandments. Jealousy and envy are far more dangerous to society than funny cigarettes or little blue pills. So if it makes sense to go after drugs in the effort to save society, then it's equally sensible to send cops to round up all the envy-pushers on Madison Ave. and in the halls of Congress.
Isn't it better to let Rush sort out this problem on his own – just as we let citizens deal with their own failings in other areas, leave him free to decide what needs fixing in his own life and take care of it?
And if that's true for Rush, then it's true for others. Millions of Americans do use or have used illegal drugs. Many do so with no negative consequences in their lives; they don't beat their kids, they perform acceptably at work, and they forget their spouse's birthday with no more frequency than the rest of us. But those that do have negative consequences from abuse – what sense does it make to heap more problems on their situation by jailing them or otherwise entangling them in the legal system?
They can lose their jobs, their public standing, sometimes their families. If they bring such calamity on themselves, that's unfortunate and tough. Life's full of bad news. But siccing the state on them to produce the same results is unconscionable. Using the government to bring ruin on someone's life when he is neither harming nor defrauding his neighbor is wrong – even if it is for his own good.
Rush has admitted to having relapsed in his "recovery" from addiction. He said he checked himself in two times before this most recent trip. Clearly this is ample evidence that Rush's problem is too complex for the ham-fisted force of law to solve.
Sometimes the state should just butt out of people's lives, and one of those times is when people are struggling with drugs.
Joel Miller is senior editor of WND Books. His own company, Oakdown Books, recently published "Drinking With Calvin and Luther! A History of Alcohol in the Church."
*I agree with about 70% of his his philosophy - it's the hubris-laden delivery that turns my stomach
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
The testimony of a snitch — particularly one who has sold her story to a supermarket tabloid — is not enough to do it.
I have not heard that any search warrant was executed on Limbaugh's home or office in order to gather evidence to prove an offense has been committed.
Of course they wouldn't; they believe only liberal drug users and abusers should be thrown in the pokey, not conservative ones.
"Rush and Chong". Has a nice ring to it.
Miller makes some good points, but I don't get the harping on the right-wing as primary supporter of the Drug War. Most vocal and vociferous, perhaps, but the Drug War is a bi-partisan enterprise.
Not when the testimony of the snitch is the sole evidence in the case.
I know something of these matters and there must be convincing evidence that a crime has been committed.
The testimony of a snitch who has proven to be reliable in the past might be enough to justify a judge issuing a search warrent, but it is not enough of and by itself to gain a conviction.
The libertarian program is to kill the addicts by making drugs legal, cheaper and more readily available.
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.