Replies

"'I don't question that it started out that was, but his dependency became psychological, not physical.'"

"And you know that how?"

I'm not the person to whom this question was put, but I have 2 cents to throw in.

We know this because Rush admitted to being "addicted", and that is what "addicted" normally means.

However, "psychological" may be a misleading term. I've been reading about the effect of these pills, and it seems to be very similar to cocaine. There is a change in the brain cells, in the density of neurotransmitter receptors. Thus, "neurochemical" might be a better term than "psychological".

The change affects mood, not will. The person will feel very bad - severely depressed - until he gets another fix. But he still has the power to choose, to seek help, or to start betraying the things he believes in to get his fix.

The question is, why does Rush get to use his addiction as an excuse to break the law, when nobody else does? It's just like the Clintonistas, who kept saying _Clinton_ shouldn't have had to talk about his sex life under oath, ignoring the fact that Clinton himself had signed the law that required sexual harassment defendants to do so.

Here's another question. If Rush is to be excused because he is an addict, what about the people who supplied him? Are they to be excused on the theory that they were alleviating his suffering? Or shall it be assumed that they were motivated by greed, so no one need cry if the book is thrown at them?

Writing this has reminded me of a side issue that I might as well comment on. A few people have asked how Rush could have done his show so well if he was high on large numbers of pills. The answer is that he probably wasn't high. Tolerance builds as the addiction progresses, so increasing doses are needed just for the sufferer to feel normal.