He worded his admission carefully. He got "prescription" and "pain" into the statement. He had no prescription so they were illegal, and a man of his wealth could have found a doctor to give them to him if there was pain.
Looks to me like he just liked the buzz, even more than he valued his hearing. Rush has never backed the right to self medicate, he can't claim the right for himself while promoting prison for others.
I have shared "prescription" anti-biotics with others. Others have shared them with me. How did this happen? Oh, Alia should go to jail, right? Wrong.
I admit however, I am not addicted to anti-biotics. Any parent with children KNOWS the cycle of ear-infections in children. And all know, anti-biotics are key. Any idea of what hoops and garters a parent (and ailing) child has to go through to get anti-biotics -- after hours, during office hours? (Our medical system is growing more and more "messed up".) So, in past I have committed "illegal" acts, according to some of the posts in this forum. It's true. And a group of we mothers occasionally had to resort to borrowing anti-biotics from each other in order to treat our ailing children -- or -- have to spend 4 hours in the middle of the night waiting in some God-Forsaken empty emergency room -- JUST so the ailing child could get on an anti-biotic. And get relief from the pain and suffering.
If Rush did resort to purchasing illegally, pain pills -- WHY. If had been able to purchase these drugs over the counter, all would be well, right? He could have continued taking these drugs, and what would his detractors have said?
Lastly, the "war on drugs". And all that Rush has said, blah blah. Rush has never declared a war on approved drugs. His references to "war on drugs" has everything to do with the various weed/heroin/ -- illicit, non-approved -- drug cartels. These are often associated with terrorist groups - worldwide, and cause a great many "turf wars" at the local level.
William F. Buckly caused no end of "waves" when he came out in support of legalizing marijuana in the mid-90s.
Personally, my biggest reason for fighting the "war on drugs"? Is because once pot is legalized, it gets taxed! Plus, with the addictive factor with pot, we're talking here about the same type of "tax the cigarettes" type of war being waged on the national level. Cigarettes are addictive. These are NOT ruled "illicit" for purchase on the street -- they are heavily TAXED.
So let's be clear when talking about "Rush's war on drugs", and the current issues he's grappling with. Out of context assumptions are not informative, IMHO.
I'm old enough to remember many things about prescription drugs. Once upon a time, when one was prescribed pain pills (e.g. codeine, darvocet) the pill bottle was filled. Say the price then was $20. NOW, the same-sized pill bottle contains maybe only 10 pills -- For the same price as one used to pay for a filled container. WHY? Laws, laws, and more laws. Over regulation. Furthermore, there are newer laws that dictate "how many refills". So, let's say Rush, for example, needed more pain pills. Say he needed them around the clock. At this rate, he'd be having to visit his doctor regularly every couple of months in order to get more pain relief. Whereas, under the "older" prescription rules, this would not be so. My point being -- Technically, there is no logical reason why Rush would have to resort to illicit "prescribed" drugs -- unless there was a "regulation" capper in the way. And please don't lecture me here about how he should have been MORE aggressive with this pain issues.
You outta see the mess that is called "health care" brewing here in CA. The Doctor's hands are TIED due freakin Liberal tinkerings. And why have LIB/DEMS made things so awful? They want "universal health care". Like such a stupid plan and idea is gonna solve anything. Balderdash.
You don't even need to be wealthy or in pain to get a doctor to write a script. I worked in the medical profession for a few years and some of the things I saw going on amazed me and I am certainly not naive.
I didn't really pay much attention to Rush’s actual admission so I appreciate your analysis of how carefully it was worded. I never really got into listening to him. While I agree with many views he expresses, his style really turns me off.
Since I normally don’t post on any of the WOsD threads I just want to state for the record: I am not a drug warrior. The only thing the WosD has accomplished is the subversion of freedom.
Looks to me like he just liked the buzz, even more than he valued his hearing. Rush has never backed the right to self medicate, he can't claim the right for himself while promoting prison for others.
Prison is only for peasants.
One thing not brought up in this debate? How many conservatives spend their free time digging up medical records on their opponents versus how much the left/Dems spent their lives digging up dirt on Republican politicians. I think this should be added into the mix.
If Rush gets charged with purchasing FDA-approved street drugs, I'd deal with that. But that *hasn't* happened.
I do not see Rush as a hypocrite. He supports a right and proper way to do things. Let's assume, for the moment, he HAS done an illicit thing. Does this alter his message? No.
How many NOW parents who engaged in the 60s libertine movement in their youths -- are now counseling their children "abstinence". Is their message now meaningless. BS! Their message, from first hand experience could be saving the health and wellbeing of their offspring.
Contrast this to 60's libertine parents who are encouraging their children to try early, premarital sex, gay sex, etc., (think Jesse Dirkhising) as in a "this is not really sex" type thinking. Who has the larger problem here? The latter, IMO. I remember the Jimmy Swagger/Baker scandals. The left was having orgasms of glee over these stories. But of course they would. These prudes do sex the way some people wipe their butts. Ergo, when they are caught doing bad things -- no one cares -- and because these people CAN'T be called hypocrites -- they are scummy to begin with, and seek to perpetually lower the standards of a civilized culture.
The mainstream media has bought into the agenda. For two reasons. The largest one being -- bad people/bad events are good for selling "news print and news time". It's "business". Second, schadenfreude -- enjoyment obtained from others'sufferings. The liberal left is home domain of "schadenfreude" whether real or imagined. They get off on making people suffer, on witnessing people suffer. And because it makes them feel superior.
Again, Rush's message is not altered, and nor does it make him a hypocrite. We knew Bill Clinton was all FOR libertine sexual norms. We also knew his message was about projecting a "normal" vision via mainstream media, a "libertine" one via alternate media venues. Ergo, he was NOT considered a hypocrite.
But in fact he was. He swore to uphold the Constitution, and did not. He SWORE an OATH. And this escapes public scrutiny because -- people want it to. The media wants it to (escape scrutiny). In the same light, people wish to condemn Rush using selective "out of context" rubric. Again, the facts are not in evidence that are being "discussed" as Rush's being 'guilty."