Posted on 10/14/2003 4:04:21 PM PDT by ambrose
A fair number of Independents could be lured in, or back to, the Democratic Party. For me, a litmus test for that would have to be confronting the Drug War, and as I see the media and the Democratic presidential contenders both taking a huge whiff on the opportunity the Rush Limbaugh story provides, I am not encouraged.
For many years, I've been asked 'why do you read the Enquirer?' and have always said, "because I want to know what's going to be in the New York Times next week."
So, a week after I read the Limbaugh story in the Enquirer I read the rehash of it today in the Times, and again: Media, Pols, hello! If any time was the perfect time to make the case about the massive double standard that is the Drug War, this is it. Rush tearfully talks about his addition to a "medication." Yeah, well everybody likes their "medication" in different forms, pally. It would be funny, but substantially the same thing, if on the 6:30 news they sold bourbon and had the voice intone, "Ask your doctor if Jack Daniels is right for you."
Or pot or whatever it is that mixes better with your body chemistry. Because that's all the Drug War is, persecuting people with a different body chemistry than Plan A. Why does one person like scotch, and another loathes it and likes vodka? Or one like cocaine, and another Metabolife?
Who gives a f**k, that's why. The bottom line is, we all pick our poison and shouldn't arbitrarily punish and shame some, and accept and coddle others. There's nothing about preferring the high from oxycontin or liquor or speed (caffeine, ephedra, etc - speed, the drug America really loves) that makes you morally superior to people who like pot or mushrooms or even heroin for that matter, because that's what Oxycontin is, heroin in a pill. Gee, no wonder it's popular.
When it comes to Rush and pills, an analagous situation would be Reagan and guns. After Reagan got shot, what an opportunity to change that debate on guns! Who could argue about at least debating it while he lay in the hospital from a gunshot wound - like how JFK's program got passed so easily after his assassination, or even Bush's after 911.
But Reagan whiffed. Rush has the chance to change America for the better here. But it must involve his admitting the fundamental truths about drugs:
A: Almost all Americans do them, legal or otherwise; B: It's wrong to inconsistently treat fact A.
And Rush, if you don't see it that way yet, let me put it like this: When you're furtively meeting people in parking lots and exchanging ANYTHING in cigar boxes through car windows - OK, that's a drug addict. Issues of personal responsibility is where I often walked with Rush, and this is a classic. A true test of the man. If he comes out of rehab and says, 'I was wrong about our approach to drugs,' he could single handedly change the way America looks at this problem. If he admits that what separates him and Noelle Bush from crackheads is nothing. Nothing except money, race and lawyers. OK, well that is actually quite a lot. But nothing in the way that makes one of them a stronger or better human being. And that's what Rush has to say:
"I am no better or stronger than a crackhead. I lived for the drug, just like he did; obsessed about getting it all the time, like he did; corrputed and lied about everything else in my life - career, health (the hearing problem is related to this, no doubt - check the amount he was taking daily - Elvis is going "whoa, dude, slow down with that s**t"), relationships, like he did. And we both deserve the same treatment: compassion!"
Because Rush wants, and is already getting, a lot of compassion for this. Let me add my full hearted endorsement of that, and hope for a successful rehab, and a happy life for him whatever he wants to do thereafter. Rush Limbaugh was the first one to say "Bill Maher was right" when I was in the hot seat after 911, and I will always appreciate and remember that. He also has a good sense of humor, and enjoys jokes I've done about him. I want to be able to back him.
But he's gotta keep it real when he gets out. If he starts living the morally indefensible double standard he has been defending his whole career, game over. He learned nothing, or is too weak to admit it. That would be a shame, because I think he has it in him to do this, and the power and accomplishment from turning this battleship around would be, well - a rush.
Posted by safesearching at October 13, 2003 01:14 PM
My problem with Rush, if the allegations bear out, is him getting his drugs through illegal channels, like any common drug user would. This market's exactly the same market targeted by the War on Drugs, which has been championed by the Right now since Nixon in the 1970s.
In getting his drugs this way, Rush is no different than any other addict scoring drugs, no matter how noble his purpose is for taking them (it's irrelevant, actually, especially in the eyes of the law). As a stalwart of the Right and a person who's actually called for the strict enforcement of the drug laws on his radio show, I expect Rush to live in the bed he made, even if that involves a stretch in a federal pen.
I hope, however, that this bout with drug addiction and the law might wise Rush up that he's on the anti-conservative side of the Drug War.
There are places where this is true, to be sure. However, as a recovering addict, I am here to tell you that in terms of recovery, there is no difference. Initial motivation is not meaningful when trying to quit.
I have no arguments with that statement.
The situation that I have and others who use this drug for chronic pain is to accept the addiction. To deal with the addiction. To maintain control of the addiction.
Rush did indeed fail to do this and has hurt himself by doing so.
I totally concur, and await his explanations.
I wonder if his Dr., as many seem to do, failed to follow up and treat Rush for the resulting addiction and failed to explain how to withdraw and/or manage the addiction.
IMO, many doctors are totally clueless about this subject and need to be educated.
It is apparent to me that Rush lost control of this and that could have been prevented. He could not have prevented the addiction however.
The penalty for possession of a small amount (less than 42.5 grams) of marijuana is a fine of up to $200 and possible requirement of drug education. Possession of 42.5 grams or more of marijuana is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. Possession of 10 kilograms or more of marijuana increases the penalty to a fine up to $250,000 and up to 20 years in prison. Possession of 50 kilograms or more is punishable by up to 25 years in prison and a fine up to $500,000. For any possession of 100 kilograms or more, the penalty is up to 30 years in prison and a fine up to $1,000,000. Possession of greater than 1.4 grams in a motor vehicle (except in the trunk) is punishable by up to one year in prison.
Conditional discharge is a possibility for first time offenders. For distribution of a small amount of marijuana (42.5 grams or less) for no remuneration, the penalty is a fine of up to $200 and possible requirement of drug education. For sale of any amount less than 5 kilograms the
Sale of more than 50 grams the punishment is up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Sale of 5 kilograms or more is punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. For sale of 25 kilograms or more, the penalties increase to a possible 25 years in prison and a fine up to $500,000. Sale of 50 kilograms or more is punishable by up to 30 years in prison and a fine up to $1,000,000. The penalty for sale to a minor is up to 20 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. Sale within a school zone, park zone, public housing area or near a drug treatment facility increases the penalty to up to 15 years in prison and a fine up to $100,000. The importing of 50 kilograms or more into the state is punishable by up to 35 years in prison and a fine up to $1,250,000. Driver's licenses can be suspended for 30 days if the offense was committed while driving a motor vehicle.
Conditional release: The state allows conditional release or alternative or diversion sentencing for people facing their first prosecutions. Usually, conditional release lets a person opt for probation rather than trial. After successfully completing probation, the individual's criminal record does not reflect the charge. Decriminalization: The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation. Hemp: This state has an active hemp industry. Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. that contains minimal (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Various parts of the plant can be utilized in the making of textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, animal feed, and other products. For more information see NORML's Industrial Use section.
First, he went for detox, not rehab, there is a difference. Second, based on the e-mail sent to his maid he didn't go into detox because he wanted to.
At least Rush didn't masturbate right before each show.
Regarding this subject and WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT, I have some comments and things to say.
To start off, I suppose most of you have read what I have said on this and other threads. As you know, I am a pain patient and use OxyContin and Percocet to enable me the opportunitys and pleasures of simple movement and some sort of normalcy in my life. It works well.
On the other hand, I got a call from my daughter the night before last. My son in law was busted on a piss test at work and to my surprise has admitted addiction to presciption pain killers and use of marijuana as well.
It apparently started three years ago with a knee operation. As many do, he found that the pain killers enhanced alchohol and began abusing them. When he could not get any from a Dr. he got them from realitives and friends. Over time the addiction ensued and he was powerless to break it as the sources of the drugs were plentifull.
He will be entering rehab and has managed to preserve his job in lieu of five years of probation.
So folks! Here I am, a user and a needfull pain patient who requires this drug for a near normal existance and I have a family member who has abused the same drug and nearly lost everything he had as a result.
What a dillehma! What a quagmire! What a shame.................
IMHO, many doctors have a burdon that they are not dealing with. They have, as prescribers, the ability to persrcribe for each other and are prone to drug abuse themselves. I think this makes prescription drug abuse hard for even them to discuss in detail with a patient. with some of them it is an anchor around their necks and that is why so many refuse to even prescribe the drugs, much less monitor the patient for possible abuse.
Do we tighten controls on these drugs even furthur, or do we educate and form protocols for dealing with pain medication recipients.
IMO, it is similar to the debate over hand guns. The self protection advocacy and the right to bear arms against the results of gun abuser's who pull the trigger illegally.
Out comes the words "get rid of all guns"! Procecute,!
Out comes the words "get rid of OxyContin"! Procecute!
Unfortunately I see little in any of these threads that addresses these problems thoughtfully.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Actually all he said was that he was entering rehab and that the press stories were inaccurate and exaggerated.(paraphrasing)
He did not say they were totally untrue.
I think he fits the profile of someone who started out legitimately using the drug and failed to control his behavior and the addiction.
Exactly how that came to be will be his burden to explain. The addiction can affect one's perceptions of what is right and wrong, unless one accepts the fact that he/she is addicted and manages it from that point.
I had some difficulties with this as well. That is why I can comment on it freely.
I'm one of the antiWoD freepers who typically post to the drug threads, though I took a big break from FR recently. You might want to check out some of the Drug War threads that pop up from time to time, because there are thoughtful people from both sides addressing the problem.
As I see it, the Drug War is nothing but a government revenue generator. Drugs are a public health issue, not a crime issue---i.e., taking drugs themselves does not constitute the commission of a crime absent a law making the taking of a particular drug a crime.
What can we do? Well for one thing, the American Right should wise up to the fact that policy-wise, supporting the Drug War runs contrary to conservative ideology. For starters I'd take that.
This is true.
I think that alcohol users are the most prone to addiction from short time exposure to the drug.
It should be a red flag in some sort of protocol to dispense these meds. Not to deny them, but to follow up much more closely which should be the doctors responsibility.
I believe that education of both Dr. and patient is the key to controlling much of this problem.
LOL...........Won't do that again.
I think you will find that many moderates like myself also consider it a health issue and fail to see the need for incarceration and prosecution.(or loss of one's job!)
I ran a business for years and did not test even though insurance companies were trying to force me to do so.
I had one rule, and that was to be ready to work. If someone was not, I could tell and they went home that day.
An addict straight out of rehab is not a recovered addict.
A recovered addict, is still an addict.
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.