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
Most drug users are contributing members of society, as are most legal alcoholics.
Skid row will always be skid row and that is the stereo type most often used.
As you stated, it is a health problem and has some health remedies that have not been implemented.
As to legalization, I cannot seem to justify it as of yet. But, the legal penalties for use are ridiculous in some states.
As to the dealer, There must be a financial and loss of freedoms cost. We cannot have them selling to our kids.
I view this similarly to prostitution. it does no good to put the john in jail.
As to the dealer, There must be a financial and loss of freedoms cost. We cannot have them selling to our kids.
A few arguments to consider:Why not relegalization? Criminalization hasn't solved the problem. Arguably it can't. Arguably, the criminalization of drug usage and drug distribution (certain types) has led to the erosion of privacy, the expansion of government at all levels, and the amount of money spent by all levels of government, requiring higher taxes. How is supporting the erosion of rights, the expansion of government, and higher taxes a valid conservative stance? Every conservative bone in my body tells me we should be jealously safeguarding all of our rights (I know privacy isn't an enumerated one, but it's in there nonetheless), reducing the size of government at all levels, and reducing taxes.
When abused, OxyContin, like other opiates and opioids, can be dangerously addictive.
OxyContin is dangerously addictive under ANY circumstances. Especially when taken as prescribed.
they either chew, snort or inject the medication to get an instant and intense "high."
Interesting observation, but just what is it that comprises a "HIGH"?
I chewed up one of them for curiosities sake and found that it nauseated me and affected my autonomic breathing responses. It neither made me happy nor was it an enjoyable experience. Basically it made me sick.
Frequent and repeated use of the drug can cause the user to develop a tolerance to its effects, so larger doses are required to elicit the desired sensation and the abuser gets increasingly addicted to the drug.
True enough with any Opioid Agonist type drug. The more you take, the more effect as in pain control or anything else. As opposed to a analgesic compound that peaks out and more does not help at all.
The erroneous comments I referred to are more in the line of the wrong idea of addiction. People vary, but a Opioid user with generally get addicted as a result of more than one months use. The higher the dose, the stronger the addiction. Some get psychologically addicted early on because the drug acts just like the bodies own natural pain killer called endorphins.
A sudden lack of endorphins causes ill feeling and depression.
As to the purported high, I would classify it as a "body stone". Similar to mild marijuana laced with rat poison.
BTW, for regular users the mild euphoric effects go away in days. There is only so much endorphins that the brain can utilize.
In short, If I were a abuser of drugs, I would find OxyContin to be a expensive waste of money and time. But, perhaps I have a bit more class than a "hillbilly".
I like fine women, fine whiskey and would certainly opt for MJ or Heroin as opposed to oxycontin. Even tranq's would be a better option.
I understand your points on the issue.
I am just not convinced that society as a whole would not be damaged even further by legalization.
other countries experiments with this have not seemed to work well. Although, this country is not like them in many ways.
Maybe or maybe not seems to be the results and I cannot say which is correct.
I am just not convinced that society as a whole would not be damaged even further by legalization.
It is likeliest that under relegalization, more people would harm themselves with drugs. But preventing self-harm cannot justify our imposing on others the harms of drug criminalization.
On the lighter side, perhaps we could give everyone interested a Oxycontin pill to chew.(about 40mg should do the trick)
We could have puke buckets and medical staff present for resuscitation. It would be a hoot watching all these people get "high"!
The dispenser guy could dress up as "Mr. Towlie".
Folks, taking Oxy to get high is just plain masochistic behavior. It reminds me of strychnine during the 60s and 70s. Just asinine behavior. It is a fad.
I tend to agree with that statement, but I have have little to prove it, one way or the other.
It's a matter of principle, not empirical observation.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............It seems the courts did not feel that way.
Look at the current attempts to regulate tobacco under the FDA.
Principles were lost long ago, but in principle I agree with your stand.
I can't say I know that for a fact.
You could go to an AA meeting, and ask some people what they think.
While probably destroying his hearing and his liver.
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.