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
For example, white male physicians have a substance habituation history (especially for prescription narcotics) many times that of the general population. The reason is simple--they have both access and the money to become addicted. Every State Board of Medical Examiners has noted this and has developed tough standards to deal with the problem.
Our WOD has been almost entirely restricted to dealers. I know a few users with large amounts in posession sometimes face a prison sentence but this is an anomoly of the courts and the law as much as anything else. In Singapore (right in the middle of the dope producing area of the world) substance abuse or habituation is virtually unknown. The reason is if you use even once, you are incarcerated and treated or just incarcerated. If you are a recividist the legal roof falls on you. If you are dealer and are caught you get a mandatory death sentence. Initially, there were death sentences but now there are few since any dealer knows his or her life span is brief once they are arrested. Users are so legally and socially punished there is little incentive even to experiment. Of course, such Draconian legal measures cannot be instituted in a modern, Western democracy.
In a certain sense, the WOD is a misnomer. We should call it a war on dealers. In the meantime, users are not prosecuted with any vigor; hence, we have a schism between what we think we want --control of access--and what we actually want--dealers only punished--resulting in a failing WOD.
Tonight on Radio FreeRepublic!
8pm/5pm - Chuck Muth Interviews Lori Waters from the Eagle Forum!
10pm/7pm - Tom Adkins is ON FIRE! If you have never listened to Tom, don't miss his show tonight and watch Tom slice and dice liberals! Tom has been called a cross between Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage and his shows are always intertaining and informative!
I'm glad you have the whole scoop even though all the facts are not known.
And BTW, why is it that one has to need to get high to be addicted to these pills? Couldn't it be that a person is addicted to pain killers because they help with physical pain and the person cannot do without them for that reason?
Not being able to do without something IS what an addiction is and pain whenever you are without the pain killers qualifies. Why is everybody assuming Rush just wanted to get high? Give the guy a break and wait for the facts people!
Ben Stein's wonderful comment is easily explainable.
For a intelligent person who loves to talk, the first few doses of a Oxy-codone type drug would probably create a slight euphoric effect. This effect does not really increase with the amount taken and is caused by the sudden amount of painkiller in the system. the effect lasts for only the first few doses and goes away on it's own.
The real effect as a enhancer of other drugs is primarily with alcohol. The effect is similar to cocaine without the increased heart rate and BP. Oxycodone has a suppressive effect on BP and heart-rate as well as breathing. It is in no way a stimulant.
Why people use it for a high, I do not know. I once baked banana peels in the oven, thinking it would get you high. LOL! how about aspirin and coke! Or huffing lighter fuel.
No, Rush's addiction came initially as a result of use and he chose to go outside the box apparently, to self medicate.
He did it not to get high, but to be totally free of pain. The reasons were noble, but the methods not.
I am sick and tired of Oxycodone addiction being labeled words like junkie and drug addicted slob.
I am addicted to the substance and I manage it quite well with the help of a Dr.
Should the time come when I can get off these meds I will have to go through a withdrawal period, and perhaps some lingering mini with-drawls for some time. But, it is something I was prepared for as a consequence of using the drug and a small price to pay for the reduction of the chronic pain that plagues me and other people like Rush.
The only difference between Rush's addiction to pills and yours to cigarettes is that your addiction is (still) legal.
Rush has a lot of company when it comes to substance abuse (including, I'm sure, some of his biggest bashers this week).
He's in a smaller class when it comes to admitting his problem (with no excuses) and trying to deal with it.
Oxycontin lasts for twelve hours. According to the reports he was taking some 30 or more pills per day.
Did anyone ever notice he was high?
The answer is no.
What I understand from your declaration here is that you were unable to get high on Oxycontin. That is called Sour Grapes. Better luck with your next effort.
Rush's addiction to oxy is legal, as is mine.
What he did wrong was to purchase illegally without a presciption.
Addiction is not always a dirty word.
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.