Folks, when you're dealing with conservatives, follow the money. Rush's media empire is worth $250 million and his contract stipulates, like a lot of other contracts, he cannot get a felony conviction.
WOLFF: But aren't you presupposing that he's going to be honest in that instance, when it certainly fits the profile here that this is not about honesty? This is not about recovery. This is about maintaining a media empire.
BROWN: See, you're seeing this as a business moment, aren't you?
WOLFF: Completely, absolutely, in every possible way. I don't think that there's a bone in this man's body that is not a business bone.
BROWN: That he's trying to protect a $200 million deal.
WOLFF: Two hundred and fifty million dollar, indeed.
BROWN: I was rounding it off.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANKEN: Well, I think it shows one thing, which is that $250 million doesn't make a man as happy as $200 million and a fistful of OxyContin.
BROWN: Look, I know you both sort of -- you got to feel bad for the guy. This was humiliating.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANKEN: Well, he called my friend Jerry Garcia just a dead doper when he died.
BROWN: Yes.
FRANKEN: This is a guy who has been so harsh, so mean to people who have taken drugs. Yes, I feel bad that he's addicted to whatever he's addicted to and he's going through a difficult time. And forgiveness is part of recovery. And I'd like to be able to forgive this guy.
But I can't -- what Michael's talking about I think is true. I don't think this guy's going to come back and actually go through the 12 steps and turn his will over to a higher power and actually work a program of rigorous honesty, because that's -- if he did, he'd have nothing. He'd have nothing left.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Last word.
WOLFF: Let me propose another scenario. The real issue here is the felony.
BROWN: Yes.
WOLFF: If there is, if he is charged, then, even by his contract, he's off the air. The contract is null and void. He's finished. So, right now, that has to be first and foremost on his mind. How do you avoid that? And the interesting thing, is, those 20 million people, if they stay loyal to him, if I were a prosecutor in Florida, I certainly wouldn't want to provoke them. He is and remains an incredibly powerful and insidious force.
Folks, when you're dealing with conservatives, follow the money. Rush's media empire is worth $250 million and his contract stipulates, like a lot of other contracts, he cannot get a felony conviction.
You know, there's an element to this I hadn't thought of til I read the CNN transcript-- what it takes to overcome a drug addiction frequently involves a spiritual makeoever.
I'm not saying it's the only way, but as a long term recovering alchoholic, I know for me and many, many friends and fellow sufferers, it wasn't possible to stay sober until we "cleaned house". That involved adopting a new attitude of honesty and humility, and letting go of the resentments, anger, and self-centeredness that fueled our addictions.
Now Rush isn't really well known for scrupilous attention to the truth, or his "live and let live" attitude, so now I wonder: can he kick his dependency and still be "Rush"? In other words, can he stay clean and sober while knowingly trumpeting distortions and lies to pander to his audience and preserve his media empire?
I know, I'll be accused of being "resentful and angry and dishonest" myself, but it's not really that hard to match Rush's words against the record and see how he works. It has never seemed to me that he's even particularly commited to his rhetoric-- but rather he strikes me as just an old fashioned carny huckster who knows how to put product with opportunity.
I think it would be fascinating (and sort of wonderful) if Rush, in fact, kicks his addictions, is forced to come to terms with the inner demons that drive him, and begins to use his radio bully pulpit to talk about something other than hateful "others" that cause all the trouble.
I'm praying for you buddy, we are alike, you and I.
PINSKY: Well we're really talking about opiate addiction. And it doesn't matter if you're taking OxyContin, Vicodin, Lortab, heroin or codeine. It's all the same disease and it has basically the same biology.
It is the form of addiction with the highest recidivism. The biology, the biological grip of the disease, is profound. The withdrawal is miserable and painful. And it takes a long time to recover. Treatments are drawn out. [Addicts] need to stay engaged in intensive, highly structured treatment.
In my opinion, it's unrealistic to expect somebody to get significant recovery or a high probability of success from opiate addiction without three to six months of intensive treatment. The 30 days is really just getting things started.
I think we should wish [Limbaugh] well. Who wants this disease? It's the disease that comes upon [people] often accidentally. These are common medications that are prescribed. If you have a history of alcoholism or addiction in your family and you're prescribed that for a period of time, eventually that switch gets thrown in this disease, and you're off to the races.
You ever had a pet theory confirmed?
My family has a crapload of addiction in it. Both my parents are addicted to various forms of drugs and alcohol.
As a result I have been very paranoid from an early age about any sort of drug use for myself. When I was say 12-13 I didn't really have the presence of mind to say why, I just wouldn't indulge in anything, not even when prescribed by a doctor or dentist.
I've seen doctors prescribe this these to me over the years and I never would take even one of them. I pretty much have a paranoid hate of pills but I think in this instance the paranoia was justified.
If Bill Clinton were an addict, here's how Rush might spin it
By Bill McClellan
Post-Dispatch
10/12/2003
Somewhere in a parallel universe, where we are the same people but things have happened in slightly differently ways, Rush Limbaugh greets his loyal listeners this morning.
"Lots to talk about today. You all know already that Bill Clinton, our former president, has admitted an addiction to prescription drugs.
"It's interesting to see the way the liberal media are playing this. I'm looking at a copy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Saturday, October 11th, edition - the day after the big announcement. Well, the story is on Page 2, and right next to his photograph, in large boldface print, is the following quote: 'I take full responsibility for this problem.'
"That's interesting, folks, because if you look at his actual statement - not what the liberal media say he said, but what he really said - you get a different take on it. First, he says he's got back problems. So he's blaming it on that. Then he says he had surgery, but the surgery wasn't successful. So he's blaming it on the doctors. Then he says the pain medication was addictive. So he's blaming it on the pharmaceutical companies. Folks, he blames it on everybody but himself! But as long as he puts in that obligatory line about taking responsibility, that's what the liberal media are going to grab: Clinton takes full responsibility!
"Here's another interesting thing in his statement. I love this one. He says a lot of athletes have admitted drug problems and have been treated like heroes. Huh? Can you name one athlete who admitted a drug problem and was then treated like a hero? How about Darryl Strawberry? Maybe liberals thought Strawberry was a hero, but I don't think most of us felt that way. And then Clinton says, 'I refuse to let anyone think I'm doing something heroic here.'
"You want to know what that's about? He's telling his friends in the liberal media how he wants this thing played. He wants to be called a hero for admitting his problem. That's why liberals confuse so many people. They mean the opposite of what they say.
"And I'm telling you folks, the liberal media are going to do it. He's going to be a hero. I can already see the spin on this: Clinton accepts responsibility! Doesn't blame others!
"I know you don't believe me - 'Rush, not even the liberal media can pull that one off!' - but just watch. I'm telling you. Just watch.
"Another thing. I heard him on the radio the other day. He was whimpering, 'I want to tell you about this because you're like family to me.' If there are any liberals out there listening, I'd like to ask you this: Weren't you people like family six weeks ago? How about six months ago? Two years ago? But he didn't feel the need to tell you then, did he? So why now? You think it could be because he's been caught? Because his high-priced attorney has told him he'd better act remorseful?
"Speaking of getting caught, have any of you read about those tapes and e-mails the cops have? Heh, heh, heh. You won't read them in the mainstream press, or hear about them on the Clinton News Network, but they're a hoot. He sounds like he's auditioning for a part in the next Cheech and Chong movie. He calls money "cabbage," and he refers to his favorite pills as "blue babes." It's always interesting to hear the way somebody talks when he thinks nobody is listening.
"I know what liberals are going to say: 'This is a time for compassion.' Let me be very clear about this, folks. I have compassion. But my compassion is for all the people who believed in the guy. He was their shining star. He could do no wrong. But you know something? I probably don't have to worry. Because his followers are going to still believe in him. That's the thing about liberals! You can't convince them! You can show them the facts. You can say, 'Look, here is what he really said, and here is what he really did,' but they don't want to know the truth. That's the big difference between them and us. Liberals are afraid of the truth."
If Bill Clinton were an addict, here's how Rush might spin it
By Bill McClellan
That's actually very close to Rush's style of rhetoric. I used to listen to Rush, first out of naivity, then for the sake of critically analyzing demagoguery. He started to become quite predictable. It's been a while, but I still find it an intriguing sport. For those balking conservatives in the audience I played the same game with Clinton who, although more deft, was just as capable at rhetoric.
For fun, what do you think will be Rush's spin when he returns to the air?
My take- I think we already see him laying the groundwork for his public defense. I think he'll take full responsibility, but zero consequences of responsibility (no mention of jail time, probably a lot of blather about people he hurt). That is, he will attribute it to a failure of willpower, not a common weakness of the body. He will suggest that the inordinate amount of public attention is not due to his obvious hypocrosy, but by a jihad by the liberal media. He will talk about how ruinous drugs were for him and how this requires even tougher drug laws. Maybe he will champion faith-based treatment and public funding for it.
In short, there is just a huge amount of one-sided thinking he could do here, so don't think Rush is going to have any change of heart.
[ . . . ] He will suggest that the inordinate amount of public attention is not due to his obvious hypocrosy, but by a jihad by the liberal media. He will talk about how ruinous drugs were for him and how this requires even tougher drug laws. Maybe he will champion faith-based treatment and public funding for it.
In short, there is just a huge amount of one-sided thinking he could do here, so don't think Rush is going to have any change of heart.
I don't see an inordinant amount of public attention . . . in fact considering his public power as a spokesperson with enourmous influence who consistently talked about tougher penalties for the illegal acquisition of and possession of drugs then I say there is a very visible lack of outcry or even scrutiny
especially from other 'get tough on drugs' people . . . . but that, of course is not surprising
I don't see an inordinant amount of public attention . . . in fact considering his public power as a spokesperson with enourmous influence who consistently talked about tougher penalties for the illegal acquisition of and possession of drugs then I say there is a very visible lack of outcry or even scrutiny
especially from other 'get tough on drugs' people . . . . but that, of course is not surprising
I would agree, but, you see, Rush is the ultimate victim. He's the victim of the liberal media!
I don't agree...but I see your point. A part of me feels like that, being the conservative near-libertarian I am.
The thing is that drug use can be much more destructive to society than even alcohol can be...particularly when kids are involved. We need laws on illegal substances. I do agree that users should not go to jail. Dealers should. They are literally out there pushing poison.
At this point, we should devote our drug monies to prevention and treatment and public service announcements and such, rather than night vision goggles and speed boats and Blue Thunder helicopters. The street price goes up when supply is short, creating a drug economy. Somehow I have a feeling the incentive to deal would be a lot less if coke was going for $6 a kilo rather than thousands.
You really need to get behind the fact that alcohol is a drug also. Much more destructive than say marijuana. This is recorded stuff SDW.
Nobody ever went into a violent rage after smoking a joint.
Alcohol is very destructive to the body.
Some people have a physical reaction to alcohol ( another thing you don't get with pot ) that causes violent behavior and personality changes.
You can become physically addicted to alcohol. This addiction with pot is only on the mental side.
Another thing to look at is you can't legislate away these things ( they tried in the 20's ).
The only way to have prudent drug use ( because they aren't going away so we have to learn to live with them ) is instruction in the home. A person's upbringing. This is where attitudes are formed.
For fun, what do you think will be Rush's spin when he returns to the air?
I watched michael wolf a few days ago and he basically said that the reason why he joined a detox hospitial is that a) his $250 billion dollar contract can be revoked if he embarreses them or goes to jail etc..
and b) evidently this is the first thing your lawyer will tell you to do to show remorse and to set up your defense.
If it was any or both these reasons then he will fail since addition is not something you break for a contract. If he fails again then we start looking at the possible end to lucative radio contracts.
To break an addication like this he must want it more than anything. seems to me he may not be at that place yet.
I don't agree...but I see your point. A part of me feels like that, being the conservative near-libertarian I am.
The thing is that drug use can be much more destructive to society than even alcohol can be...particularly when kids are involved. We need laws on illegal substances. I do agree that users should not go to jail. Dealers should. They are literally out there pushing poison.
At this point, we should devote our drug monies to prevention and treatment and public service announcements and such, rather than night vision goggles and speed boats and Blue Thunder helicopters. The street price goes up when supply is short, creating a drug economy. Somehow I have a feeling the incentive to deal would be a lot less if coke was going for $6 a kilo rather than thousands.
It would be illegal for minors to use it anyway regardless if drugs are legalized.
When you are no longer a minor, you should be allowed to ingest any fvcking substance you want as long as you aren't going out and putting others in harm's way. If someone wants to do lines of coke in the basement, I don't give a shit. It's none of my fvcking business nor should it be that of the government.
As long as all drugs remain illegal we will be wasting billions of dollars fighting it, putting millions of people in prison, and creating the black market that is the root of so much violence in our society.
Anyone recall that Bush Admin campaign shortly after 9-11 that linked drug addicts with supporting terrorists? Anyone for throwing Rush Limbaugh into the brig at Guantanamo Bay?
Wasn't Bush a coke freak and an alcoholic at some point before he swapped his chemical entertainment for a born again "Christian" (!?!) leaning post?
Wow! Fantastic article. I've had the same feelings about this ever since the story broke. I admit to my own partisan feelings regarding Rush, but one can't grand stand and help shape American politics regarding drug users and then get a free ride on his own criminal acts.
i think i'll add a few relevant simpsons quotes to the thread:
"The ironing is beautiful." -bart
"We have a kitchen!?!" -homer
.
i think, for those who may have been in favor of jailing drug users, Rush has shown us that a person can exist and act reasonably in society, even while high. i don't much care for him, but he did manage to keep a successful show going (or whatever the hell his job was), while using drugs. he functioned and contributed to society. i think its unreasonable to punish a person who can, and does, act civilly in normal society, and who doesn't hurt others. maybe this whole rush job will aide in persuading those who had a differing opinion on the matter. i may be callous, but his pain [killer abuse] makes me happy.
Comments
Read what Michael Wolff has to say:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/10/asb.00.html
WOLFF: But aren't you presupposing that he's going to be honest in that instance, when it certainly fits the profile here that this is not about honesty? This is not about recovery. This is about maintaining a media empire.
BROWN: See, you're seeing this as a business moment, aren't you?
WOLFF: Completely, absolutely, in every possible way. I don't think that there's a bone in this man's body that is not a business bone.
BROWN: That he's trying to protect a $200 million deal.
WOLFF: Two hundred and fifty million dollar, indeed.
BROWN: I was rounding it off.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANKEN: Well, I think it shows one thing, which is that $250 million doesn't make a man as happy as $200 million and a fistful of OxyContin.
BROWN: Look, I know you both sort of -- you got to feel bad for the guy. This was humiliating.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANKEN: Well, he called my friend Jerry Garcia just a dead doper when he died.
BROWN: Yes.
FRANKEN: This is a guy who has been so harsh, so mean to people who have taken drugs. Yes, I feel bad that he's addicted to whatever he's addicted to and he's going through a difficult time. And forgiveness is part of recovery. And I'd like to be able to forgive this guy.
But I can't -- what Michael's talking about I think is true. I don't think this guy's going to come back and actually go through the 12 steps and turn his will over to a higher power and actually work a program of rigorous honesty, because that's -- if he did, he'd have nothing. He'd have nothing left.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Last word.
WOLFF: Let me propose another scenario. The real issue here is the felony.
BROWN: Yes.
WOLFF: If there is, if he is charged, then, even by his contract, he's off the air. The contract is null and void. He's finished. So, right now, that has to be first and foremost on his mind. How do you avoid that? And the interesting thing, is, those 20 million people, if they stay loyal to him, if I were a prosecutor in Florida, I certainly wouldn't want to provoke them. He is and remains an incredibly powerful and insidious force.
Originally posted by Existence
Folks, when you're dealing with conservatives, follow the money. Rush's media empire is worth $250 million and his contract stipulates, like a lot of other contracts, he cannot get a felony conviction.
Read what Michael Wolff has to say:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/10/asb.00.html
Holy shit! I hadn't thought about that. But *surely* he won't get the felony conviction for drug trafficking?
I'm not saying it's the only way, but as a long term recovering alchoholic, I know for me and many, many friends and fellow sufferers, it wasn't possible to stay sober until we "cleaned house". That involved adopting a new attitude of honesty and humility, and letting go of the resentments, anger, and self-centeredness that fueled our addictions.
Now Rush isn't really well known for scrupilous attention to the truth, or his "live and let live" attitude, so now I wonder: can he kick his dependency and still be "Rush"? In other words, can he stay clean and sober while knowingly trumpeting distortions and lies to pander to his audience and preserve his media empire?
I know, I'll be accused of being "resentful and angry and dishonest" myself, but it's not really that hard to match Rush's words against the record and see how he works. It has never seemed to me that he's even particularly commited to his rhetoric-- but rather he strikes me as just an old fashioned carny huckster who knows how to put product with opportunity.
I think it would be fascinating (and sort of wonderful) if Rush, in fact, kicks his addictions, is forced to come to terms with the inner demons that drive him, and begins to use his radio bully pulpit to talk about something other than hateful "others" that cause all the trouble.
I'm praying for you buddy, we are alike, you and I.
Anyone tried playing golf with a severe back injury?
PINSKY: Well we're really talking about opiate addiction. And it doesn't matter if you're taking OxyContin, Vicodin, Lortab, heroin or codeine. It's all the same disease and it has basically the same biology.
It is the form of addiction with the highest recidivism. The biology, the biological grip of the disease, is profound. The withdrawal is miserable and painful. And it takes a long time to recover. Treatments are drawn out. [Addicts] need to stay engaged in intensive, highly structured treatment.
In my opinion, it's unrealistic to expect somebody to get significant recovery or a high probability of success from opiate addiction without three to six months of intensive treatment. The 30 days is really just getting things started.
I think we should wish [Limbaugh] well. Who wants this disease? It's the disease that comes upon [people] often accidentally. These are common medications that are prescribed. If you have a history of alcoholism or addiction in your family and you're prescribed that for a period of time, eventually that switch gets thrown in this disease, and you're off to the races.
You ever had a pet theory confirmed?
My family has a crapload of addiction in it. Both my parents are addicted to various forms of drugs and alcohol.
As a result I have been very paranoid from an early age about any sort of drug use for myself. When I was say 12-13 I didn't really have the presence of mind to say why, I just wouldn't indulge in anything, not even when prescribed by a doctor or dentist.
I've seen doctors prescribe this these to me over the years and I never would take even one of them. I pretty much have a paranoid hate of pills but I think in this instance the paranoia was justified.
Nick
Cheers
Scott
If Bill Clinton were an addict, here's how Rush might spin it
By Bill McClellan
Post-Dispatch
10/12/2003
Somewhere in a parallel universe, where we are the same people but things have happened in slightly differently ways, Rush Limbaugh greets his loyal listeners this morning.
"Lots to talk about today. You all know already that Bill Clinton, our former president, has admitted an addiction to prescription drugs.
"It's interesting to see the way the liberal media are playing this. I'm looking at a copy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Saturday, October 11th, edition - the day after the big announcement. Well, the story is on Page 2, and right next to his photograph, in large boldface print, is the following quote: 'I take full responsibility for this problem.'
"That's interesting, folks, because if you look at his actual statement - not what the liberal media say he said, but what he really said - you get a different take on it. First, he says he's got back problems. So he's blaming it on that. Then he says he had surgery, but the surgery wasn't successful. So he's blaming it on the doctors. Then he says the pain medication was addictive. So he's blaming it on the pharmaceutical companies. Folks, he blames it on everybody but himself! But as long as he puts in that obligatory line about taking responsibility, that's what the liberal media are going to grab: Clinton takes full responsibility!
"Here's another interesting thing in his statement. I love this one. He says a lot of athletes have admitted drug problems and have been treated like heroes. Huh? Can you name one athlete who admitted a drug problem and was then treated like a hero? How about Darryl Strawberry? Maybe liberals thought Strawberry was a hero, but I don't think most of us felt that way. And then Clinton says, 'I refuse to let anyone think I'm doing something heroic here.'
"You want to know what that's about? He's telling his friends in the liberal media how he wants this thing played. He wants to be called a hero for admitting his problem. That's why liberals confuse so many people. They mean the opposite of what they say.
"And I'm telling you folks, the liberal media are going to do it. He's going to be a hero. I can already see the spin on this: Clinton accepts responsibility! Doesn't blame others!
"I know you don't believe me - 'Rush, not even the liberal media can pull that one off!' - but just watch. I'm telling you. Just watch.
"Another thing. I heard him on the radio the other day. He was whimpering, 'I want to tell you about this because you're like family to me.' If there are any liberals out there listening, I'd like to ask you this: Weren't you people like family six weeks ago? How about six months ago? Two years ago? But he didn't feel the need to tell you then, did he? So why now? You think it could be because he's been caught? Because his high-priced attorney has told him he'd better act remorseful?
"Speaking of getting caught, have any of you read about those tapes and e-mails the cops have? Heh, heh, heh. You won't read them in the mainstream press, or hear about them on the Clinton News Network, but they're a hoot. He sounds like he's auditioning for a part in the next Cheech and Chong movie. He calls money "cabbage," and he refers to his favorite pills as "blue babes." It's always interesting to hear the way somebody talks when he thinks nobody is listening.
"I know what liberals are going to say: 'This is a time for compassion.' Let me be very clear about this, folks. I have compassion. But my compassion is for all the people who believed in the guy. He was their shining star. He could do no wrong. But you know something? I probably don't have to worry. Because his followers are going to still believe in him. That's the thing about liberals! You can't convince them! You can show them the facts. You can say, 'Look, here is what he really said, and here is what he really did,' but they don't want to know the truth. That's the big difference between them and us. Liberals are afraid of the truth."
Originally posted by keyboardf12
If Bill Clinton were an addict, here's how Rush might spin it
By Bill McClellan
That's actually very close to Rush's style of rhetoric. I used to listen to Rush, first out of naivity, then for the sake of critically analyzing demagoguery. He started to become quite predictable. It's been a while, but I still find it an intriguing sport. For those balking conservatives in the audience I played the same game with Clinton who, although more deft, was just as capable at rhetoric.
For fun, what do you think will be Rush's spin when he returns to the air?
My take- I think we already see him laying the groundwork for his public defense. I think he'll take full responsibility, but zero consequences of responsibility (no mention of jail time, probably a lot of blather about people he hurt). That is, he will attribute it to a failure of willpower, not a common weakness of the body. He will suggest that the inordinate amount of public attention is not due to his obvious hypocrosy, but by a jihad by the liberal media. He will talk about how ruinous drugs were for him and how this requires even tougher drug laws. Maybe he will champion faith-based treatment and public funding for it.
In short, there is just a huge amount of one-sided thinking he could do here, so don't think Rush is going to have any change of heart.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
[ . . . ] He will suggest that the inordinate amount of public attention is not due to his obvious hypocrosy, but by a jihad by the liberal media. He will talk about how ruinous drugs were for him and how this requires even tougher drug laws. Maybe he will champion faith-based treatment and public funding for it.
In short, there is just a huge amount of one-sided thinking he could do here, so don't think Rush is going to have any change of heart.
I don't see an inordinant amount of public attention . . . in fact considering his public power as a spokesperson with enourmous influence who consistently talked about tougher penalties for the illegal acquisition of and possession of drugs then I say there is a very visible lack of outcry or even scrutiny
especially from other 'get tough on drugs' people . . . . but that, of course is not surprising
Originally posted by pfflam
I don't see an inordinant amount of public attention . . . in fact considering his public power as a spokesperson with enourmous influence who consistently talked about tougher penalties for the illegal acquisition of and possession of drugs then I say there is a very visible lack of outcry or even scrutiny
especially from other 'get tough on drugs' people . . . . but that, of course is not surprising
I would agree, but, you see, Rush is the ultimate victim. He's the victim of the liberal media!
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't agree...but I see your point. A part of me feels like that, being the conservative near-libertarian I am.
The thing is that drug use can be much more destructive to society than even alcohol can be...particularly when kids are involved. We need laws on illegal substances. I do agree that users should not go to jail. Dealers should. They are literally out there pushing poison.
At this point, we should devote our drug monies to prevention and treatment and public service announcements and such, rather than night vision goggles and speed boats and Blue Thunder helicopters. The street price goes up when supply is short, creating a drug economy. Somehow I have a feeling the incentive to deal would be a lot less if coke was going for $6 a kilo rather than thousands.
You really need to get behind the fact that alcohol is a drug also. Much more destructive than say marijuana. This is recorded stuff SDW.
Nobody ever went into a violent rage after smoking a joint.
Alcohol is very destructive to the body.
Some people have a physical reaction to alcohol ( another thing you don't get with pot ) that causes violent behavior and personality changes.
You can become physically addicted to alcohol. This addiction with pot is only on the mental side.
Another thing to look at is you can't legislate away these things ( they tried in the 20's ).
The only way to have prudent drug use ( because they aren't going away so we have to learn to live with them ) is instruction in the home. A person's upbringing. This is where attitudes are formed.
For fun, what do you think will be Rush's spin when he returns to the air?
I watched michael wolf a few days ago and he basically said that the reason why he joined a detox hospitial is that a) his $250 billion dollar contract can be revoked if he embarreses them or goes to jail etc..
and b) evidently this is the first thing your lawyer will tell you to do to show remorse and to set up your defense.
If it was any or both these reasons then he will fail since addition is not something you break for a contract. If he fails again then we start looking at the possible end to lucative radio contracts.
To break an addication like this he must want it more than anything. seems to me he may not be at that place yet.
Originally posted by midwinter
Remember: he's not in trouble for being a drug addict. He's in trouble for obtaining prescription drugs without a prescription.
In other words, the same thing Jeb Bush's daughter got in trouble for.
In the same state, even.
Cheers
Scott
AH... So what you're saying is that he's a full blown criminal now instead of just a junkie?
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't agree...but I see your point. A part of me feels like that, being the conservative near-libertarian I am.
The thing is that drug use can be much more destructive to society than even alcohol can be...particularly when kids are involved. We need laws on illegal substances. I do agree that users should not go to jail. Dealers should. They are literally out there pushing poison.
At this point, we should devote our drug monies to prevention and treatment and public service announcements and such, rather than night vision goggles and speed boats and Blue Thunder helicopters. The street price goes up when supply is short, creating a drug economy. Somehow I have a feeling the incentive to deal would be a lot less if coke was going for $6 a kilo rather than thousands.
It would be illegal for minors to use it anyway regardless if drugs are legalized.
When you are no longer a minor, you should be allowed to ingest any fvcking substance you want as long as you aren't going out and putting others in harm's way. If someone wants to do lines of coke in the basement, I don't give a shit. It's none of my fvcking business nor should it be that of the government.
As long as all drugs remain illegal we will be wasting billions of dollars fighting it, putting millions of people in prison, and creating the black market that is the root of so much violence in our society.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I would agree, but, you see, Rush is the ultimate victim. He's the victim of the liberal media!
Or at least he cries that he is when he takes the microphone and assumes his daily cricified pose...
At least I have 30 days minimum of safety when flipping through my radio stations in the afternoon.
Wasn't Bush a coke freak and an alcoholic at some point before he swapped his chemical entertainment for a born again "Christian" (!?!) leaning post?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds86.html
oops....you said it, W!
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?...iew&record=652
Good article!
Originally posted by sammi jo
America owes Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude!
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?...iew&record=652
Good article!
Wow! Fantastic article. I've had the same feelings about this ever since the story broke. I admit to my own partisan feelings regarding Rush, but one can't grand stand and help shape American politics regarding drug users and then get a free ride on his own criminal acts.
The Hypocrisy Astounds!
"The ironing is beautiful." -bart
"We have a kitchen!?!" -homer
.
i think, for those who may have been in favor of jailing drug users, Rush has shown us that a person can exist and act reasonably in society, even while high. i don't much care for him, but he did manage to keep a successful show going (or whatever the hell his job was), while using drugs. he functioned and contributed to society. i think its unreasonable to punish a person who can, and does, act civilly in normal society, and who doesn't hurt others. maybe this whole rush job will aide in persuading those who had a differing opinion on the matter. i may be callous, but his pain [killer abuse] makes me happy.