Funny Thing About Rush Limbaugh

[Doug5]

Besides being a drug addict and hypocrit, he is a good example why drugs should be legalised.

During his addiction, he was able to function and hold down a job. He even lost some weight. So why is it so important that he not take the pain killers?

 

[jillio]

Besides being a drug addict and hypocrit, he is a good example why drugs should be legalised.

During his addiction, he was able to function and hold down a job. He even lost some weight. So why is it so important that he not take the pain killers?

Do you really need to ask that question?

 

[Doug5]

yes, I do. Explain why he must not take them.

 

[jillio]

yes, I do. Explain why he must not take them.

Well, let's see: He obtained them illegally, he was taking approximately 12 times the recommended therapeutic dosage, then there's always liver damage, brain damage, kidney damage, ototoxicity, driving while impaired, making decisions while impaired, and on and on and on.

 

[Doug5]

Well, let's see: He obtained them illegally, he was taking approximately 12 times the recommended therapeutic dosage, then there's always liver damage, brain damage, kidney damage, ototoxicity, driving while impaired, making decisions while impaired, and on and on and on.

Do your research and you will find the opiates are among the safest and least toxic of all the pain medicienes. Being the fat cigar chomping pig, he obviously doesnt care about his health anyways. Where was there the signs of impairment? He was on the radio and people had no idea. So if he doesnt drive why would you care what he does?

 

[jillio]

Do your research and you will find the opiates are among the safest and least toxic of all the pain medicienes. Being the fat cigar chomping pig, he obviously doesnt care about his health anyways. Where was there the signs of impairment? He was on the radio and people had no idea. So if he doesnt drive why would you care what he does?

Yes, there were signs of impairment, as well as the illegal activities he engaged in to obtain the drugs. And if you will do your research, you will find that he wasn't ingesting opiates. He was ingesting synthetics that have opiate like properties. And, the synthetic narcotic is not the only ingredient in the medications he was addicted to.

No, people didn't suspect drug abuse from the very man that was ranting about mandatory prison sentences for drug abusers. Kind of hypocritical. They simply attributed his behavior to being a fanatical crazy man.

 

[Doug5]

If drugs were legal, he would not be breaking any laws. Where were the signs of impairment? His radio show never got cancelled.

 

[Bottesini]

If drugs were legal, he would not be breaking any laws. Where were the signs of impairment? His radio show never got cancelled.

Wrong thinking were the signs. Just like Hitler.

 

[Berry]

Hmmmmmm.......

Well, let's see: He obtained them illegally,

.

If they were legal this might not have happened...

But they were legal and he wanted more than a responsible doctor would prescribe...

So it would have happened anyway.

he was taking approximately 12 times the recommended therapeutic dosage, then there's always liver damage, brain damage, kidney damage, ototoxicity,

.

To my way of thinking this is all self destructive behavior and should be discouraged but I would prefer self destructive behavior were not made criminal.

driving while impaired,

.

No matter how legal drugs are or are not no sane legal system driving under their influence. And it is not exactly like he was in the position of some poor wino trying to make it home in his fifty dollar clunker -- He could have hired a chauffeur.

On his part driving while wacked was as irresponsible as you can get.



But Doug5 has a point:

During his addiction, he was able to function and hold down a job.

.

And Rush Limbaugh is not the only one.

I'm not convinced that firing functional drug addicts and turning them into welfare recipients or criminals to take care of their habits benefits them, their families, or society at large.

I'm not sure what Doug's stand here is, but rethinking societies position on the issue is a good idea in my opinion.

 

[jillio]

If drugs were legal, he would not be breaking any laws. Where were the signs of impairment? His radio show never got cancelled.

The drugs Rush was taking are legal. What was illegal was the way he obtained them.

 

[jillio]

Hmmmmmm.......




If they were legal this might not have happened...

But they were legal and he wanted more than a responsible doctor would prescribe...

So it would have happened anyway.



To my way of thinking this is all self destructive behavior and should be discouraged but I would prefer self destructive behavior were not made criminal.



No matter how legal drugs are or are not no sane legal system driving under their influence. And it is not exactly like he was in the position of some poor wino trying to make it home in his fifty dollar clunker -- He could have hired a chauffeur.

On his part driving while wacked was as irresponsible as you can get.



But Doug5 has a point:




And Rush Limbaugh is not the only one.

I'm not convinced that firing functional drug addicts and turning them into welfare recipients or criminals to take care of their habits benefits them, their families, or society at large.

I'm not sure what Doug's stand here is, but rethinking societies position on the issue is a good idea in my opinion.

Well, actually, addiction is not illegal. So no matter the dose he was taking or the fact that he was physcially and psychological addicted to a mood altering substance, that in and of itself did not constitute illegal activity. Where the illegal part comes in is his buying medications on the street that were not prescribed for him. The fact is, Rush could never have been prosecuted for taking drugs that were prescribed for him, even if he was physically dependent and psychologically addicted. Just as an alcoholic cannot be prosecuted for the simple act of consuming alcohol. However, if the alcoholic gets behind the wheel of a car, he can most certainly be prosecuted for DUI. If the drug addict uses illegal means to obtain a legal narcotic, the same holds true.

 

[Berry]

he is a good example why drugs should be legalised.

During his addiction, he was able to function and hold down a job.

.

Lets take a scenario:

If drugs were legal, and drug addicts were not fired simply for their addictions, then what criteria do we use?

Most people do not want the local cop, gun in hand, the ambulance driver patient in the back, or the driver of an 18 wheeler weighing 85,000 pounds going 55 mph down the highway to be on 10 times the recommended dosage of any judgement altering drug stronger than coffee or pepsi.

While I agree with you I would like to see addiction decriminalized some standard does have to be met.

What is your suggestion?

 

[jillio]

Exactly. One can legalize the drug. However, one cannot legalize the behaviors that endanger others.

 

[Hear Again]

Yes, there were signs of impairment, as well as the illegal activities he engaged in to obtain the drugs. And if you will do your research, you will find that he wasn't ingesting opiates. He was ingesting synthetics that have opiate like properties. And, the synthetic narcotic is not the only ingredient in the medications he was addicted to.

No, people didn't suspect drug abuse from the very man that was ranting about mandatory prison sentences for drug abusers. Kind of hypocritical. They simply attributed his behavior to being a fanatical crazy man.

 

[Berry]

Well, actually, addiction is not illegal. So no matter the dose he was taking or the fact that he was physcially and psychological addicted to a mood altering substance, that in and of itself did not constitute illegal activity. Where the illegal part comes in is his buying medications on the street that were not prescribed for him. The fact is, Rush could never have been prosecuted for taking drugs that were prescribed for him, even if he was physically dependent and psychologically addicted. Just as an alcoholic cannot be prosecuted for the simple act of consuming alcohol. However, if the alcoholic gets behind the wheel of a car, he can most certainly be prosecuted for DUI. If the drug addict uses illegal means to obtain a legal narcotic, the same holds true

.

I don't think our opinions diverge drastically here.

No matter how legal drugs were DUI would have to be illegal. And he has the financial ability to hire a full time chauffeur.

And I seriously doubt any group of people would accept the idea that pain killers should be dispensed over the counter. Legal or not some type of control by a responsible person who is not going to over dose the addict will be required. Even bar tenders are held responsible if they sell someone too drunk to function more alcohol.

Which means buying then from an unauthorized source would still be illegal.

 

[jillio]

I don't think our opinions diverge drastically here.

No matter how legal drugs were DUI would have to be illegal. And he has the financial ability to hire a full time chauffeur.

And I seriously doubt any group of people would accept the idea that pain killers should be dispensed over the counter. Legal or not some type of control by a responsible person who is not going to over dose the addict will be required. Even bar tenders are held responsible if they sell someone too drunk to function more alcohol.

Which means buying then from an unauthorized source would still be illegal.

No, I don't see that our opinions diverge at all. We seem to be on the same page.

Regarding regulation of narcotic painkillers: absolutely they need to be monitored. There are numerous risks associated with their use. That is why they are legal, but only under the direction of a physician who can monitor both the use and the side effects. And, just like bartenders, doctors can be prosecuted for improper prescribing.

 

[Berry]

No, people didn't suspect drug abuse from the very man that was ranting about mandatory prison sentences for drug abusers.


.

I'll bet he did not think of himself as being a drug abuser: I bet he thought of the doctor as being a jerk for not providing the medication needed.

But at some point he had to recognize what he had become.

That was the point for him to step forward and say, "I was wrong. Not all drug addicts are criminals. Some, like myself, are victims and should be treated accordingly."

So far I have not seen anywhere where he said anything like this.

 

[Hear Again]

That was the point for him to step forward and say, "I was wrong. Not all drug addicts are criminals. Some, like myself, are victims and should be treated accordingly."

So far I have not seen anywhere where he said anything like this.

I've been listening to Rush for years and he did admit that taking painkillers was wrong. I normally don't defend Rush, but in this instance, I have to because he did apologize and admit his wrongdoing. If you'd like me to find the text of that radio program, I'd be happy to.

 

[jillio]

I'll bet he did not think of himself as being a drug abuser: I bet he thought of the doctor as being a jerk for not providing the medication needed.

But at some point he had to recognize what he had become.

That was the point for him to step forward and say, "I was wrong. Not all drug addicts are criminals. Some, like myself, are victims and should be treated accordingly."

So far I have not seen anywhere where he said anything like this.

Nor have I seen anything of that nature.

What got Rush in trouble was not just his use of mood altering substances, but the behaviors he engaged in while under the influence. Addictions are usually unrecognized by the addicted until their behavior reaches a point that they are forced into admitting it.

The problem with Rush, is that even after being put in the position of admitting his addiction, and seeking treatment, many of the outrageous behaviors that raised red flags continue. It would make one who is familiar with addictive behaviors, and sobriety to question whether Rush is indeed clean from mood altering substances, or if he has simply gone back to trying to manage his addiction.

 

[Berry]

I've been listening to Rush for years and he did admit that taking painkillers was wrong. I normally don't defend Rush, but in this instance, I have to because he did apologize and admit his wrongdoing. If you'd like me to find the text of that radio program, I'd be happy to

.

I take your word on it.

I am curious as to how you find the text to any radio program as I might wish to do so some time.

To me the more important part is "What is his stance toward drug addiction today?" Is he still on the mandatory prison sentence for all?