Funny Thing About Rush Limbaugh

[Berry]

Very interesting read(s).
Thanks for sharing.

I suppose ultimately it boils down to the case of personal opinion.
If one thinks it's a bad thing to take unprescribed meds, perhaps they tend to be a stickler with the laws.
If one sees justification in doing them — as in accidents, what have yous and nots, then they're on the other side no matter what their justification is for taking them.

Vis-a-vis, the law's the law, and it's enforced for a reason.
Then there are those that will bend or utilize it to their way of seeing it.
There are those who will go gungho past the point of simplicity and the norm to enforce sticking up.

.

I would like to refer you to Kohlberg's "Stages of Maturity".

Very interesting read(s).
Thanks for sharing.

That's how we're split on the Rush thing. Some aren't seeing him doing such a bad thing, while others feel that he's a bad guy

.

Not exactly.

Some of us believe in the goose and the gander; what is good for one should be good for the other. Don't tell me I should forgive you because you are a good guy who went astray because of a painful back -- But I should not forgive Jack who got in the same position when he fell down and broke his crown ( Actually Jill pushed him cuz he pinched her on the bum, which is the true but politically incorrect version.)

 

[shel90]

California here, civilian law, nonprescription drugs: Aspirin.

I knew a man who was fired from his job because he gave a fellow worker an aspirin his friend had asked for. No legal charges were brought against him, but he was told there could be if he fought the firing. Even though the man could have purchased the aspirin over the counter giving him one constituted practicing medicine without a license.

I knew a man whose wife gave her friend an aspirin, Tylenol, or some such over the counter mild medication that her friend had asked for. The friend ran a stop sign, had an accident for which she was at fault. She maintained she had an allergy to the medicine and it impaired her judgement. That it was therefore not her fault but the fault of the person who had given her the medication. On the advice of a lawyer the man got a second mortgage on his house and settled out of court rather than be sued.

Frankly the whole scenario strikes me as ridiculous: A person asks for something they can buy -- It is not sold, but is given freely -- Yet the well meaning friend is the one responsible for bad judgement and practicing medicine without a license, not the person asking.

Wow, that's a shame!

 

[saywhatkid]

If Daddy is drunk, he is likely gonna be a poor parent, at least when he is under the influence. It affects judgement. What is the best way to deal with this? Do parents need to be isolated when high? Or do you prefer the "no regulations at all" method? Look at it from a child's perspective. Ever see the look on a kid's face when the parent becomes too high to function properly? Ever watch COPS? Anyhow, I respect your right to your opinion. We disagree.

what if daddy is a drunk?

If any of you actually took opiates for long time, you would realize theyre rather boring. It is nothing like alcohol or marijuana.

Yes, all drugs should be legal. You should be allowed to ingest whatever you want. How about individuals undergoing a sex change. Is taking the hormones really a medical necessity?

 

[naisho]

I would like to refer you to Kohlberg's "Stages of Maturity".

I'm not taking this offensively if it's meant to be.
I honestly don't really mind if people prefer to address my opinions with a one sentence reply that looks vague if anything is to come from it.
I just feel it takes more time, or a challenge in clearing up what the intention is.

Anyhow I went to go search Kohlberg's "Stages of Maturity" and I found an article "Kohlberg's stages of moral developement" by Lawrence Kohlberg, an alumni with a doctorate of psychology from the University of Chicago. If this is the text that you are referring me to, there are six stages to his ideology, with about ~5000-6000 words to read.

Altough he does state many principles of right and wrong, fairness and justification, towards the middle and end there are a lot of passages referring to religion, select verses from the Old Testament, and the principle of the ulterior God concept, that seems to be used to apply for another logic or back up previous statements?

Unless you can help me figure out what you may be inferring to in this text.. I'm sort of at a loss of understanding which point exactly are you trying to emphasize from it.

Not exactly.

Some of us believe in the goose and the gander; what is good for one should be good for the other. Don't tell me I should forgive you because you are a good guy who went astray because of a painful back -- But I should not forgive Jack who got in the same position when he fell down and broke his crown ( Actually Jill pushed him cuz he pinched her on the bum, which is the true but politically incorrect version.)

I see, perhaps I was incorrect in my initial assumption. I never explained about my own opinion on what was right and wrong of Mr. Limbaugh, however.
All I assumed were the extreme of both sides, if you had seen the left and right examples I pointed out.. unless my statement was incorrect.

So from what I make of this, there are some in the middle between both as well.
Yeah, sorry if I failed to mention them in my previous post.

.

 

[Berry]

naisho,

Don't know how to get quotes from what you did, so I'll wing it.

Glad you decided not to take offense at my one line posting as it was not intended to be insulting in any way. And you are right it is called "Stages of Moral Development" not "Stages of Maturity". It has been a long time and I really don't want to reread it. Suffice it to say he does handle issues of maturity. He breaks it down into stages. He maintains everyone goes through these stages.

Its relevance here has to do with his sixth stage. Once a person passes the stage of fear of punishment, the stage of slavish obedience to rules, etc. eventually they reach a stage when the person recognizes that rules are guidelines and that there are times to obey them and times to disobey them.

You are also right that not all of us are either extremely pro Limbaugh or extremely anti Limbaugh.

Also the way disagreements proceed tend to put people on opposite sides of an issue when in fact if the disagreement proceeding along another path they might have some common ground.

 

[Buffalo]

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

It might not be apparent now but it will if it is allowed to continue.

 

[Dixie]

It is not illegal to consume alcohol, however it is illegal to consume enough to impair your judgement and operate heavy machinery such as cars, which puts everyone else in danger. It is also illegal to sell alcohol without a proper license, and its also illegal to purchase alcohol from an unlicensed dealer. It is also illegal to produce your own alcohol without a permit, a proper facility, and a license. You see where this is going here?

It is just the same with narcotic medications. It is legal to consume them to manage pain as medically needed. But it is illegal to consume so much at one time that your judgement is impaired and you decide to operate heavy machinery such as a car which puts everyone else in danger. It is also illegal to sell narcotics without a proper license, and it is also illegal to purchase narcotics from an unlicensed dealer. And it's also illegal to manufacture your own narcotics without a permit, a proper facility, and a license.

Narcotics, like alcohol, are widely consumed, but they are controlled substances. Obtaining them by means where the substance becomes uncontrollable and potentially dangerous is what makes it illegal.

Rush Limbaugh lied to his audience.
Rush Limbaugh broke the law.
Rush Limbaugh is a criminal.
End of story.

 

[Doug5]

and what about people that are experiencing sleep deprivation that operate heavy machinery or cars?

No one is advocating getting loaded then getting behind the wheel. This is the typical bullshit argument used against legalization.

What about people that drive around using cellphones? Using the argument above, cellphones should be banned cuz someone might get distracted while driving on the phone causing a serious accident.

While were at it, lets outlaw radios in cars, cuz the driver might get in an accident while fiddling with the radio(it happens all the time).

 

[Jiro]

and what about people that are experiencing sleep deprivation that operate heavy machinery or cars?

that's why they enacted the law for that. it's called DROWSY DRIVING Law

No one is advocating getting loaded then getting behind the wheel. This is the typical bullshit argument used against legalization.

??? that was not the major reason of illegalizing it.

What about people that drive around using cellphones? Using the argument above, cellphones should be banned cuz someone might get distracted while driving on the phone causing a serious accident.

While were at it, lets outlaw radios in cars, cuz the driver might get in an accident while fiddling with the radio(it happens all the time).

no...... it's because when you're talking on cellphone - both of your hands are NOT on the wheel at the same time for prolonged period of time. fiddling with radio doesn't take more than a few min. beside - they have radio control buttons on steering wheel.

 

[Doug5]

One argument against drug legalization is the potential of people getting hooked on a harmfull substance. 500k people die every year from smoking tobacco. The majority of smokers are addicted. They must smoke daily, several times a day. There are very few casual smokers. And the smoking age is only 18.

Then there is the argument against legalization because innocent people who arent even consuming the drug could be harmed. Drunk drivers kill thousands every year. Families continue to suffer from the abuse of an alcoholic parent.

To me the whole thing is absurd. How can these arguments against legalization be used when the legal drugs dont even meet those standards?

 

[Doug5]

that's why they enacted the law for that. it's called DROWSY DRIVING Law


??? that was not the major reason of illegalizing it.


no...... it's because when you're talking on cellphone - both of your hands are NOT on the wheel at the same time for prolonged period of time. fiddling with radio doesn't take more than a few min. beside - they have radio control buttons on steering wheel.

youre not even seeing the point

 

[Hear Again]

One argument against drug legalization is the potential of people getting hooked on a harmfull substance. 500k people die every year from smoking tobacco. The majority of smokers are addicted. They must smoke daily, several times a day. There are very few casual smokers. And the smoking age is only 18.

The only difference is that smoking doesn't hurt others unless they are exposed to second hand smoke. Someone hallucinating from marijuana, on the other hand, poses a significant danger to others particularly when their judgement is seriously impaired.

 

[Jiro]

One argument against drug legalization is the potential of people getting hooked on a harmfull substance. 500k people die every year from smoking tobacco. The majority of smokers are addicted. They must smoke daily, several times a day. There are very few casual smokers. And the smoking age is only 18.

Then there is the argument against legalization because innocent people who arent even consuming the drug could be harmed. Drunk drivers kill thousands every year. Families continue to suffer from the abuse of an alcoholic parent.

To me the whole thing is absurd. How can these arguments against legalization be used when the legal drugs dont even meet those standards?

The only difference is that smoking doesn't hurt others unless they are exposed to second hand smoke. Someone hallucinating from marijuana, on the other hand, poses a significant danger to others particularly when their judgement is seriously impaired.

exactly what Hear Again said. beside - you're using confusing term for wrong situation. Prescription drugs are LEGAL. Driving Under Influence (of any substance) is ILLEGAL.

 

[saywhatkid]

One argument against drug legalization is the potential of people getting hooked on a harmfull substance. 500k people die every year from smoking tobacco. The majority of smokers are addicted. They must smoke daily, several times a day. There are very few casual smokers. And the smoking age is only 18.

Then there is the argument against legalization because innocent people who arent even consuming the drug could be harmed. Drunk drivers kill thousands every year. Families continue to suffer from the abuse of an alcoholic parent.

To me the whole thing is absurd. How can these arguments against legalization be used when the legal drugs dont even meet those standards?

So your solution would be to add to the problem? I tried anything that was available in the early 1970's that did not require a needle. LSD-check. Marijuana & hashish-check. Speed-check. Barbituarites-check. Cocaine-check. Magic mushrooms-check. Tar opium-check. Angeldust-check. Unknown prescription drugs-check. There might be more, but forgive me if my memory is a bit compromised. Alcohol-check. Tobacco-check.
Have you tried any of this? I happen to shudder at the thought of this list of products being available on demand, over the counter. Sure, people can go find this stuff from the local pusher. But to see Walgreen's having a "buy one get one free" gram of hash sale? My reasons for being against have little to do with driving intoxicated. It becomes a lifestyle. I associated with stoners for much of my life. I speak from experience. I have been among them, part of them, one of them. It has much deeper implications than drunk driving or some guy hooked on ciggies. Many of these things were banned for a reason. Just because they are legal, and perhaps reduced in cost, would that deter someone from "Jonesing"? So many families suffer from alcohol abuse. I watched it myself, in my family. So lets increase the choices? No thanks.

 

[Doug5]

The only difference is that smoking doesn't hurt others unless they are exposed to second hand smoke. Someone hallucinating from marijuana, on the other hand, poses a significant danger to others particularly when their judgement is seriously impaired.

and drunks never pose a risk to society?

 

[Doug5]

So your solution would be to add to the problem? I tried anything that was available in the early 1970's that did not require a needle. LSD-check. Marijuana & hashish-check. Speed-check. Barbituarites-check. Cocaine-check. Magic mushrooms-check. Tar opium-check. Angeldust-check. Unknown prescription drugs-check. There might be more, but forgive me if my memory is a bit compromised. Alcohol-check. Tobacco-check.
Have you tried any of this? I happen to shudder at the thought of this list of products being available on demand, over the counter. Sure, people can go find this stuff from the local pusher. But to see Walgreen's having a "buy one get one free" gram of hash sale? My reasons for being against have little to do with driving intoxicated. It becomes a lifestyle. I associated with stoners for much of my life. I speak from experience. I have been among them, part of them, one of them. It has much deeper implications than drunk driving or some guy hooked on ciggies. Many of these things were banned for a reason. Just because they are legal, and perhaps reduced in cost, would that deter someone from "Jonesing"? So many families suffer from alcohol abuse. I watched it myself, in my family. So lets increase the choices? No thanks.

maybe you should voluntarily check yourself into jail for all those criminal acts you committed. or are you above the law?

 

[Doug5]

exactly what Hear Again said. beside - you're using confusing term for wrong situation. Prescription drugs are LEGAL. Driving Under Influence (of any substance) is ILLEGAL.

again, no one advocating for drug legalization is advocating impaired driving.

 

[Jiro]

maybe you should voluntarily check yourself into jail for all those criminal acts you committed. or are you above the law?

maybe you shouldn't pass the judgment so quickly.

 

[Jiro]

again, no one advocating for drug legalization is advocating impaired driving.

then what in the world are you advocating for? please do clarify for me so I understand your position.

 

[saywhatkid]

maybe you should voluntarily check yourself into jail for all those criminal acts you committed. or are you above the law?

:sure:
Yo, Einstein....I was in my late teens when I did this. This was 35 years ago. You want me to turn myself in? Sounds like you are running out of ammo, so you make a personal attacking comment.