cannabisnews.com: Rush To Judgment





Rush To Judgment
Posted by CN Staff on October 13, 2003 at 22:15:50 PT
By Gene Callahan
Source: LewRockwell.com
There has been a lot said about Rush Limbaugh's recent woes involving his history of drug abuse. But, in the interest of piling on, let me say a bit more.First of all, while downing a hundred Oxycontin tablets a day in a seven-week binge is almost certainly not a good idea, I am not attacking Limbaugh for his slide into addiction. No man who was known, in his youth, to occasionally gobble down four or five hits of acid at a Grateful Dead concert can afford to be too harsh on the indulgences of others.
But Limbaugh is not merely a private citizen who happened to develop a drug problem. He is also a famous political commentator whose views influence millions of others. And as far as I can tell, he never stopped recommending that others go to prison for what he himself was doing. Ellis Hennican quotes Limbaugh from 1995:"There's nothing good about drug use… We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."There is some ambiguous evidence that Limbaugh may have changed his opinion by 1998, when he suggested legalization, but on the whole those remarks seem to me to be a sarcastic comment on the plight of the (legal) tobacco industry.Now the response of conservative defenders of Limbaugh is likely to be along the lines of, "True, he did not live up to the principles he espoused. But simply because he was weak doesn't mean his position against legalization is wrong. In fact, his own case just goes to show how dangerous illegal drug usage is."This is fine, as far as it goes. The fact that we are all sinners does not mean we must all advocate sinning. But it doesn't get Limbaugh out of this jam. That is because if he, in fact, is still in favor of drug users being convicted and "sent up," then he ought to voluntarily go to prison himself. He should now fully cooperate with prosecutors and not accept any penalty less harsh than those he recommends for others. If drug users in general should be "sent up," then so should Limbaugh.But that is apparently not the strategy Limbaugh is pursuing. As explained by Randy Barnett, Limbaugh's refusal to discuss details of the drug charges appears to be part of his defense strategy. Barnett's hypothesis was strengthened by Limbaugh's subsequent public statement, where he said: "The authorities are conducting an investigation, and I have been asked to limit my public comments until this investigation is complete.''If Limbaugh were going to voluntarily accept the penalties that he has enthusiastically endorsed for others, than he wouldn't need a defense strategy. He would simply come forward and say, "Yes, I did it, and I will serve the prison time recommended by law."As a prominent public opinion leader, Limbaugh has taken on a responsibility. If, at some point in the past, he had vigorously opposed the drug war, his opinion would have had a huge influence on his many devoted fans. Thousands of drug users could potentially have avoided prison if drug laws were simply made less harsh, even without full legalization. It is wildly inconsistent for him to now attempt to lessen the penalties he faces when so many others are imprisoned, just as he has recommended.Gene Callahan, the author of Economics for Real People, is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a contributing columnist to LewRockwell.com. -- Copyright: 2003 Gene CallahanURL: http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan120.htmlSource: LewRockwell.comAuthor: Gene CallahanPublished: October 14, 2003Copyright: 2003 LewRockwell.comContact: lew lewrockwell.com Website: http://www.lewrockwell.com/Related Articles:Rush To Judgement http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17553.shtmlHypocrisy Revealed http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17544.shtmlRush To Jail? - Joel Millerhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17536.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by CorvallisEric on October 13, 2003 at 23:52:47 PT
quotes and comments
From Gene Callahan (main article): There is some ambiguous evidence that Limbaugh may have changed his opinion by 1998, when he suggested legalization, but on the whole those remarks seem to me to be a sarcastic comment on the plight of the (legal) tobacco industry.This is my favorite of a dozen versions of this. I see no ambiguity, just sarcasm. From Bob Wallace (comment #1): One thing I do suspect, though, is that Limbaugh will never, ever again say a word in support of the Drug War. Limbaugh is an addict, and is always in danger of relapse. I suspect he's smart enough to know this.Wow, that's interesting! I wish I could believe it (I guess).I believe Rush has two paths: humility, or more arrogance. The first leads to repentance and atonement. The second, being the same thing as hubris, will lead to more problems for El Rushbo. It's up to him.The problem for Rush is that his career depends so heavily on the unique and arrogant stage persona. His put-downs, ridicule, deliberate(?) clumsiness, and self-aggrandizing humor all spring directly from his arrogance. On the other hand, his intellect and articulacy are at least equalled by dozens of lesser-known conservative radio hosts.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 13, 2003 at 22:26:53 PT
Related Article from LewRockwell.com
Conservative Addiction Good! Liberal Addiction Bad!By Bob WallaceOctober 14, 2003 I wish I could remember who wrote this, because I'd like to give credit. TOMMY CHONG: Whatcha in for, man? RUSH LIMBAUGH: Dealing in drugs and being an addict. I bought synthetic opiate painkillers illegally and became addicted to them. CHONG: Really? Rush Limbaugh an addict? Wow! LIMBAUGH: What are you in for? CHONG: Selling glass. LIMBAUGH: Grass? CHONG: No, glass. With an 'l.' Like everything funny, there is great truth to that little skit. Tommy Chong, at 65, is in prison for six months for selling marijuana bongs over the Internet. He shouldn't be in prison. Limbaugh is not going to serve a day in jail. He shouldn't, either. I tell people Chong should have bought thrift-store coffee pots and sold them, since they can be used for other purposes than making coffee. ("Bongs, your honor? They're coffee pots!") Dittoheads rationalizing Limbaugh's addiction (which one, now? Painkillers, food or tobacco?) claim his "dependence" is okay because he was taking drugs for pain and therefore deserves compassion. On the other hand, people who use drugs for pleasure should be punished. I guess all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others. I've had substantial experience with addicts. You name it; I've seen it. Not a little experience, but a lot. My experience with addicts is that all are in pain. That's why they use drugs. They're trying to self-medicate. None of them have been in physical pain. All have been in some kind of psychological torment. People who aren't in some kind of pain, either physical or psychological (what exactly is the difference?) don't become addicts. From now on, can't anyone using drugs use the Rush Limbaugh defense? "I'm not using drugs for pleasure. I'm sick and in pain, and I need them to function." What are prosecutors and judges going to do about that? "Well, gosh...if Limbaugh can go into treatment two or three times, and relapse, and never go to jail, how can I put anyone in jail for drug use when they're claiming their addiction is for pain, just like El Rushbo?" I remember one woman in particular. I'll call her Joane. She was a junkie who told me one shot would hold her for eight hours. She didn't want to be a junkie, but told me the first time she tried heroin all the pain went away and she instantly knew she was an addict. I never bothered to ask Joane her history, about what had happened in her past that might have contributed to what she became. But I do know she supported her addiction by being a whore. Didn't have enough talent to get behind a microphone, like Rush. Finally Joane became so disgusted over what she was she went into rehab for 30 days, where she was basically given sleeping pills so she wouldn't feel too many withdrawal symptoms. "All I did was sleep and eat," she told me. When she came out, she had gained 20 pounds. This makes me wonder if Rush will again have a weight problem when he finishes rehab. After all, like William Bennett, he appears to be an addictive personality. Rush, like Bennett, should repeat over and over, morning, noon and night, "Judge not, lest you be judged." I never saw Joane judge anyone the way Limbaugh and Bennett judge, because her experience and understanding of addiction excluded that kind of self-righteousness. How could Joane decide she was so superior to anyone that it gave her the right to look down on others, considering what she was? But when it comes right down to the basics, there's really no difference between Limbaugh, Bennett or Joane. In a way, all of it makes me smile. All humans are inherently flawed, no matter how big their mouths, or how arrogant and grandiose. I never saw any arrogance in Joane, but I've seen a lot of it in the judgmental Limbaugh and Bennett. Joane also told me that anyone who goes through rehab, and gets back on drugs, is probably never going to get off of them. Limbaugh has been through rehab more than once, and failed. Will he ever get off of painkillers? I don't know. But I suspect he's going to have cravings for the rest of his life. Maybe he'll just smoke a lot more cigars, or pour sugar down his throat, the way I've seen alcoholics do when they kick booze. One thing I do suspect, though, is that Limbaugh will never, ever again say a word in support of the Drug War. Limbaugh is an addict, and is always in danger of relapse. I suspect he's smart enough to know this. There would be a lot less problems in the world if drug were legalized. Some who think there would be an explosion of drug use don't realize that all societies are inherently conservative. They have to be, to survive. Social pressure against drug abuse would reduce it to the minimum. Abuse, however, will never be eradicated. As the old saying goes, "the poor are always with us." State interference in societies is what exacerbates problems. Laws against drugs is what creates black markets, massive profits for criminals, and small quantities of concentrated drugs that are easy to smuggle. Poor Rush. Like William Bennett, like Joane, and like everyone else, he has feet of clay. I believe Rush has two paths: humility, or more arrogance. The first leads to repentance and atonement. The second, being the same thing as hubris, will lead to more problems for El Rushbo. It's up to him. All we need now is for Rush to get wounded in a war. Then maybe he would give up being an armchair-warrior chickenhawk lusting after murder and destruction. Nothing like the School of Hard Knocks, I always say. Bob Wallace is the author of I Write What I See. Please visit his Shameless Book Promotion Page. And here is his Page Full o' Fun.Copyright: 2003 LewRockwell.com 
Conservative Addiction Good! Liberal Addiction Bad!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment