Isn’t the drug addiction partially forgivable because he started on the pain killers after surgery?
Isn’t recreational drug use what conservatives are against?
-k
Um, emarkp, Oxycontin, which is, I believe, Rush’s fix of choice, is widely sought after on the street, not because lots of people have intractable pain, but because the drug, a narcotic, makes you feel real, real good.
True, Rush got addicted initially because he was treating pain, but at some point, the distinction between using a simple prescription drug for pain relief, and using a widely abused street drug because it makes you feel good, begins to blur.
It isn’t any more forgivable than an addict being hooked on crack to avoid withdrawal. Or an alcholic drowning his depression in booze.
If you’re so addicted to something that you can’t stop–even when it makes you deaf–then you have the same fundamental problem as someone is addicted to something that is “illegal”. I don’t think the fact that oxycotin is legal (and it’s not clear if he obtained it legally) makes it any less pathetic or irresponsible.
(FWIW, I don’t think he’s necessarily a hypocrite. But I don’t think he’d feel particularly sympathetic if a blowhard liberal was in his shoes…so the schadenfraude is sinfully tempting.)
When you’re addicted to something, you’re not using it to get rid of your pain. You’re using it because you’re hooked (hooked on the rush?). Oxycontin is extremely powerful and morphine based, I’ve heard it’s called “hillbilly heroin.”
I do feel sympathy for Rush here, as he’s not the first guy to get hooked on drugs this way. But it’s not true that he wasn’t using drugs to get high. And as far as hypocrisy goes, ask yourself this- what would Rush be doing right now if, say, Bill Clinton had just come out and admitted a dependence on painkillers?
I’ve got no problem with being nicer to the guy than he would’ve been to somebody else, but I think you have to call a spade a spade here.
I think there’s a distinction between becoming addicted because of a legitimate medical problem for which painkillers are prescribed, and becoming addicted because you made the positive decision to seek them out for fun.
The distinction is the element of choice.
Rush didn’t chose to get his back all screwed up, and the pills that hooked him were prescribed under medical supervison.
Rush’s addiction to these pills isn’t his fault.
I know a little bit about what I’m talking about. I had a bad accident 22 years ago, and was on pain pills for about 6 weeks. I was only 14 and was pretty carefully monitored so I wouldn’t become addicted.
Not being addicted (according to what they said,) I was nonetheless so desperate I seriously considered reinjuring myself so I could get back on the pain pills. I really can’t describe the power of these things.
18 years after this event, my daughter is born. My wife comes home after the caesarian with a prescription for percocet.
For the week that they were in the house it was like there was an ethernet connection between those pills and mind. I was constantly aware of how many were left, where they were… and they called to me.
After 22 years.
My understanding is that with narcotics it really doesn’t matter who you are are what you beleive. Get hooked, and you’ll sell your mother for more.
It used to be called “the soldier’s disease.” A couple of shots of morphine and an injured soldier was pretty much a junkie for the rest of his life.
So, I don’t hold Rush responsible for his addiction. It could happen to anybody.
However, I hold him responsible for his actions while he was addicted, and if he broke the law he should be treated as anybody else would.
Like someone with a problem that requires treatment. That’s how he should be treated. The fact that he has favored Draconian treatment for others in the same situation is of no consequence. A miserable hypocrite is still a miserable human being.
There’s a distinction that’s being pointedly ignored by the hypocrite crowd.
Rush is not the architect of his own addiction.
So he’s blameless? He has no personal responsibility?
Like I said before, people self-medicate with all sorts of things. Illegal drugs. Alcohol. Gambling. Food. And when they become addicted, people–many of them with conservative leanings–demand personal responsibility. Rush Limbaugh would yell “cry me a river” at someone repeating what you just said, Scylla.
I have sympathy for him as a fellow human being, but I hope from now on he doesn’t make moral judgements about others suffering from addiction.
**
I’ve said otherwise. Did I not type clearly?
**
Indeed. Such a person is the architect of their own addiction.
This should not be such a difficult distinction.
He’s not here. How do you know what he’d say? I don’t, nor am I speaking for him. I’m speaking for me.
I see a big difference between somebody being buried in a hole through circumstance and somebody who digs the whole and climbs in themself.
I have a lot of sympathy for the former and not much for the latter.
Look. This is a man who refered to 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton as the “White House dog.” This is a miserable excuse for a human being. I have not the slightest sympathy for him. Karma’s a bitch.
One more point:
Is there any evidence to support his back injury claim? Other than his word? The neat thing about claiming a medical condition is that no one can check up on it. Doctor-patient confidentiality and all. Maybe he had a back injury, but damned if I’ll just take his word for it.
**
You’ve never spoken ill of a fellow human being?
Never mind.
So are you saying he’s lying?
The neat thing about not quite making an accusation is that you’re not on the hook for the aspersion you cast. It’s kind of cowardly though.
Well, he certainly didn’t 'fess up about his drug addiction until he got caught. “It goes to the witness’s credibility, your honor.”
Well, he does have a history.
I will need more evidence than his say-so before I buy into it.
Early Out, spoke, let me introduce you to the concept of a logical fallacy. I know this is a difficult concept for some of us to grasp, but still…
I think you’re putting far too much weight on the distinction between someone who was given drugs and told, “these will make you feel great” and someone who was given drugs and told, “these will make you and your back feel great.” Calling the former the “architect of his own addiction” is surely an overstatement.
No one is completely in control of the circumstances surrounding his or her addiction.
But it’s not that simple. Rush didn’t become addicted just because he had a medical problem, just like the recreational user doesn’t become addicted simply because he initially took the drugs for fun. Among people who are prescribed opiates (such as Oxycontin), the incidence of addiction is very low. There’s no reason to believe that it’s significantly different for people who purchase drugs off the black market (though statistics are, of course, impossible to come by). Some people have a much harder time stopping than others, as you are apparently well aware. One’s propensity for addiction has more to do with the outcome of their drug use than does the reason they initially used drugs.
The crux if the issue, I think, is this: why is choosing to take drugs because of a medical condition fundamentally legitimate and pardonable, while choosing to take drugs for other reasons is fundamentally illegitimate and blameworthy? In both cases, the drugs are being taken in order to make oneself feel better. No one thinks to himself, “I should start up a sweet little heroin habit” (hence the absurdity of the phrase “architect of his own addiction”).
Just like the person being prescribed opiates by an MD, the recreational user decides to use drugs in order to feel better for a while (usually during periods of psychological distress), and then finds (oops!) that it’s going to be harder to stop than he thought.
I suspect that your rush to distinguish between the nearly blameless “medical” addict and the nearly entirely responsible “recreational” addict is due to the nature of your own opiate addiction. I use the word “addiction” because what you describe (both when you were 14, and 22 years later) suggests at least a powerful psychological addiction.
At the very least, you should admit that you can’t be objective about this.
Well, you’ve clearly failed to grasp it. It would be a logical fallacy if we were saying that, because Rush is ugly, he’s probably lying, or that because we think he’s a jerk, he’s probably lying.
But no, what we’re saying is that because he’s been known to tell bald-faced lies in the past (and not just a few, I hasten to add), one must view his current statements with some skepticism. I trust you can tell the difference.
Reading my last post, I can see that the point may have been somewhat murky. Let me try one more time.
When the right drugs meet the right people, the hole pretty much digs itself.
Clearly, you think that the reason one took drugs initially is very important in relation to whether or not that person deserves much sympathy. You’ve chosen to phrase the difference between Rush and certain others thusly:
But that’s an arbitrary way of looking at it. I could just as easily say: “Rush Limbaugh chose to take a euphoric, addictive drug so he could feel better, which is no different than what the average street junkie has done.”
Rush didn’t choose to get his back all screwed up, but no addict chooses to be in an environment in which drug use is expected of him by his peers, or in which drugs (including alcohol) are a quick means of escaping a miserable existence.
Rush chose to take drugs, but he did not choose the circumstances surrounding that choice . . . which makes him no different than any other drug addict (and no more or less deserving of sympathy). To say that someone chose to use drugs just for kicks (or “for fun”) is never a full and adequate description of the situation; to beleive otherwise is naïve.
Just FYI, that’s a serious overstatement. I’ve a book somewhere here (“Licit and Illicit Drugs”) which does a nice job of debunking the “soldier’s disease” myth. If you want, I can dig it up and quote the appropriate passages.
I don’t listen to Rush - being Canadian, I don’t have access to his shows.
But let’s talk about the issue of hypocrisy.
It would be hypocritical IF:
A) Rush advocated throwing anyone who abused illegal drugs in jail.
B) When caught, he tried to explain why he should NOT go to jail.
C) He continued to advocate that others go to jail for the same offense.
In fact, so far what I understand is this:
A) Rush in the past has made hardline statements about drug abusers - they should do time, we’re too lenient, etc.
B) When caught, Rush explicitly said that he deserved no special treatment, he was not a ‘victim’, he was not going to claim any special status or absolve himself of any moral culpability.
C) We don’t know how he’ll behave from here on in.
So far, I don’t see hypocrisy - just someone who screwed up. Everyone does that on occasion. But the possibility is still there.
What Rush needs to do when he comes back is say, "I’ve had an epiphany. After having gone through addiction myself, I now have some insight into the problem of addiction. "
I also predict that if Rush gets charged with a crime, he’ll say, “I should be. I make no apologies. I screwed up, I’m paying my price.”
BTW, Rush is NOT just an entertainer. He is a political powerhouse. Some have said that he is singlehandedly responsible for the Republican resurgence of the last 10 years. He’s been made an honorary member of congress. He is undoubtedly the most powerful political figure in the country. He gets more viewers than the New York Times, Time, and Newsweek combined.