I must confess to a good bit of Schadenfreude in the current state of affairs with Rush Limbaugh copping a plea over “doctor shopping” where he allegedly obtained several thousand pain pills from many doctors in a few months via overlapping prescriptions. What I’m curious about is if he is on the record on the whole question of plea bargaining. It seems that is probably one of the targets he’s railed about over the years. I wouldn’t be surprised if he hasn’t suggested that we do away with that aspect of the justice system, and just throw the book at the criminals, etc. Does anyone know of his position on this issue? Any documentation? xo, C.
I am a little confused- I heard last night that as part of the deal, Rush pleaded not guilty.
WTF?!?
IME, a plea bargain involves pleading guity to something. Any thoughts?
Well, it seems that in my zeal, I jumped the gun. It appears that the deal that has been struck is not, strictly speaking, a plea bargain, I think. It calls for the charges to be dropped without a guilty plea if he continues treatment. To me, this is still a plea bargain of sorts and I still wonder what his position has been on these types of arrangements. He has been charged with breaking the law, and now has been given an opportunity to do something so that he doesn’t have to plead guilty OR innocent and have to face those charges and the consequences of his behavior. And I wonder what he might have said about someone ELSE in that situation from his throne behind his microphone three or four years ago.
I believe it is a agreement not to prosecute if R L continues treatment. Sort of being let off with a warning.
The news came after his Friday show, so we will have to wait till Monday. You could try his website for his take if anything was put on it about this.
I don’t think you can plead innocent, just guilty or not guilty.
I have heard what he has said about recreational use of drugs, but even the most hardent anti-dittohead liberal must admit that there is a difference between self medicating for pain and recreational use.
I listen to Rush Limbaugh occasionally. I don’t recall ever hearing him espouse a position on plea-bargaining, which doesn’t mean he hasn’t done so. As a conservative and a long-time reader of The National Review, I can tell you that plea-bargaining is generally understood by conservatives as being a normal and necessary part of the administration of justice. I may have read expressions of outrage at a particular instance of it over the years, where it seemed to the writer that justice had not been done, but I can’t recall specifics.
I would acknowledge that, although I don’t know what His Rushness’s position would have been on someone who illegally acquired thousands of pain pills, even to self-medicate, as you say. I guess I’m intruiged by the moral crusader who finds himself in the position of his former targets. I wonder what his position has been on that matter.
For an active drug addict, all use is self-medicating to reduce pain. Withdrawal hurts, bigtime! And it also amplifies whatever real physical pain was there in the first place, too.
His main like against recerational drug use is that you don’t live in a vaccume. Meaning that you effect others and your society by your actions. recerational drug usage has some tendancy to destroy productive lives, which is a drain in society (treetment, welfare), as well as the effect it has on that person’s potential. If is was just the person himself who was taking the risk I don’t beleive he would have a problem, but it is because it effects society that he has spoken out against it.
In this case Rush was taking these meds to allow him to continue to work and be productive, and has the resources that he would never be a burden to society. Also he has mentioned that medically he is self insured, so he is not effecting heath insurance rates either.
Spoken like a true co-dependent. Rush scored all those pills because he is an addict. His pain main have been the reason he started, but it sure sounds like you’re trying to paint a picture of a saintly guy who just wanted to be productive. Which I don’t think is the case.
Need and want tend to overlap for junkies.
Which is how I though it works. Also I know that people use drugs to self medicate for non-physical reasons, such as emotional pain, or to ‘treat’ a ‘disorder’. In the spirt of the OP, I don’t recall R L comming down on these types of drug users however. I’m not saying he didn’t, just I don’t know if he did.
Again his main point agaist drug use was it’s effects on others, not the drug user. The cost to society, through treatment and loss of productivity. So they way I see it R L is consistant on his views, and to put it bluntly, he can afford to use drugs and not effect society.
R L scored those pills because he wanted to and have the means to aquire them. He wanted them at first to reduce pain and continue working, then, as these things worked continued to need more to satify his addiction and also deal with the pain.
I didn’t want to paint him a a canidate for cantionazation, I am just pointing out as far as I understand R L from his radio show, and former TV show, he is totally consistant on his views on drug use.
I think most people don’t understand the different between wants and needs, but this is correct as I understand it as the drug could become a need if the addictin is bad enough.
Meh. It’s always a need for the active junkie. Which is what Rush was. And so was I at one time. But frankly, the medications are not medically necessary in his case, based on what he’s released about his problems (and in my opinion, which is a fairly educated one on this topic).
He was indulging his addiction. To do so, he lied to different doctors, who prescribed for him while not knowing that other doctors were doing the same thing. Which is illegal (and immoral) behavior. And he needs to be held accountable for it, just like every addict needs to be held accountable for their behavior.
Succinctly put, QtM. All of Rush’s victimless crime, poor me bullshit is just that- bullshit. Every junkie can rationalize and explain away his use.
I defer to your expertise
This seems a reasonable statement, although not nitpick proof, but what does this have to do with the OP? Rush’s take on the subject and his consistancy on drug use?
Well, if you come right down to it, it’s bullshit to demonize addicts who don’t burden the rest of society. Addicts are sick people and they came to this state through their own choices. But if you’ve got the bread to spend on Vicodin an Ex-Lax the rest of your life without hurting anybody else, there is absolutely no moral reason you should be charged with anything.
Now in Limbaugh’s case, I’d advocate a similar harm reduction philosophy except for one thing: he also jumped on the addict demonization bandwagon while being a closet user himself. For that, he should have the full force of the law brought down on his smug little head. Had he not said all that stuff about how useless addicts are, I’d agree he should get merciful treatment.
I agree 100% about how ridiculous it is to demonize junkies, or to glamorize them. Posted as a former junkie, of course. YMMV.
No he didn’t as far as I know, he jumped on those addicts who are a burden on society, along with others who are also a burden on society.
To be consistant you would come down on him if is was a addict and has been a burden to society, which he has not, even is paying the cost of the prosacution against him.
Again his anti drug message is consistant, your anti Rush statement is not.
Am I missing something? It seems to me law enforcement is a cost to society. By virtue of breaking the law to indulge his habit Rush cost taxpayers money as law enforcement dealt with this (or view it has resources that could have been tracking some other drug dealer/kingpin).
I’d call that a burden to society.
How noble of him!
What would happen if he didn’t pay his $30,000 fine? He’d go to jail.
Then there’s the whole ‘Rush as a gateway addict’ problem. Even if his wealth prevents his addiction from posing direct costs to society, someone’s got to worry about all the little-dittos who idolize the man, and want to grow up to be an addict, just like ush. No matter their good intentions, some of them at least will end up being a social burden.
To the OP maybe this will help:
Whoops…I should have noted the above quotes are attributed to Rush Limbaugh (maybe that was obvious but just for clarity).