Limbaugh: Whatever Happened To Taking Personal Responsibility For One's Actions?

[Luke T.]

I have been under the impression that Rush Limbaugh is one of those folks who believes people should take responsibility for their actions and pay the consequences when those actions are wrong.

Okay, so the guy had an addiction problem. This is something I can relate to, being a recovering alky and all.

But Rush is a public figure. And I bet he would agree that public figures should be held to a pretty high standard. Higher than you and me.

So how come he is trying to prevent the cops from checking his medical records to see if he was guilty of shopping doctors to get more than his share of good drugs?

One story here. (http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/01/06/1073368443.16509.7758.0273.html;COXnetJSessionID=1 614JiA8RvIgCQGcTU9wjU0e2NsmRaQgwaE5CeYpUuRIb3GFyZj O!-136767631?urac=n&urvf=10734115126810.0582689191062844)

I hope that link works. The URL is a doozy.

Anyway, a couple quotes from the story.


Rush Limbaugh’s medical records will remain sealed for now following an extended ban issued Monday by Circuit Judge Jeffrey Winikoff.

Prosecutors, armed with search warrants issued in November, obtained medical records from several of the conservative talk show host’s physicians as part of their investigation into alleged illegal "doctor shopping" by Limbaugh — a practice used in order to double up on prescription medication.

Limbaugh, who has not been charged with any crime, had admitted to an addiction to pain medication and went through a rehabilitation program to treat it.

On Dec. 22, Winikoff denied a petition filed by Limbaugh’s attorneys to quash the search warrants issued to seize records from four doctors in Florida and California who had treated Limbaugh. On Dec. 24, the judge granted a request by Limbaugh’s attorney, Roy Black, for an emergency stay of his previous order. That kept the records sealed as Limbaugh’s attorneys prepared to file an appeal.


Shapiro said the medical records do not and would not reveal any criminal activity on Limbaugh’s part. The issue, he said, is one of privacy.

Okay. Privacy. Maybe he has herpes and doesn't want that to leak out. I could understand that. Could undermine his Mr. Conservative image...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Maybe he has herpes and doesn't want that to leak out. I could understand that. Could undermine his Mr. Conservative image... Perhaps, but if he's also Mr. Personal Responsibility, wouldn't he want to own up to it and get it out in the open?

I'm guessing the title Mr. Conservative pays more than Mr. Personal Responsibility.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I have been under the impression that Rush Limbaugh is one of those folks who believes other people should take responsibility for their actions and pay the consequences when those actions are wrong.I spotted the problem, and fixed it for you.

[EvilYeti]

You haven't figured out that Rush is a stinking hypocrite, Luke?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Okay. Privacy. Maybe he has herpes and doesn't want that to leak out. I could understand that. Could undermine his Mr. Conservative image...

Sounds like a case for the ACLU. Wouldn't that be the grand bull-moose of ironies?

All that aside, Rush is an entertainer. Just like Al Franken is an entertainer, and if you think he doesn't have a few problems you ought to take a look at him,

Musicians get thrown in rehab by their managers, usually with no legal consequences. Actors get the same deal via publicists. Athletes, same deal. Christ, even authors (Ann Rice) publicly confess their drug sins but never get busted. So how is this any different?

Rush is an obnoxious loudmouth, yes, but he's not a politician. He can't make policy (and don't give me that crap about how he influences X millions of people, I could say the same about a dozen others). He's a freakin' entertainer, people, so don't be so shocked when he walks away unscathed just like every other celebrity "arrest" that goes nowhere.

Until you're crying for the heads of Daryll Strawberry, Liza Minelli, Robert Downey Jr. and Ann Rice on pikes as well, then you're the hypocrites.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Jocko
Until you're crying for the heads of Daryll Strawberry, Liza Minelli, Robert Downey Jr. and Ann Rice on pikes as well, then you're the hypocrites.

Please let us all know when Mr. Strawberry, Mr. Downey, Ms. Rice, and Ms. Minelli called for longer, tougher sentences for those convicted of drug use. (http://www.fair.org/extra/0311/limbaugh-drugs.html) Or when those individuals stated that there was no right to privacy (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/052549.htm) in the Constitution.

When you fulfill those requirements, then we can discuss their hypocrisy and ours.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Jocko


Musicians get thrown in rehab by their managers, usually with no legal consequences. Actors get the same deal via publicists. Athletes, same deal. Christ, even authors (Ann Rice) publicly confess their drug sins but never get busted. So how is this any different?

Those folks you mention are not in the habit of using their access to the public to denounce those who do not own up to what Rush believes is the personal responcibility of the individual when caught vilolating some moral code of conduct. Rush got caught and now he is hiding behind a gag order while complaining about some sort of "liberal" orchestrated attempt to smear his good name and sterling reputation. This, at best, is ironic and smells like hypocracy to me.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Jocko

Until you're crying for the heads of Daryll Strawberry, Liza Minelli, Robert Downey Jr. and Ann Rice on pikes as well, then you're the hypocrites.

Has any of these individuals made a boatload of money decrying the failing morals of others and blathering on and on about how others ought to behave? The standards to which others ought to be held? Has any of them self-righteously positioned themselves as a paragon of correct thinking?
No?

[Jocko]

Ah, so you're upset because he's been selling goods he didn't believe in himself. That's a bit pollyanna, isn't it?

My response wasn't directed against his personal hypocrisy, but against the generally soft treatment celebrities get. If Rush has any moral groundings at all, then yes I think he ought to be disgusted with himself. I don't know if that's the case, and neither do you.

If, however, the more likely scenario is true - that's he's just an entertainer who knows how to keep an audience happy by spouting what they want to hear, then his personal beliefs really don't come into it, do they?

If you want to say Rush isn't a very nice person for becoming what he bemoaned, then I'd agree. But all the anguish about his legal wrangling is a matter of course for celebrities, which is the point I was trying to make.

Besides, I thought framing a crime based on the criminal's beliefs was called a hate crime these days.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I spotted the problem, and fixed it for you.

You know, I almost wrote it that way, actually. But as I was making a case for hypocricy on Rush's part, I wrote it the way I did. I almost entitled this topic "Do As I Say, Not As I Do."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Jocko


Sounds like a case for the ACLU. Wouldn't that be the grand bull-moose of ironies?

:D


All that aside, Rush is an entertainer. Just like Al Franken is an entertainer, and if you think he doesn't have a few problems you ought to take a look at him,

Musicians get thrown in rehab by their managers, usually with no legal consequences. Actors get the same deal via publicists. Athletes, same deal. Christ, even authors (Ann Rice) publicly confess their drug sins but never get busted. So how is this any different?

Rush is an obnoxious loudmouth, yes, but he's not a politician. He can't make policy (and don't give me that crap about how he influences X millions of people, I could say the same about a dozen others). He's a freakin' entertainer, people, so don't be so shocked when he walks away unscathed just like every other celebrity "arrest" that goes nowhere.

Until you're crying for the heads of Daryll Strawberry, Liza Minelli, Robert Downey Jr. and Ann Rice on pikes as well, then you're the hypocrites.

I do think the heads of Strawberry, et al, should be on pikes, as it were.

Yes, Rush is an entertainer. But he makes his living as an entertainer who discusses personal responsibility and anti-drugs, and so on. He has lost the credibility necessary to do his job, IMHO.

If he were to come clean and take his punishment like a man, I would have far more respect. Just like I would have if Bill Clinton had said, "I'm only going to say this once. Yes, I had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

I'm a right-wing conservative myself, by the way.

[hgc]

Personal Responsibility (tm) is for all you whining liberals.

Now I have as much distate for Rush's hypocracy as the next guy, but I don't think the state has a compelling enough interest to be able to get into his medical records so that they can get evidence to build their case.

Rush is still a lying S.O.B., but even they have rights. The ACLU should take up his case.

[jj]

Well, Luke, I agree with you, what's going on here?

Furthermore, can anyone explain to me why Rush isn't charged with anything, and Tommy Chong is still facing federal prosecution?

Could it be political favoritism in the justice department, perhaps? Or do they just think Rush can buy a better lawyer, so they're going more carefully?

[Skeptic]

I have been under the impression that Rush Limbaugh is one of those folks who believes other people with dark skin should take responsibility for their actions and pay the consequences when those actions are wrong.

To add to Mr. Redman's correction, Luke, I think I spotted another problem as well. Rush, as we all know, is really big on "lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" when he talks of "drug users". But what he really means is black drug users from the inner city who sell crack and/or heroin.

We all know he never meant people like guys who snorts lines of Coke through $100 dollar bills in the Hamptons, or (like himself) those who are addicted to prescription drugs--e.g., the kinds of drugs white people tend to be addicted to. After all, you don't want to ruin a real person's life with a mandatory jail sentence just because he is addicted to drugs, do you? Have some compassion!

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Skeptic
To add to Mr. Redman's correction, Luke, I think I spotted another problem as well. :D


As for the ACLU, this would be nothing compared to NAACP Councel Anthony Lewis, working on behalf of the ACLU, defending the KKK in their efforts to keep their membership rolls secret from the government.

The ACLU isn't above using despicable clients to bolster civil liberties.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Luke T.


:D




I do think the heads of Strawberry, et al, should be on pikes, as it were.

Yes, Rush is an entertainer. But he makes his living as an entertainer who discusses personal responsibility and anti-drugs, and so on. He has lost the credibility necessary to do his job, IMHO.

If he were to come clean and take his punishment like a man, I would have far more respect. Just like I would have if Bill Clinton had said, "I'm only going to say this once. Yes, I had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

I'm a right-wing conservative myself, by the way.

I agree on all counts. Funny thing is, it remains to be seen if this career-killer actually has the effect it should... and it seems like Rush will survive his scandal. My point of contention was thathe has plenty of company, and though I was itching to include Clinton in the long list of celebrities (can anyone doubt that's an accurate term?) but didn't for fear of inciting the liberals. Thank you for bringing him up.

Has Rush ever offered an apology/explanation/rationalization for his conduct? I mean, given the chance to come clean, has he taken it? Clinton sure didn't.

[Ladewig]

Skeptic-To add to Mr. Redman's correction, Luke, I think I spotted another problem as well. Rush, as we all know, is really big on "lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" when he talks of "drug users". But what he really means is black drug users from the inner city who sell crack and/or heroin.

I do not like Mr. Limbaugh's political views, however, to be fair, it should be pointed out that in October 1995 he addressed the racial disparity in drug convictions thusly:

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."


----------------------------------

As for the whole personal responsibility thing, not many people who have completed an involuntary stay at a rehab clinic have a firm grasp on the concept of personal responsibility with 90 days of getting out. I am willing to be patient and see if he eventually steps up to the plate. Drug addiction is rather powerful and has been known to make people abandon their core values (yes, I know the whole personal responsibility thing might be more entertainment than a personal value, but I am for cutting him some slack - for now).

On the other hand it is hard to generate sympathy for someone who just the the other day was spouting about how mad cow disease in the U.S. was Clinton's fault. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

I do not like Mr. Limbaugh's political views, however, to be fair, it should be pointed out that in October 1995 he addressed the racial disparity in drug convictions thusly:

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

You have a point, but this sounds suspiciously like the obligatory "I am not a racist" claims people like Rush say before they add "but...". Note the the bottom line is that those darkies should stay in jail with their mandatory sentences, and, in the meantime, people should TRY to find more whites who use drugs.

I am no fan of the "but it's racist!" whine for anything, but the "war against (some) drugs" IS racist. It is not because more blacks are arrested than whites; it is because the laws and the enforcements concentrate on drugs blacks use, while there is almost no enforcement on drugs whites use.

It is the equivalent of the way things used to be in the "old south" with murder: "if a n*gger kills a white, it's homocide; if a white kills a n*gger, it's self-defense; if a n*gger kills a n*gger, that's one less n*gger."

Oh, by the way... McNaire is co-MVP of the NFL this year... but of course, it's just because he's overrated because he's black, according to Rush...

[Skeptic]

:D

As for the ACLU, this would be nothing compared to NAACP Councel Anthony Lewis, working on behalf of the ACLU, defending the KKK in their efforts to keep their membership rolls secret from the government.

The ACLU isn't above using despicable clients to bolster civil liberties. [/QUOTE]

And a good thing, too.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B] :D

As for the ACLU, this would be nothing compared to NAACP Councel Anthony Lewis, working on behalf of the ACLU, defending the KKK in their efforts to keep their membership rolls secret from the government.

The ACLU isn't above using despicable clients to bolster civil liberties.

ACLU defends Nazis right to burn down ACLU headquarters (http://www.theonion.com/onion3211/acludefends.html)

[Demigorgon]

http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_BeatADeadHorse.gif

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Luke T.
So how come he is trying to prevent the cops from checking his medical records to see if he was guilty of shopping doctors to get more than his share of good drugs?


Is it legal for them to do so? I'm not sure about Florida law but a cop here in my town can't just order my medical records turned over to check and see if I am committing a crime.

I think linking this somehow to personal resposibility in order to reveal a fallacy of inconsistency is stretching a bit far (when there are much easier inconsistencies in this story of his drug usage you can point out.) He screwed up bigtime, and he deserves his just due, but I think this is dogpiling.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, by the way... McNaire is co-MVP of the NFL this year... but of course, it's just because he's overrated because he's black, according to Rush...


Its McNabb, not McNaire. And apparently Rush has acknowledged that McNabb's did start playing better after the ESPN/social concern stink. Apparently some sports writers in Philly started saying McNabb was overrated and McNabb's game has improved if you look at the numbers. So, most likely Rush "two lines of oxy" Limbaugh would say he was co-MVP because he deserved it. I can't speak for the "sultan of vicodin" though.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx


Is it legal for them to do so? I'm not sure about Florida law but a cop here in my town can't just order my medical records turned over to check and see if I am committing a crime.


It may be the kind of thing that they can get a search warrant for... Just a speculation on my part.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Please let us all know when Mr. Strawberry, Mr. Downey, Ms. Rice, and Ms. Minelli called for longer, tougher sentences for those convicted of drug use. (http://www.fair.org/extra/0311/limbaugh-drugs.html) Or when those individuals stated that there was no right to privacy (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/052549.htm) in the Constitution.

When you fulfill those requirements, then we can discuss their hypocrisy and ours.
Oooh, I like this poster.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I have been under the impression that Rush Limbaugh is one of those folks who believes people should take responsibility for their actions and pay the consequences when those actions are wrong.

Okay, so the guy had an addiction problem. This is something I can relate to, being a recovering alky and all.

But Rush is a public figure. And I bet he would agree that public figures should be held to a pretty high standard. Higher than you and me.

So how come he is trying to prevent the cops from checking his medical records to see if he was guilty of shopping doctors to get more than his share of good drugs?

One story here. (http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/01/06/1073368443.16509.7758.0273.html;COXnetJSessionID=1 614JiA8RvIgCQGcTU9wjU0e2NsmRaQgwaE5CeYpUuRIb3GFyZj O!-136767631?urac=n&urvf=10734115126810.0582689191062844)

I hope that link works. The URL is a doozy.

Anyway, a couple quotes from the story.





Okay. Privacy. Maybe he has herpes and doesn't want that to leak out. I could understand that. Could undermine his Mr. Conservative image...

I think that whole 'personal responsibility' thing was only ever meant for the plebians anyway, not the elites. Show me a company directory that ever took responsibility, or a board member.

[subgenius]

Palm Beach County prosecutors rejected an overture last month from Rush Limbaugh's attorneys that would have allowed the conservative commentator to enter drug rehabilitation rather than face criminal charges for prescription drug abuse.

Prosecutors say they think they have evidence that Limbaugh committed at least 10 felonies by illegally obtaining overlapping drug prescriptions, according to documents released to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on Thursday.
They offered to end the investigation if Limbaugh pleaded guilty to a single felony for "doctor shopping" and agreed to a three-year term of probation, a deal that Limbaugh's Miami attorney Roy Black called "preposterous" on Thursday.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-prush23jan23,0,6767877.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

What an arrogant fool. Ten felonies and they offered him probation, and he turned it down.
Oh yes, they're treating him more harshly because of his politics.

[Cain]

Rush was once on the dole. He's almost always been a hypocrite. He's also a chickenhawk.

[subgenius]

And to be fair and balanced, the other side of the story from Rush's website:

Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office Dances Atop Their SUV, Releases Confidential Correspondence



Roy Black Comments on the State's Release of Confidential Correspondence


Miami, FL – January 23, 2004 – Roy Black, attorney for Rush Limbaugh, issued the following statement today regarding confidential correspondence that was released to the media by Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer.

“My letter to Mr. Krischer regarding Mr. Limbaugh’s case asked that Mr. Limbaugh be afforded the treatment anyone else would receive. The State's response was preposterous, but consistent with their double standard in this case. The facts are: Mr. Limbaugh went to these doctors to relieve chronic, intractable pain; there was no doctor shopping. Mr. Limbaugh never considered accepting the State’s ludicrous offer. He was not going to plea to something he did not do. We sent them a letter suggesting Mr. Limbaugh be treated in a similar manner that others had been treated. They responded with a preposterous offer. Discussions ended at that time. At no time was there ever a plea agreement of any kind.

"What the records don’t show is that before we could draft a letter responding to the State, we received a phone call from a newspaper reporter, as a result of a leak by the State Attorney’s office, asking us whether Mr. Limbaugh had agreed to enter a plea. As I told the court last month, we think the State Attorney’s Office should be investigated for journalist shopping.

"What is most troubling here is the continued violations of Florida law and bar ethics by the State Attorney’s Office. One need look no further than the bold caption on top of my letter alerting everyone to the confidential nature of the communication. The disclosure of these highly confidential communications violates the Florida statutes, the rules of procedure and evidence, and the Florida Bar Rules governing professional conduct. Because the State has no case against Mr. Limbaugh they continually seek to discredit him in the media.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012304/content/pressrelease012304.guest.html

Now let's see, he's admitted he is an addict, and a feature of the disease is lying and manipulation to obtain the substance and denial of personal responsibility.

Watch this space for news of Rush's relapse, another all too frequent feature of the disease.

[davefoc]

Cain saidHe's also a chickenhawk.

The dictionary.com definition of chicken hawk is:
1. Any of various hawks that prey on or have the reputation of preying on chickens.
2. Vulgar Slang. A man who seeks out boys or young men as his sexual partners.

Assuming that you meant definition two, do you have any evidence of this? Right now it just looks like a baseless slander made up by somebody who felt like insulting somebody that they happened to disagree with.

[Skeptic]

2. Vulgar Slang. A man who seeks out boys or young men as his sexual partners.

Assuming that you meant definition two, do you have any evidence of this? Right now it just looks like a baseless slander

Hold your horses...

A "chickenhawk", in current American political slang, means someone who is a right-winger, free-market, self-reliance guy in theory (a "hawk"), but, in practice, wants others to fight for him and asks for special entitlements hen he is concerned (hence "chicken").

It means a right-wing hypocrite, which Rush certainly is.

[davefoc]

Has anybody thought that some of these posts are a little unfair to Limbaugh?

The distinction he probably draws between himself and other addicts has to do with the fact that he got addicted as a result of trying to deal with pain. The addicts, that he thinks should be dealt with more harshly are probably ones that got addicted because they initially took the drugs for recreational purposes.

This is admittedly a fine distinction, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary implying that his distinction is based on race seems less likely, although it might be more fun to say.

I think LFTKBS point about his "no right to privacy in the constitution" comments is more interesting. That does sound like some pretty naked hypocrisy to me. I think it would be interesting to see him comment on that point.

Question: Should doctor shopping to obtain multiple prescriptions for drugs be illegal? If so, how could the law be enforced without obtaining private medical records?

[davefoc]

Skeptic said:A "chickenhawk", in current American political slang, means someone who is a right-winger, free-market, self-reliance guy in theory (a "hawk"), but, in practice, wants others to fight for him and asks for special entitlements hen he is concerned (hence "chicken").

Oh, good grief, us old folks have such a time staying up with the lingo of you youngins.

link to chickenhawk database:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

[davefoc]

I just read through the list of propaganda platoon members in the chickenhawk database. No Limbaugh. Perhaps somebody here would like to nominate him.

Propaganda Platoon member list:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3BPropaganda%20 Platoon

[Cain]

Davefoc writes:

I think LFTKBS point about his "no right to privacy in the constitution" comments is more interesting. That does sound like some pretty naked hypocrisy to me. I think it would be interesting to see him comment on that point.

Actually, if you want to be fair to Limbaugh, he probably wasn't even responsible for writing that book. John Fund of the _Wall Street Journal_ ghostwrote it for him.

[subgenius]

If my memory serves, and it often does not, he got out of the service because of anal cysts.
http://www.shrubbish.com/chickenhawks.htm

[subgenius]

AKA a pilondial cyst.
As for Limbaugh himself, the broadcaster stated that he was not drafted during the Vietnam War because he had been classified 4-F after a physical found that he had an "inoperable pilonidal cyst" and "a football knee from high school." He added: "I made no effort to evade it or avoid it."2
http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm

[subgenius]

These kinds of responses, provided by Limbaugh on his show and available on the rushlimbaugh.com web site, are unconvincing and dissembling. Why not just give a straightforward answer to the question? After all, "I had a knee injury" is a simple explanation (and hardly an embarrassing one), but dismissing the issue as "Internet BS" and railing against "Internet conspiracy theories" sound too much like the response of someone who is evading the question. Instead, Limbaugh provides non-responsive "answers" when queries are posed by quickly steering the focus away from himself and claiming that "the message is that unless you've been a member of the military, you have no right to support it" (which isn't the message at all -- the message is about whether it's hypocritical for those who escaped the draft to criticize others who did) but doesn't address the issue of his own draft status in the least.

http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm

Let's all say it together: hypo...........

[Ladewig]

The distinction he probably draws between himself and other addicts has to do with the fact that he got addicted as a result of trying to deal with pain. The addicts, that he thinks should be dealt with more harshly are probably ones that got addicted because they initially took the drugs for recreational purposes.

This is admittedly a fine distinction,

Ah, the Elvis excuse. Mr. Presely had a prescription for every pill he ever took and therefore he believed he was not a drug addict.

Given that the federal government makes no such distinction in their War on Drugs, I see no reason to recognize it in this case. Furthermore, when Mr. Limbaugh was condeming drug addicts as "a drain on society," he never mentioned this distinction. The issues are whether or not he purchased drugs illegally and whether or not he purchased them in amounts large enough that he can be classified as a dealer.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by davefoc
The distinction he probably draws between himself and other addicts has to do with the fact that he got addicted as a result of trying to deal with pain. The addicts, that he thinks should be dealt with more harshly are probably ones that got addicted because they initially took the drugs for recreational purposes.You are not familiar with the Self-Medication Model for Drug Addiction, are you? It is a simple idea basically and it certainly doesn't explain everything why people become addicted, but it is a part of it and it can explain why some people use other drugs than others.

People with a tendency to depression tend to become addicted to uppers, cafeine, nicotine, cocaine or speed. People with a tendency to schizophrenia, which they mean they feel anxious and confused, are more likely to use downers, like valium, sleeping pills, heroine or morphine. People who use drugs recreationally are not likely to become addicted, just like people who aren't in total misery are unlikely to become alcoholic and can usually keep their drinking in check.

Addicts may start out recreationally, but when they start noticing that they can eleviate the symptoms from which they are suffering, it becomes very hard to stop.

There is more to it then that, as there are likely also lots of genetic factors involved. But this is the basic idea. It means that if Rush Limbaugh became addicted by self-medication, he is a very typical addict and if he uses it as an excuse, he must also allow others to make the same.This is admittedly a fine distinction, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary implying that his distinction is based on race seems less likelyMaybe so, but for some odd reason, people of certain colours do have a much higher chance of getting in jail for drug charges than others.Question: Should doctor shopping to obtain multiple prescriptions for drugs be illegal? If so, how could the law be enforced without obtaining private medical records?Maybe pharmacies can network together?I just read through the list of propaganda platoon members in the chickenhawk database. No Limbaugh. Perhaps somebody here would like to nominate him.He's here (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3BBarking%20Hea d%20Brigade) (edited to add: link does not appear to work, no idea how to get it right) in the Barking Heads Brigade.

[davefoc]

Earthborn said:
You are not familiar with the Self-Medication Model for Drug Addiction, are you?

As usual, you were right Earthborn, and I did appreciate the info, thanks.

It kind of fits in with my general uninformed view that there are people particularly susceptible to addiction and others that aren't. Your theory kind of expands on that and says that there are two general classes of people that are susceptible to addiction and there are other recreational users that just aren't. This fits with my observations.

I was surprised that one of the classes would be people with a tendency to schizophrenia. I was under the impression that even a little schizophenia was a really bad thing and there wasn't anything like schizophrenia in the vast majority of us. This is wrong? How does alcohol play in to this?

Having said all the above, even if I had this insight I would have probably said something like this anyway:

The distinction he probably draws between himself and other addicts has to do with the fact that he got addicted as a result of trying to deal with pain. The addicts, that he thinks should be dealt with more harshly are probably ones that got addicted because they initially took the drugs for recreational purposes.

I wasn't attempting to justify the distinction, merely to say that in his mind it may be the distinction that he makes. Perhaps he also makes a distinction between legal drugs obtained illegally (his case probably) and flat out illegal drugs. I personally doubt that Limbaugh is a racist and I think that racism is an unlikely explanation for the distinction that he draws between himself and other addicts. For me, casually calling people racists, particularly people we disagree with, has the ring intellectual laziness and I just tend to doubt those kind of epithets.

[Skeptoid]

Earthborn,

You used quotation marks around the URL in your hyperlink. It's too late to edit them out so here (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3BBarking%20Hea d%20Brigade) is the website you linked to.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by davefoc
Your theory...Well, I didn't make it up myself, you know.I was surprised that one of the classes would be people with a tendency to schizophrenia. I was under the impression that even a little schizophenia was a really bad thing and there wasn't anything like schizophrenia in the vast majority of us. This is wrong?What I understand is: yes, that is wrong. Most psychiatric illnesses are often understood as normal behaviour that is exaggerated. We all feel down sometimes, but someone who is clinically depressed cannot control their feelings anymore. The same can be said of schizofrenia: we all are confused and edgy once in while, and all of our views of objective reality are influenced by our thoughts about it, which means that we all have some difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Schizofrenics are simply suffering from this more.How does alcohol play in to this?Alcohol is a drug that has a class of its own. In low quantities it works like an upper. It lifts your mood, and losens you up, basically doing what primitive antidepressants do. People who tend to be melancholic are more likely to use it regurlarly, like everyday. This means they are likely to have constant low level of alcohol in their blood, making them dependent. As with most hard drugs however, someone needs to use more and more of it to keep getting the same beneficial effects. This brings them closer and closer to a state where they will experience only the poisoness effect: drunkeness.

On the other hand, in large doses, alcohol works like a downer. So someone with a more schizofrenic condition is more likely to start using alcohol occasionally in large quantities. It however also limits their inhibitions, which makes the person more likely to act out on the impulses, and because the person is schizofrenic they are more likely to view other people as a threat. So they become more violent for apperently no good reason.

This is of course still an oversimplification.Perhaps he also makes a distinction between legal drugs obtained illegally (his case probably) and flat out illegal drugs.With morphine, heroine and cocaine all having a legitimate place in the medicine cabinet, and even XTC seriously being tested as such, I think the distinction is pretty meaningless. The only illegal drugs that can't be prescribed legally by a doctor in many countries are cannabinoids.Originally posted by Skeptoid
You used quotation marks around the URL in your hyperlink.Yes, and I should. The quotation marks are not what is causing the problem. The problem is caused because the forum sofware that parses the url adds in a <br /> tag for some strange reason. Your link has the same problem, and it doesn't work either.