Rush Limbaugh

[Timebuilder]

You don't know what you're babbling about, Timebuilder.

I'll be more respectful of you than you are of me, and just tell you that you are wrong.

A chronic medical condition that causes extreme pain is indeed a legal and legitimate reason to sustain treatment with powerful pain medication. Some industry experts are now saying that Oxycontin is addictive with only a few doses, and it has been characterized as being five times more addictive than heroin. There are literally thoudsands of lawsuits being brought as we speak because of this.

OxyContin or any medication available by prescription is an illegal substance when obtained without one; legally, it's no different from heroin or crack.

This is correct, and I have not said anything that contradicts that. I AM pointing out that Rush's comments said nothing about addictions caused by legally obtained medication under a doctor's care. His anti-drug statements were a reference to recreational drug use, which I mainatain was never the case here, since the back condition is as bad or worse as it was years ago, and just as painful as it ever was. I was pointing out that this is an entirely different situation from smoking crack for pleasure, since there was never any pleasure involved in the case of Rush's use of Oxy.

Further, we have no evidence that Rush illegallly obtained any pain medication. We have charges, just as we have charges in the Kobe Bryant case. The next step will be revealed to us when the investigation has been played out and the DA's office decides how to proceed. I have a friend in that office, but I'm sure he would only tell me that I know that he can't tell me anything right now. So, I won't ask him. Like all of us, I will just have to remain patient.

Moreover, a drug obtained for the purpose of satiating an addiction reasonably falls within the realm of recreational use; last I checked, doing so is not a legitimate medical purpose, certainly not without that almighty prescription.

If an addiction is the ONLY reason for continued prescriptions, then there may be some creedence that it could be "recreational". The relief of withdrawl symptoms alone do not provide a need for treatment, since additional units of medication beyond the maintenance level can indeed provide pleasure. If we look at the facts as we know them, this isn't the case here. The pain of the back is still there, and a new medication will be substituted for the ones being terminated over the next four weeks. This opens the door to a new and different dependancy on pain killers, barring some miracle operation to relieve the persistant pain.

 

[jarhead]

I think you all are caught up in the morality, hypocracy, and political views of Mr. Limbaugh. I asked the question much earlier in this thread, about the legal ramifications of turning himself "in" for abuse of Rx drugs. No one has chosen, or perhaps no one knows, what trhe answer to my question is. If that's the case, so be it.

But, Timebuilder, I must coment on your understanding of Rush Limbaugh's pediciment. I currently am under prescription care for very recent back surgery, with PRESCRIBED OxyContin, and Oxycodone, The amounts that Rush is to alledgedly to have taken, and over the YEARS of use, would NEVER be under prescription. Do you know (I was told this by my surgeon) that I must never take an OxyContin tablet that is "nicked" or "broken" as the pill has a special coating that makes the dose be time released. If one were to crush, or "snort" the powder of OxyContin, it would provide a rush and addiction stronger than heroin in very short order.

If Rush were indeed taking this drug since his 1996 back operation, it was indeed done without prescription. He also has stated that he fly's airplanes. While I am taking OxyContin over a three week period, (a tenth of the dailly amount that Rush is reported to have used for many years) he indeed would be flying while in a drug induced euphoria. I have been told I must not even drive a car for the three weeks I am taking ever decreasing amounts of that drug, and my Rx will not be refilled, per my surgeon. I can tell you, I DO feel a euphoria while taking this drug. Rush is taking it because he elected to not have further surgery, and was (alledgedly) buying as much as $300,000 worth of these pills at a time illegaly on the black market.

Again, can ANYONE tell me how this affects the status of his pilot's license?

 

[Timebuilder]

Man, that's a lot of "allegedlys". I don't have the answers.

I do know that many physicians differ on the subject of pain control. The new thinking is that every patient has a right to be "pain free". This flys in the face of traditional views of what should constitute a maximum dose or a maximum period of treatment.

My understanding is that further back surgery could not guarantee, nor even suggest, a reduction of the pain. The original surgery was intended to provide relief, but it was ineffective.

Yes, he has flown airplanes, but I don't believe that he has acted as pilot in command of an aircraft while taking medication. If he is not acting as PIC, he does not need a medical, and is not restrained from manipulating the flight controls as long as someone else IS acting as PIC. This has no effect on a pilot's license, but may prevent him from acquiring a medical for the next ten years, as we discussed in the "weed" thread. (My assumption is that he would answer the question truthfully if he was applying for a medical, bu I also assume that he would be counseled about this restriction before he would attempt to obtain a pilot medical.) He also has a chauffer, so unlike for you and I, driving for Rush is not an issue.

If Rush were indeed taking this drug since his 1996 back operation, it was indeed done without prescription.

We have no reason yet to believe that Rush did not have legal prescriptions for his meds. If he acquired addition units of meds WITHOUT the prescription, he is in the wrong. We will find out when the investigation is complete.

Your surgeon may not prescribe higher amounts for you, and your pain may be of a low level that allows you to feel a euphoria when you use Oxy. Since neither you nor I have experienced Rush's pain, we cannot speak accurately to the clinical level of that pain or the effectivenes of the meds in relieving it.

My friends in medicine say that the subject of pain control is still very touchy with many Docs, and the new "pain free" view is taking a long time to catch on.

Have I answered your pilot question to your satisfaction?

 

[UpNDownGuy]

Ouch! Timebuilder is hurting my head!

You've GOT to be kidding me...right? I mean, you're not serious about that last post. It was a joke, right?


Hmmm. Five Marconi awards. The largest radio audience ever. The most articulate and entertaining conservative voice since Reagan. Pretty unimpressive, eh?

The Marconi awards? LOL! They are a radio industry give-away, decided not by the listening public, but by the General Managers and program directors of the member stations. It is just as valid as "Airline of the Year", given by the ATA. Howard Stern has been nominated twice that I know of personally. Does Howard represent your idea of "excellence in broadcasting"? "The most articulate and entertaining conservative voice since Reagan". Luckily, you're just plain wrong there. I used to listen to Rush, but the amount of dead air on his show would fill the Hindenburg in nothing flat. He often takes 10-15 minutes to make 1 simple point (usually an absurd one at that). It was simply too annoying to watch him stutter and stammer, egged on by his audience of "Dittoheads". Imagine that: A whole audience who was PROUD of the fact that they let Rush doing their thinking for them. "I can't be trusted to form my own opinion, so I'll just let Rush tell me what it is". Do you consider yourself a "Dittohead"?
I'm so curious.




Brother, I recommend discernment. Rush provides reproof, not judgement.

Ok, I'll bite...what's the difference? My dictionary says that reproof is "an expression of censure or rebuke". A synonym of rebuke is "reprimand", which indicates an official criticism. One of the elements of reproving someone is having the authority to do so. Do you imagine that Rush is in that position? I would listen to reproof from my boss or my priest, but I just don't recognize a self-appointed radio personality as an authority figure in my life.


I'm also amazed at how you latched on to blaming someone else, which I considered a Democratic technique. "The doctor did this to him". Baloney. Any addiction starts as a concious decision, whether it's the first pill or the first drink or the first snort of cocaine. In his case, the warnings are printed right on the accompying paperwork. The doctor was aware of the restrictions. Rush CHOSE to up the dosage himself.."It's not his fault; the 40 pills a day were for MEDICINAL purposes". Right...


I agree completely with Flybuddy. The 2 major political parties are pure scum. What I am finding so annoying is how Republicans can NEVER admit to any wrongdoing. Clinton spent half his term apologizing for some screw up or other. Bush (and Rush, and the rest of the so-called "conservatives") screw up just as often, but will never admit it.

 

[WrightAvia]

Hahahaha...I was never a "Ditto Head". Rush was a franchise of conservatism. He's human and he has his weaknesses.

You find one conservative with a problem and it illicits 13 pages of rebutal on this forum. Listen to any liberal and their comments on their party's agenda on "sensible gun laws for sportsmen" and I see a sickness worse that anything concerning Rush L.

I'm only voting Repbulican, till the Libertarian party gains strength. Till then, I could give a rats ass about Rush and his drug problem. He's human, he has a problem...so be it. I never listened to one of his shows, ever. I make my own decisions on how I vote and how I believe in politics...Rush's problems wont change how I feel about it.

This is a dead thread....nothing to see here folks.

 

[jarhead]

Timebuilder

I agree with you.....I did use a lot of "alledgedly" I fully agree that we are not guilty, untill convicted in a court. But, there will always be the court of public opinion.....right or wrong.

Thank you for your explanation about the pilot lisence issue.

And I agree.....no one knows the comparitive level of Pain, that Rush, me, or anyone elese can experience from a trauma to the body. I only relate to mine.....that's all I can do. My doc only told me that if I still had post operative pain that was not managable with aspirin or Tylenol, I would be given a different Rx than the Oxy narcotics, due to the addictive nature, and I appreciate that concern. I had a liquid IV drip of morphine immediatley after my surgery. That was stopped after two days due to addiction concerns, and I was then put on the Oxy drugs, even though the morphine was really managing the pain well. I just trust my doc, and will not do anything he says is not in my best interests.

I will not "judge" Rush, as all I can see are the allegations. Until the jury is in on that, I will withhold my concrete feelings about it, but, as they say, often where there is smoke, there is fire. We shall all see how this plays out, I am sure.

 

[TWA Dude]

Is that the same ACLU that's fighting for ...
If it is then you better stay the f_ck away from the kids in my family.

The feeling's mutual.

I'm not familiar with the examples you listed. Perhaps you're mistaken on a few details and just reacting to something you've heard?

 

[fLYbUDDY]

The feeling's mutual.

I'm not familiar with the examples you listed. Perhaps you're mistaken on a few details and just reacting to something you've heard?

I'm not trying to get into an ACLU debate and I am not trying to disrespect your choice in supporting them, but what is it about them that makes you care enough to become a member?
I am just curious, that is all.

 

[Timebuilder]

decided not by the listening public, but by the General Managers and program directors of the member stations.

Ah. Just like the Academy Awards are decided by the working professionals of Hollywood.

Maybe you would like a "people's choice" award for radio. Sounds like a good idea. Why don't you start one?

Does Howard represent your idea of "excellence in broadcasting"?

No, but they didn't ask me. I don't listen to Howard, and I haven't since he was on my station in 1984 until I left in 1987.

You didn't enjoy Rush's show, and many others did. So your point is similar to mine. Mine is that there are far more who enjoy his show, dead air not withstanding. When it's your show, and you have the most successful show in America, bar none, you can have as much dead air (or rustling papers) as you like!

Ok, I'll bite...what's the difference?

The difference is that the Bible says that reproof is good, and judgement is the Lord's. Critcizing evil is never wrong. "Discernment" is what a believer uses to provide accountability and reproof without engaging in "judgement". See a pastor at a Bible chuirch if you need more info. This is an aviation board. (Tongue firmly in cheek)

Imagine that: A whole audience who was PROUD of the fact that they let Rush doing their thinking for them. "I can't be trusted to form my own opinion, so I'll just let Rush tell me what it is". Do you consider yourself a "Dittohead"?
I'm so curious.

I don't require a label, and I have never said that I am "a dittohead". I must explain what that means, apparently.

People listen to Rush becuase they enjoy hearing someone say things that they had already thought themselves. The "ditto" does not mean that they are blindly agreeing with the host. It means that many people used to start their phone call by feeling compelled to tell Rush how much they enjoy his show, how much of a pleasant change it is from ther liberal controlled media of ABCCBSNBCCNNNYTLATBG etc. It became apparent that this just took up too much airtime, so people just started saying "ditto to what he just said to you" which became shortened to "ditto". It means that you agree with others that this show is a wonderful and life affirming experience for millions of Americans every day.

That's all it means. It does not mean that anyone is doing their thinking for them, as I used to allow people to do for me when I was a young Democrat.

One of the elements of reproving someone is having the authority to do so. Do you imagine that Rush is in that position? I would listen to reproof from my boss or my priest, but I just don't recognize a self-appointed radio personality as an authority figure in my life.

In this case, somone who handicaps the political landscape over a long period of time and generates the respect and admiration of millions of pols, pundits, and listeners can be regarded as someone who, in the legal sense, has the ability to be an expert witness on the subject of American culture and politics. This is more than enough authority to express that expert opinion in a public forum such as radio. While he has no regulatory authority over anyone, you have to remember that the people who are being reproved have no authotity that exceeds his own other than the authority of the office that they may hold as elected officials.

This kind of political speech is precisely the kind of speech that the founders were so concerned about. This active dialog of listener and host is a form of town hall that they did not envision, but would certainly approve of, based on their writings.

Any addiction starts as a concious decision, whether it's the first pill or the first drink or the first snort of cocaine. In his case, the warnings are printed right on the accompying paperwork.

I get it. You are in exteme pain, but you are not going to take your prescribed medication because it's addictive. Hello, McFly!!!!

Bush (and Rush, and the rest of the so-called "conservatives") screw up just as often, but will never admit it.

I see from this statement that you have not listened for very long to any conservative. Most of us believe that we are all hoplessly lost were it not for God's plan of salvation. Other conservatives who are not believers also acknowlege that they have feet of clay. Bush has said so, and so has Rush, long before this week. The info is out there in countless speeches and articles. I invite you to research this for yourself.

 

[Chas]

whats the difference between....

Rush Limbaugh and ted Kennedy Rush destroyed his hearing abusing prescription meds. Ted Kennedy killed an innocent girl using alcohol Both are drugs I think Rush screwed himself Now he will face the music .

 

[Timebuilder]

Rush destroyed his hearing abusing prescription meds.

Rush's hearing problem was due to an autoimmune disease.

How would that have anything to do with pain medication?

 

[VivaZapata]

I was pointing out that this is an entirely different situation from smoking crack for pleasure, since there was never any pleasure involved in the case of Rush's use of Oxy.

No. Absolutely not. There is little, if any difference in this context. Crack is addictive as are pain killers. There are oodles of addicts that use crack no more for "pleasure" than folks addicted to pain killers. Most substance abuse professionals will tell you the same. Your attempts to sugarcoat his situation and somehow elevate Limbaugh over others with drug problems are unsuccessful. He is an addict, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing political or social here.

I usually just sit back and let all of the silly inapplicable analogies and logic pass by...but not this one.

 

[Jafar]

Re: whats the difference between....

Rush destroyed his hearing abusing prescription meds.

Get lucid, man! What drugs are you using? Whatever it is, pass some my way, god knows I could use it.

I used to agree with most of the crap you propogated around. But you seriously need to do some homework before you make a statement like the above mentioned.

I guess I walk around with a prepetual hard-on because I used to eat paint chips as a kid, too, huh? That is seriously the same logic you just used. Completely lacking of any substance or empirical evidence. Don't believe everything you read while standing in the line at the super market buying your wife's tampax, man.

This is the kind of inconclusive bull$hit that has spread around the landscape like a virus of unintelligence.






Rush used to represent conservative America. I'm a conservative and a Republican. He has always been a little over-the-top for me, but I agreed with many of his conclusions

Now I just think he needs his as$ kicked. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Never underestimate the power of a good asskicking. I wish, in my lifetime, I had more meaningful asskickings.

I'm not having this liberal $hit about "disease." Drug addiction is not a "disease" it's a weakness. Plain and simple. This is not up for debate. Thank you, please drive through.


And to the rest of you conservatives, please stop telling me its somehow different because they're doctor drugs. No. It's different to you becuase this time its Rush and not Robert Downey Jr.

Elvis died of doctor drugs. Doesn't make him special, makes him a junkie.

Hopefully Rush will get his as$ adequately kicked in the laughing academy or wherever the hell they shipped him off to, and he'll come back with his head and his as$ wired together and the universe will be back in harmony

In the meantime I'll be listening to Sean Hannity hoping it doesn't turn out that he is strung out on Ranch dressing or a shopaholic or some such $hit...

 

[Foobar]

Can we PLEASE get back to the pot smoking monkey.

Rush needs to look here http://www.smokingwithstyle.com/intro.htm if he wants to fit in with his new friends.

"I hope you're paying attention, because this is very important: unless you enjoy looking like a fool and a loser, don't ever knock a bong over! "

Look its Rush
http://www.humorbg.com/Karikaturi/animals/smoking_monkey.jpg

 

[Timebuilder]

No. Absolutely not. There is little, if any difference in this context. Crack is addictive as are pain killers. There are oodles of addicts that use crack no more for "pleasure" than folks addicted to pain killers.

No. I have to disagree.

There is a big difference between pain remediation and a "high". The difference is the presence of pain. I'm not talking about the pain of withdrawl but the pain that is the reason for treatment by a doctor. Just as addictive? Probably. There are lawsuits that I mentioned earlier because of this.

Perhaps I need to clarify what I am saying for you. My remarks have to do with the idea that people are saying (some people, not many) that Rush is engaging in some kind of hypocracy for being addicted to a drug, ANY drug, and that this is in contradictioon to his well publicized statements on drug use. I'm simply making clear what kind of drug taking he was referring to in his previous statements, and pointing out that someone who is under the treatment of a physician is not a recreational drug user if the original condition of chronic pain continues to exist. He may be an ILLEGAL drug user if he does not get his medication at the pharmacy, but we have yet to have any evidence of that presented to us, only the charges of the former employee. This is, for the moment, the same kind of unproven charge that we see in the Kobe case.

While it is true that this medication is addictive, it is also true that this has been known for a long time and it is still being prescribed. For many, it is an effective pain medication. For some who have no pain, it it the source of a high.

That said, make no mistake about this: there is a WORLD of difference betweeen a person in pain taking legal medication in order to lessen that pain and a junkie who is taking an illegal drug in order to get high again. The addiction may be there in both cases, but the former is sanctioned by our civil authorities and the other is not.

Would it be better if legal pain meds were not addictive? Sure. People are working on that problem every day.

Now, if Rush had had no pain and had sought ANY drug ilegally for the purpose of experienceing a high, then and ONLY then would these two situations be considered identical, and his previous statements about illegal drugs hypocritical.

 

[TWA Dude]

I'm not trying to get into an ACLU debate and I am not trying to disrespect your choice in supporting them, but what is it about them that makes you care enough to become a member?
I am just curious, that is all.

I'll cite two examples, one recent and one from a while ago.

Two days ago I caught a snippet on CNN about a 9 year-old (or some young age) Muslim girl who got suspended from school for violating their policy on headgear. The policy was simply "no headgear". We enjoy in this country a certain freedom of religious expression (yes, within reason!) and covering heads is integral to several different religions. Now, I understand that the school policy is based on keeping gang problems out of the building, but it's unfortunate that they couldn't formulate and enforce a rule that doesn't encroach on legitimate religious expression. CNN reported that the ACLU might sue the school and would I very much support that effort. The school's policy doesn't need to be eliminated; just fixed.

Example two regards an ugly incident back in the late 70's when a neo-nazi group wanted to march and demonstrate in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago with a high concentration of Holocaust survivors. They'd applied for a permit and the whole affair ended up in court. The ACLU defended the neo-nazis' right to stage a peaceful demonstration despite their hateful message. Now you don't know me but trust me when I say that my heritage suggests a strong anti-neo-nazi bias. Regardless, to deny them the right to march is wrong because it shouldn't matter whether we agree with their message or not, as long as they are not inciting violence. Denying them only empowers them anyway. They are discusting and their choice of location was just plain evil, but their speech is protected. (They did march and only minor scuffles ensued.)

So the reason I care enough to join the ACLU is that if we start denying civil liberties then eventually we'll lose them. You might've been able to call me an alarmist (not that you did) if it hadn't already happened time and time again throughout history. Think it can't happen here in the U.S.A.? Think again. Even with increased security concerns a balance must be found and kept.

To be sure, occasionally the ACLU busts out with some statement that even I have to shake my head in wonderment. Some lawyers just need to make a name for themselves, I guess, and many/most of those cases just fade away anyway. I can't (and shan't) defend every ACLU position, but on the whole I think their efforts are essential to maintaining the American way of life.

 

[njcapt]

Rush's hearing problem was due to an autoimmune disease.

How would that have anything to do with pain medication?

You need to pay attention. It is far from proven in this case, but there are links between ingestion of high levels of opiates and hearing loss. In Rush's case, his own doctors were at a loss to explain why he was missing several factors normally related to autoimmune hearing loss. The addiction to Oxycontin could explain this discrepancy in his previous diagnosis. Here is a clip from an article related to this:

(CBS/AP)... OxyContin is a narcotic painkiller that is widely prescribed for victims of moderate to severe chronic pain resulting from such problems as arthritis, back trouble and cancer.

Limbaugh reported two years ago that he had lost most of his hearing because of an autoimmune inner-ear disease. He had surgery to have an electronic device placed in his skull to restore his hearing.

Research has found that abuse of opiate-based painkillers like OxyContin can lead to profound hearing loss caused by damage to the inner ear, said Dr. Gail Ishiyama, an assistant professor at the UCLA department of neurology. She could not confirm that was Limbaugh's case without access to his medical history.

To all the dittoheads that seem to contend that an addiction to prescription drugs is somehow more dignified than one to street drugs: you need to get a grip. The end result is the same. He is a junkie. I bear no animosity to Rush (I occasionally listened to his radio show), and sincerely hope he gets the help he so obviously needs. I can't, however, bear the backpedaling and rationalization of his dittohead conservative disciples. Rush is just one source of opinion and not the final arbiter of any issue. If more of his fans would make the effort to arrive at their own opinions rather than letting Rush make their minds up for them, I could respect their point of view more.

I personally find it highly ironic that the right's self-appointed 'purveyor of truth', who managed to paint every issue in black and white, should get caught up in a human failing that he has decried in the past. If he is truly legitimate, he should throw the book at himself and cooperate fully with the police in their criminal investigation of him.

 

[enigma]

In 1988, I was a talk show listener. In those days, the usual fare consisted of JFK assasination discussions and interviews of Matthew Lesko. Then came Rush, finally I heard a voice in the media echo-ing my views. Rush didn't shape my views, he just gave them voice on the radio.

Rush has spent fifteen years skewering liberals, and now he has made a mistake. He's shown a personal weakness. I too have weakness's and am willing to give him a pass on this one. One time. If he continues, then I will no longer respect nor support him. But he deserves a chance, just as all of the rest of us deserve second chances. Those of you liberals (just for you MAR) who are trying to crucify him on this are only showing your true colors. If you are as compassionate as you claim, all you will do is offer your support to a human being who needs compassion.

To those attempting to justify, or explain, Rushs' problem, don't bother. Rush himself didn't attempt to explain it away and didn't sit around asking for sympathy, he admitted a mistake and stated a determination to overcome it.

I do want to say that Rush rarely attacks personality, he almost always attacks ideas, actions, and philosophy. The only people I know of (I'm not a regular listener, don't have the time anymore) that Rush apparently has personal distate for are Terry McCauliff and Barbra Striesand.

regards,
enigma

 

[Typhoon1244]

I do want to say that Rush rarely attacks personality, he almost always attacks ideas, actions, and philosophy.

Back when he had a T.V. show, Rush made a reference to the "White House dog" and showed a picture of fourteen year old Chelsea Clinton. Which idea, action, or philosophy was he attacking then?

 

[Timebuilder]

To all the dittoheads that seem to contend that an addiction to prescription drugs is somehow more dignified than one to street drugs: you need to get a grip.

Not a more "dignified" addiction, but one that is perhaps more "legitimate" because it was attained at the hands of a medical professional by using approved medications. There IS a difference between one who is a patient with a singular goal of pain remediation and one who seeks drugs without the physician for a purpose of altering their state of consciousness. The result may be the same, but the difference is the goal of the person who takes the drugs. Severe, chronic pain is the most controversial subject in medicine today, for all of the reasons we are discussing here.

A good many of you would, on the basis of your position, lump a person who takes poison on purpose with a person who is taking chemotherapy. See the difference?

You need to pay attention. It is far from proven in this case, but there are links between ingestion of high levels of opiates and hearing loss.

This is recent theory, and does not, from what I know apply in all cases, such as loss of teeth among methamphetamine users is a predictable result of chronic use. As you allude to, we don't have enough information to view this theory as fact.

I can't, however, bear the backpedaling and rationalization of his dittohead conservative disciples.

Show me some backpedaling. I'm not aware of anyone making an excuse for Rush. I can say that I am trying to add clarity to the issue, and I'm pointing out that the detractors who are supposedly compassionate liberals are now revealing their regular agenda of personal destruction. They would love for this to be viewed as an identical situation to illegal drug use, when there are many reasons that it is a different animal. I have articulated those reasons, and you can disagree with me. When we revisit this subject in the future, we will have far more information available, and have a far more interesting discussion. When I can get some more information from the DA's office and share it with you, I will.

Am I glad that I have never had to be treated with such strong pain relievers? You bet, I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

I personally find it highly ironic that the right's self-appointed 'purveyor of truth', who managed to paint every issue in black and white, should get caught up in a human failing that he has decried in the past.

You find this ironic because you didn't have enough information about the position Rush had taken on the drug issue. There is no truth that has been invalidated. The fact that he became addicted shows what he has said all along: the we are all weak humans, and subject to powerful urges and wants that need to be controlled, and that we need to avoid these situations whereever possible. In Rush's case, he found himself in an all too human trap where a legally prescribed medication that was medically necessary lead to a situation that he was unable to control, just as would happen if it were you or I in the same set of circumstances. How can I propose that we might find ourselves in the same position? Because of the tremdous amount of litigation arising out of the use of this particular medication becuase of its powerful effects and the reaction to its use by thousands of users, legal and otherwise.

If he is truly legitimate, he should throw the book at himself and cooperate fully with the police in their criminal investigation of him.

We don't know that he is not "fully cooperating", and I think that he fully legitimized himself on Friday when he decided to tell the entire world of his personal struggle and his willingness to try yet again to end his dependance on this medication.

 

[Timebuilder]

Back when he had a T.V. show, Rush made a reference to the "White House dog" and showed a picture of fourteen year old Chelsea Clinton. Which idea, action, or philosophy was he attacking then?

I can't speak for someone else, but maybe that's why the original post said "rarely" instead of "never". I would imagine that the real dog had been in the news that week, and this was a cheap laugh, a la the other comedian types that are on at night around the time of the Rush TV show.

I think it was in bad taste, to be honest.

 

[fLYbUDDY]

As I was strolling through a few posts in this thread I noticed some were saying that you couldn't get high off pain-killers like you can off crack. Of course it is a different “high” but I have seen people get pretty messed up eating the OC's. An OC (oxycontin) 80 mg is equivalent to 16 “5 mg” percocets. Sure it is time released but if someone chews them it busts the time release and it can all hit you at once. Even if you let the pill break down (time release) it would still get you high. They make them in 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 mg, I think, and the comparison to use would be the average percocets which contain 5mg of oxycodone (it is a good comparison since most people have taken percocets for teeth or other routine surgeries). I know the OC-80s are a popular choice for people that have developed a tolerance to them. And also it is an opioid and it affects the body similar to the way heroin does, since they are both derived from the same source. In other words they may not kill the brain cells like the crack does, but they have the potential to get a person high just like crack and heroin. And like I already said they are really a legal type of heroin in pill form. I guess you could think of them as being like a 1st cousin to street heroin.

 

[Timebuilder]

As I was strolling through a few posts in this thread I noticed some were saying that you couldn't get high off pain-killers like you can off crack.

I didn't see that.

Of course you can get high off of a whole variety of pain killers. If, however, you start with severe pain before taking a pain killer, you end up with decreased pain, rather than a euphoric high. I was prescribed percocets after some surgery, and I never once felt a "high" from them. I felt less pain.

 

[VivaZapata]

Now, if Rush had had no pain and had sought ANY drug ilegally for the purpose of experienceing a high, then and ONLY then would these two situations be considered identical, and his previous statements about illegal drugs hypocritical.

I still don't buy it. Yes, of course there is a difference between taking a drug to get high and taking drugs for pain relief. However, addicts also take drugs (crack, heroin, pain medication etc.) to minimize the effects of withdrawl. This is a significant part of what defines an addict. This is where it is indeed identical. If Rush was legitimately fighting pain, I think it is safe to assume that he would have obtained the medication through legal means, not through his housekeeper. This allegation suggests that he is an addict and, considering the above, there is no difference between a crack addict and one who is addicted to pain medication.

We shall see if he acquired his meds illegally.

It is fun to watch all of the dittoheads in their knee-jerk rationalizations.

 

[fLYbUDDY]

I didn't see that.

Of course you can get high off of a whole variety of pain killers. If, however, you start with severe pain before taking a pain killer, you end up with decreased pain, rather than a euphoric high. I was prescribed percocets after some surgery, and I never once felt a "high" from them. I felt less pain.

Try eating 16 at once and see how you feel.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

[B

It is fun to watch all of the dittoheads in their knee-jerk rationalizations. [/B]

Yes, almost as much fun as watching the liberals rationalize Clinton's criminal and deviant behavior.

 

[Typhoon1244]

...Clinton's...deviant behavior.

"Deviant?" Blowjobs?

I shudder to think what you'd call some of the things our flight attendants do!

I believe the original point of this thread was that, unlike Clinton, Rush spent a lot of time pontificating about what sort of punishment should be meted out to drug addicts...then became one himself. That is irony in the extreme!

 

[flywithruss]

In response to the "White House dog" comment ...

Rush himself felt bad for having made that joke. About a year ago, he was at some sort of function in New York at which Hillary Clinton was also a guest ... a birthday or anniversary party for some individual who happened to be a mutual friend of the Clintons and the Limbaughs. When Rush learned Mrs. Clinton was at the party, he made a point to seek her out and speak to her. He told her that almost immediately after making that joke on his TV show, he felt bad about it and resolved that if he ever met her in person he would apologize for it. He told her that any ideological differences aside, a personal attack on her daughter was just wrong, and he was deeply sorry for having done it, and for any pain it may have caused. Apparently Mrs. Clinton accepted the apology graciously.

Rush described this encounter with Mrs. Clinton on his show shortly after it happened.

As to Rush's problem, my prayers go out to the man, to his wife Marta, and to his family and friends who have to deal with this situation. May he find the help he needs in treatment and return to the air soon.

The illegal purchase story is nothing but allegations at this point. As reported, Rush was not the target of the investigation, but his name was uncovered trying to locate the "big fish" trafficking these drugs in South Florida. I would think that Rush would cooperate in such an investigation. Like all things, the truth will eventually be known.

Typhoon, getting a BJ isn't deviant ... anything but. And from the sound of it maybe I need to be dating more flight attendants. But, my gripe with Clinton is that he lied under oath about these activities ... and getting a BJ while on the phone with a member of Congress may not be deviant, but it is certainly distasteful.

R

 

[414Flyer]

Actually Rush was not the one that put the picture of Chelsea up. It was one of the production staffers who did that, who was fired for it too. Rush still did take responsibilty for it and sent an apology.

 

[Typhoon1244]

...getting a BJ isn't deviant ... anything but. And from the sound of it maybe I need to be dating more flight attendants.

Well, don't be too sure. I said they do some wild stuff. I didn't say you'd want to do any of it with them. (Now Skywest girls, on the other hand...)

...my gripe with Clinton is that he lied under oath about these activities... and getting a BJ while on the phone with a member of Congress may not be deviant, but it is certainly distasteful.

I agree completely...I just thought the "deviant" comment was over the top.