Rush Limbaugh

[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.