Rush's Medicine
The Drug Policy Alliance has unveiled an online poll on Rush Limbaugh's fate with a snazzy little animated introduction that not-very-subtly pushes you to have mercy on the self-identified narcotic addict. "Do you think he deserves a taste of his own medicine?" it asks. "Or is it wrong, always, to punish people just for what they put into their bodies?"
He may be a hypocritical jerk, the intro says, but "that doesn't make him a criminal." True, but voting to "Put Rush Behind Bars" won't really put him there, and it's a lot more emotionally satisfying than voting to "Leave Him Alone."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Rush Limbaugh should be strung up with barbed wire in Times Square.
Now, what’s this about prescription drugs?
Demanding Limbaugh’s head on a pike serves no useful purpose… except to illuminate how resentment can supplant reason.
Treat Rush like any other addicted drug abuser,
and keep him coming in for drug tests afterward.
Rush is the only man I ever heard on radio
that could talk for hours without a Bible
or another person talking back to him.
Maybe now I know why he couldn’t shut up.
So it isn’t hypocritical to demand Rush be put in jail for what he put into his own body and also decry laws that would require such punishment for such victimless “crimes”? You’re as bad as Clinton.
you’d think opoids would slow him down a bit.
hypocritical, yes, for both parties involved.
considering his advocacy for harsh punishments for drug use and abuse, there is the issue of the satisfaction of watching someone actually reap what they sow. like a preacher caugh with his hand in the till (or a child, for that matter) or the environmentalist with a taste for SUVs, etc.
watching professional moralists fall is an enjoyable, if vengeful, hobby. but that’s more a spiritual concern than political.
When you say Rush’s “advocacy for harsh punishments for drug use,” are you refering to that one quotation that made the rounds? The one from several years back about sending people up the river or some such? Call me crazy, but if that one line out of god knows how many billions of lines the man has spoken in the only evidence of his “advocacy” for harsh drug sentences, then I’m inclined to think this was never a real issue for him. Never once have I heard him call for harsh drug punishments when I tuned in. Aren’t people being a little stridant in their searches for some rank hypocrisy here?
To all those “string him up!!” folks… if you were on the jury deciding whether or not to convict him, would you really vote “guilty” when it came down to it? I know I wouldn’t be able to stomach the act of sending this guy to prison or fining him or forcing him into rehab… even if he is a hypocrite.
Think about it… it’s all up to you, the other jury members are ready to send him up the river, you alone have the power to send him to prison… what do you do?
It’s not hypocritical to insist that laws with which you disagree are applied with an even hand. One the very best arguments against victimless crimes is that they tend to only be enforced against the little guy (or those out of political favor).
Those who feel Rush deserves a free pass should justify that, not snipe at the accusers.
Meanwhile, of course, if I’m on the jury at his trial, I go for jury nullification, as I would in nearly ANY non-violent drug case.
I’m a chronic Rush listener, but this is the biggest disagreement I’ve had with his opinion set. It should be used as a huge opportunity to put an end to the war on drugs and switch to a medical approach. But my Mom, an equally big Rush fan, wants to see him behind bars. At least we’re consistent!
I am disappointed that drug policy reformers would want to imprison Rush for his drug use. Granted, if he were to suffer the punishment and be put in a cage for years or decades, that might hasten the end of punitive drug laws.
But what will probably happen is that prosecutors will pull their punches and he’ll be charged with a relatively minor offense. He’ll do his (minimal) time and the whole issue will go away.
Also, just to be pedantic, the name of the organization, of which I’m a member, is the Drug Policy Alliance.
Larry, I think most drug reform policy folks are interested to see his ass squirm over the heat for a bit but to eventually treat him like a patient with a disease as opposed to a degenerate with a crimal appetite.
Deep down, you know he’s just a sad man who only wants to be loved.
While doing a search on the web, I found a more recent quote from Limbaugh in which he considers that maybe drug legalization is the way to go. It was in an article at indymedia.com, of all places. Not exactly a bastion of dittoheads.
Rush speaks for a number of issues on the basis that ‘it affects millions of people’. The drug war has arrested 1.2 million people yearly for the past decade just on simple possession charges.
It’s a clear form of government sponsored genocide, not instantly fatal, but crippling in various degrees to nearly all affected.
I’ve invested thousands of hours in the past five years helping to change the laws.
I’ve come to conclusion that the War never ends until we start seeing more whites and upper class come home in the body bags.
honestly, if i were on the jury, i’d probably vote to aquit or whatever the least ridiculous punishment would be, despite his assholery.
But, but, but… It wasn’t Rush’s fault. It was the fault of the evil prescription pill pushers employed by big pharmaceutical to peddle their products of disease and death. They’re just as bad as big tobacco. They purposely spike these pills to addict people and make the junkies keep coming back for more. These pills are the cause of every affliction known to man. They ought to be banned. /sarcasm
Back to reality, I don’t know the full background of his “coming out”, this doesn’t seem to be a clear cut yes or no. Most self identified junkies get help and treatment instead of prosecution and jail. It’s when they are caught red handed that criminal prosecution is usually initiated. If Rush self-identified on his own then that should be the story. If he was found out and came clean about his problem to avoid the prosecution, then he should face the consequences of the law. That’s not to say I think the law and the WOD is right or wrong. I’ll just keep my opinion of that to myself.
Like the Martha Stewart case, this is the ultimate test of libertarian purism. Anyone who can support acquital for a crime that ought not to be a crime, despite the uttlerly loathsome characters involved, is a libertarian indeed.
If I were on a jury, I’d do the nullification thing myself. But just for the purposes of a poll, I’d like to spend about three days taking Rush apart with a pair of bolt-cutters.
“this is the ultimate test of libertarian purism.”
Woo-hoo! I passed the test!!!
Actually; if Rush did get a big jail sentence it might really energize the anti-drug war/pro legalization movement, which BTW, would constitute a far bigger contribution to the cause of liberty than he’s made lately.
That, of course wouldn’t be fair to Rush, so how about we throw Al Franken in jail with him and Rush gets time off for beating him up.
Why not have the two of them participate in Celebrity Boxing #_? But make it bare knuckles, okay?
“Why not have the two of them participate in Celebrity Boxing #_? But make it bare knuckles, okay?”
What a brilliant idea. Put it on pay-per-view. Who would win?
My vote: Rush. He’s a bigger asshole of the two (though it’s close). Plus he can hop himself up on painkillers and speed.
Extra points for whoever can come up with ages, weights, and reach. What’s the spread?
> The drug war has arrested 1.2 million people yearly for the past decade just on simple possession charges.
It’s a clear form of government sponsored genocide, not instantly fatal, but crippling in various degrees to nearly all affected.
“…how about we throw Al Franken in jail with him and Rush gets time off for beating him up.”
No way Rush could beat up Franken!
Rush is like a small mouth parakeet chirping & chattering in a little cage with a spotty newspaper carpet.
Al is like the large mouth kid sitting beside you in lunch, wanting to wipe your plate for you, or sitting behind you in the movie making comments aloud after having seen it two straight times before you.
Neither ever shuts up or shows an ounce of humility. Two mouths that would gobble up the world, one by peck, peck, peck and hte other by yack, yack, yack.
Al and Rush – double proof that freedom of speech is ever present and ever so UGLY.
Rush got a rush.
Big deal.
Al Franken’s continued existence proves that God is dead.
Or too hung-over to notice.
yeah, like those two fatties could beat up anything?
it’s well known liberal big mouths tend to be pussies, but conservatives are just as bad, if not worse. they’re sort of like the vaguely homoerotic bootboys to some glimmering authoritarian future.
JSM writes: “Larry, I think most drug reform policy folks are interested to see his ass squirm over the heat for a bit but to eventually treat him like a patient with a disease as opposed to a degenerate with a crimal appetite.”
While very little could make me happier than a repeal of drug prohibition, I won’t promote it by invoking the fiction that people who use drugs, even excessively, have a “disease.” People who drink too much, snort coke, take oxy contin, gamble, shop too much, overeat….these are now all behaviors that have become medicalized, and that is a corruption of the idea of “disease.”
Addiction to some substances can cause disease, e.g., cirrhosis vis-a-vis alcohol. But the use of the substance is not a disease itself.
Larry, thanks for pointing out the misidentification of DPA, which I’ve corrected. The organization used to be known by the cumbersome name of Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, reflecting its roots in two reform groups that merged.
I do not believe that wishing a long jail sentence (following Federal Mandantory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines) for Rush is the “ultimate test of libertarian purism.”
And here is why:
In the short term, a pro-Liberty stance would say “Let Rush go! His body is his own!”
In the long term, however, Rush would make a most excellent martyr for the cause. Rush’s incarceration for some ghastly length of time could be a great aid to the cause of personal freedom.
Granted, this would be at a cost to Rush’s _personal_ freedom, but the *overall* cause of freedom would be aided.
Will,
Ok, you’re the Judge or on the jury. Do you violate Rush’s liberty to cause political movement in a pro-liberty direction?
I hope you answer; “no” because: If the words “individual rights” mean what they say, then it is the rights of one real individual that must have the ultimate priority even before the prospect of bring more rights to many.
Also; A. you would certainly be attacking the individual liberty of Rush for what you hope would be a net gain of liberty. (I don’t want to consider the situation where we Know the “the overall cause of freedom would be aided.” because foreknowledge in this situation is not possible) B. There are other avenues to attain the desired political goal of more liberty in this realm.
(Here’s a question on B.: Would it make it any less unethical to violate Rush’s individual liberty if it appeared that doing so was the only way that general liberty might be advanced in this realm?)
It seems that to violate an individual’s liberty to try to advance the cause of liberty, even considering a utilitarian calculus cannot be justified.
(Another question: What about if an individual is with the government and he/she is violating rights? Is it then OK to violate that persons rights, say; via the drug laws?)
i guess rush is facing a Fourth and Twenty-Six. It’s too bad that there are only media-created quarterbacks out there (who aren’t really good enough for that situation). poor rush. john elway has retired. brett favre is old… no white quarterbacks for that ass-hat to rely on…
he’ll meet such interesting people in jail. then the PATRIOT provisions will give the Do”J” the power to listen in and sneak-and-peek, and many of his supporters will all of a sudden be against these intrusions on our liberty.
go Indy!!!!
drf
“Maybe now I know why he couldn’t shut up.”
And the 10 years when he was drug-free can be explained how?
Were in September of 2004 now. Any idea what’s up with Rush’s punishment? Most “regular” folks caught in his type of predicament would be, how should I say, Up the river without a pizzle – for a long time!
Were in September of 2004 now. Any idea what’s up with Rush’s punishment? Most “regular” folks caught in his type of predicament would be, how should I say, Up the river without a pizzle – for a long time!