Jacob Sullum asks if Rush Limbaugh's now-concluded ordeal will inspire him to help out people victimized by mandatory minimums.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Jersey McJones | May 3, 2006, 8:21am | #
I can't believe that Sullum sees no connection to Limbaugh's fame and his lesser punishment.JMJ
D.A. Ridgely | May 3, 2006, 8:27am | #
Yet the talk radio titan's detractors also have a point when they complain that he got off with a slap on the wrist after obtaining thousands of painkillers under false pretenses....Come on, Jersey, you can at least RTFA up to the first sentence of the second paragraph!
Tell me, JMJ, do you have to work at being an idiot, or is it a natural gift? How do you get "no connection" between Rush Limbaugh's celebrity and his lesser punishment from "Paey's refusal to call himself an addict, more than Limbaugh's celebrity . . ."? Doesn't that sentence baldly say that Limbaugh's celebrity has something to do with it, just not as much as his admission that he's an "addict"? Maybe I just can't read English too well, since I went to public schools, but that's exactly what it seems to say to me.
I can't believe that Jersey sees no connection between his lack of reading comprehension skills and our inability to take him seriously.
HnR Posters
HnR Posters
Another Lurker | May 3, 2006, 8:33am | #
Yeah his fame and the money associated bought him a better lawyer that could give him good advise such as: "You need to admit you are an addict and there is a good chance I can get you off".One would hope this would make the moralistic types that frequent his show more likely to see the War on Drugs for what it is, a dismal failure that clogs the prisons with perpetrators of victimless "crimes". Sadly I think like all zealot hypocrites (left and right) they will just ignor, pretend it never happened, or whatever.
Maybe that dude serving 25 years in FL can use this case as a precident to get himself released early or something. I doubt it. Our War on Drugs laws will no doubt continue to view possession of pain killers as worthy of a longer prison sentence than man slaughter.
Jersey McJones | May 3, 2006, 8:36am | #
The admission of being an "addict" over saying that pain was the culprit sounds awfully subjective for a court of law. Limbaugh got off because he's a famous pig and Florida is full of pig lovers.JMJ
thoreau | May 3, 2006, 8:38am | #
Another Lurker-I doubt that Limbaugh will see the light. Leaving aside his personality, recovering addicts don't see themselves as victims of the system. They see themselves as victims of the evil drugs, and if the system coerced them into treatment then the system saved them. This way they can avoid acknowledging that the real problem is not the drugs but the choices that they made and the way that they misused drugs.
Mr. Nice Guy | May 3, 2006, 8:46am | #
I don't think Limbaugh got a pass just because he is a rich, white celebrity. I think he got it because he is an active supporter of the War on Drugs.Think what would happen if the Drug Czar was thrown in jail for smoking weed. It would be a devastating blow to the War, which is of highly questionable legitimacy to begin with. The house of cards would fall flat.
If this isn't a blatant conspiracy, I don't know what is.
MNG, I have an idea for what our mission should be: To plant weed in the houses of as many powerful people as possible!
D.A. Ridgely | May 3, 2006, 8:53am | #
thoreau, in many cases that would only make you one of their alternate suppliers.thoreau | May 3, 2006, 8:54am | #
D. A. Ridgely-No doubt. But the key is that after planting it we'd call the cops and give them an anonymous tip.
D.A. Ridgely | May 3, 2006, 8:58am | #
And thus become one of the cops alternate suppliers?If this isn't a blatant conspiracy, I don't know what is.
There is no such thing as a subconscious conspiracy.
There is no such thing as a subconscious conspiracy.
Warren | May 3, 2006, 9:15am | #
I think Jacob got it exactly right. It's about winning the war. If you're willing to tow the line and proclaim that "Drugs are bad mmm'K", we can cut you some slack (and proclaiming it to a vast coast to coast audience can only help). Questioning the fundamental paradigm gets you in deep trouble, but it's also part of a more general problem with plea-bargaining.thoreau,
Do you watch Boston Legal? Last night they blamed Americas diabetes epidemic on corn syrup. SHOUT OUT!
How can anybody be surprised that Limbaugh got off because he's rich? Money is power. In many cases you can have just as much freedom as you can buy. But, of course that's not the kind if freedom right-wing libertarians like to talk about. Rush and I are equally free to wear our socks inside out. That's what counts.
Warren | May 3, 2006, 9:30am | #
Jeremy,That's just the point. Rush being rich and famous has less to do with his prosecution than his being willing to testify as to the evils of drug addiction.
From the article:
After Limbaugh's deal was announced, a spokesman for the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office explained that "it's a diversion specifically for first-time offenders with no prior criminal history or arrest." He called it "standard for someone who is dealing with their addiction."
Jennifer | May 3, 2006, 9:31am | #
I've read cases of people ordered into mandatory drug rehab who got in trouble for not "cooperating", in that you have to tell all these lurid stories about the various ways drugs destroyed your life, and if you don't have any such stories to tell you're screwed. So you can't say "the only trouble pot has caused me is when I got arrested for smoking it"; no, you have to talk about how you lost your job and your money and your friends and ended up a back-alley whore. If none of this happened to you, lie and say it did. Otherwise you'll be in trouble for not cooperating with your own rehabilitation.As to Rush, I'm sure another excuse he'll use to separate himself from hoi polloi drug users is that he got hooked under a doctor's care.
Mr. F. Le Mur | May 3, 2006, 9:33am | #
I think he got it because he is an active supporter of the War on Drugs.Is he? Cite, please. (seriously)
...a result they find especially galling in light of his general support for the war on drugs and his specific support for incarcerating drug users...
Many silly liberals have claimed that Limbaugh's a rabid drug warrior and such, but his only statements about the WOD that I've been able to find were something along the lines of "it's unfair that blacks seem to get sentenced to prison more often." (Whether his proposed solution was jailing more of everyone else, or less jailing of blacks, I don't recall). I used to listen to his show fairly regularly and never once heard him say anything at all about the WOD.
...more general problem with plea-bargaining.
"Plea-bargaining" is the polite word for "bribery."
And yeah, both Limbaugh and Paey were fucked over by sadistic prosecutors.
Jennifer | May 3, 2006, 9:42am | #
Rush Limbaugh, October 5, 1995:"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
Mr. F. Le Mur | May 3, 2006, 9:47am | #
So you can't say "the only trouble pot has caused me is when I got arrested for smoking it"; no, you have to talk about how you lost your job and your money and your friends and ended up a back-alley whore.That persecutorial attitude is very similar to requiring confessions in the old-fashioned witch-hunts, so it's not surprising that it followed over into the new-fashioned witch-hunts. I'd guess the purpose is to absolve the persecutors, etc., of responsibility for their actions, but for the fact that (IMHO) the persecutors are mostly high-functioning sociopaths who're uninterested in absolution.
"I've never had a problem with drugs. I've had problems with the police." - Keef.
gutta percha | May 3, 2006, 9:53am | #
FWIW, Andy McCarthy writes "[Rush] spent millions of dollars in legal fees challenging the state attorney every step of the way."http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWM4MDQ5YWY3NTZjZGRkZTdmMTJiYmNiNjUzYmI4MGI=
I'm not complaining about it, but it's true that you get the justice you can afford.
Mr. F. Le Mur | May 3, 2006, 9:59am | #
Rush Limbaugh, October 5, 1995: ...Fair enough. I looked that one up and found this in Wikipedia:
Following Limbaugh's admission of drug abuse, his detractors reviewed prior statements by him about drug use as examples of hypocrisy. Several statements from the 1990s were found, in particular, on October 5, 1995: (That same quote, above)
and in 1998:
"What is missing in the drug fight is legalization. If we want to go after drugs with the same fervor and intensity with which we go after cigarettes, let's legalize drugs. Legalize the manufacture of drugs. License the Cali cartel. Make them taxpayers, and then sue them. Sue them left and right, and then get control of the price, and generate tax revenue from it. Raise the price sky high, and fund all sorts of other wonderful social programs."
IOW, not really much of a drug-warrior based on two statements from about 10 years ago, especially considering his potentially quotable output, and with the later statement calling for legalization - though for rather strange reasons.
Phileleutherus Lipsiensus | May 3, 2006, 10:02am | #
This wasn't a plea bargain. Indeed, it wasn't even fact bargaining.Jennifer | May 3, 2006, 10:08am | #
F. Le Mur--I read that quote too. I'm not certain of the context, but it sounds to me that he wasn't being pro-legalization there so much as he was being sarcastic in regards to the hypocrisy of left-wingers who won't support legalization--"You're so fond of social programs? Well then, why not legalize drugs to pay for them, huh?"
Don't get me wrong--I think such left-wing hypocrisy is fair game for anybody, right- or left-wing, to bitch about. But it doesn't strike me as an example of Rush saying the drug war is immoral and should end.
Phileleutherus Lipsiensus | May 3, 2006, 10:13am | #
As to the nature of Rush's deal, one would have to statistically determine whether it was any different on average from deals given to persons in like situations.gaijin | May 3, 2006, 10:16am | #
"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies....This reads like Michael's sppech during last week's episode of The Office...Drug Testing
www.nbc.com/The_Office/recap/index.shtml
That's too funny.
budgie | May 3, 2006, 10:40am | #
"I used to listen to his show fairly regularly and never once heard him say anything at all about the WOD."In addition to Jennifer's nice quote I would add that Limbaugh routinely said nasty things about drug users and the need to throw them all in jail; that is, until he got caught red-handed. I think I recall him saying "serves him right" when Jerry Garcia died. I'm guessing that was a reference to Garcia's free-and-easy hedonistic ethos, or something along those lines. If Limbaugh had a shred of credibility, he would grow a pair and offer to serve some time. But then these guys who crow about their moral superiority tend to lose their nerve when it counts.
By the way, I'm totally against the criminalization of drug use--among both the down-and-out self medicators who come from skid row and the douchebags who think they are holier than though because they lied to doctors. Having said that, it would be nice to see Limbaugh go down hard for casting the first stone. Then maybe we can have a real conversation about the drug war.
EDIT "holier than thou" Sorry. Blowhards like Limbaugh mess w/my grammatical execution.
Mr. F. Le Mur | May 3, 2006, 10:55am | #
"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies....Those first statements are obviously true (dunno about 'societies') for some drugs and some people; although the WOD obviously makes things worse, it was true (to a lesser extent) before the WOD.
...hypocrisy of left-wingers who won't support legalization..
Perhaps his 1995 statements were also sarcastic.
I can't think of any major or semi-major left-wing politicians who want to end the WOD, but I can think of several right-winger who do (W.F. Buckley and the former gov of NM); too rare in both camps, unfortunately.
P Brooks | May 3, 2006, 11:12am | #
Limbaugh has thrown himself on the mercy of the court, and "confessed" that he only took the pills because he was addicted to them. And, presumably, addicted to the way they make him feel, rather than their medical benefits. As a recovering addict, he never wants to take any more drugs, because that would be bad.What happens when his back hurts?
budgie | May 3, 2006, 11:26am | #
"I can't think of any major or semi-major left-wing politicians who want to end the WOD, but I can think of several right-winger who do (W.F. Buckley and the former gov of NM); too rare in both camps, unfortunately."This may be true, but I think we have a different issue here.
What makes this all such a bubbling witches' brew of hypocrisy is that Limbaugh makes a living demonizing people and groups for engaging in certain behaviors and suggesting draconian punishments for their actions. He then gets caught out engaging in said behavior but expects kid-glove treatment. I'm assuming that when this blows over, it will all go down the memory hole, and he will get back to bashing addicts.
Really, if there were any justice, he'd end up in a cell with someone the size of Donovan McNabb with a big chip on his shoulder about having to do the harder time that Limbaugh has been advocating his whole career. Then, when Limbaugh came out the ass end of this ordeal, we could have an actual conversation about the way the war on drugs is waged.
budgie | May 3, 2006, 11:26am | #
"I can't think of any major or semi-major left-wing politicians who want to end the WOD, but I can think of several right-winger who do (W.F. Buckley and the former gov of NM); too rare in both camps, unfortunately."This may be true, but I think we have a different issue here.
What makes this all such a bubbling witches' brew of hypocrisy is that Limbaugh makes a living demonizing people and groups for engaging in certain behaviors and suggesting draconian punishments for their actions. He then gets caught out engaging in said behavior but expects kid-glove treatment. I'm assuming that when this blows over, it will all go down the memory hole, and he will get back to bashing addicts.
Really, if there were any justice, he'd end up in a cell with someone the size of Donovan McNabb with a big chip on his shoulder about having to do the harder time that Limbaugh has been advocating his whole career. Then, when Limbaugh came out the ass end of this ordeal, we could have an actual conversation about the way the war on drugs is waged.
Budgie, As a regular listener who most would call an addict, I'd quit listening if Limbaugh was constantly bashing addicts. Or maybe I just don't remember being bashed. Or maybe its worth a little abuse to get to hear liberals exposed as frauds on a daily basis. On skating the charges, the real punishment was in the cost of the lawyers.
Gary Johnson a right-winger? Are all Republicans right-wingers? If not, which of GJ's policies puts him in that camp?
budgie | May 3, 2006, 12:15pm | #
"As a regular listener who most would call an addict, I'd quit listening if Limbaugh was constantly bashing addicts."You might have seen a drop off since, you know, your boy was exposed as a "fraud" to use your wording, as in either a person who makes deceitful pretenses or deception made for personal gain. Tell me, why is it that Limbaugh fans turn off the bullshit detector when it matters most, that is, from the moment Limbaugh opens his mouth to the moment he signs off? That is where and when the fraud can be located.
I guess I missed the one program that ya'll keep citing, but going from one comment to none, maybe you call that a drop off. As far as deception for personal gain, I hardly consider hiding an oxycontin addiction as fraud, regardless of his on air position on the subject. The shit's illegal you know. I think it's a damn shame he got hauled off after his annual Lukemia fundraiser. When was the last time you offered a day of charity to such a worthy cause, budgie?
budgie | May 3, 2006, 1:00pm | #
So, let me get this straight. If I or anyone breaks a law, including the crack whore who lives down the street from me, I get to wipe the slate clean by doing a fundraiser. That's super! Thanks for the info James.Oh, is Mark Hamill in trouble or something?
budgie | May 3, 2006, 1:04pm | #
"I think it's a damn shame he got hauled off after his annual Lukemia fundraiser."Is Mark Hamill in trouble? What happened?
Seriously James, so anyone who breaks drug laws can just do a day of fundraising and get off scott free? I bet the crack whore who lives down the street from me will be thrilled about that. Oh that's right, these laws weren't intended for powerful white drug addicts. Silly me.
Or maybe its worth a little abuse to get to hear liberals exposed as frauds on a daily basis.
You should look for better sources. Like Reason, for example (which I like because it exposes conservatives as frauds as often as liberals, which is in accordance with reality). Limbaugh is a notorious liar and bigot.
You should look for better sources. Like Reason, for example (which I like because it exposes conservatives as frauds as often as liberals, which is in accordance with reality). Limbaugh is a notorious liar and bigot.
Forget about him being "rational" about drugs or anything else: Limbaugh is by his own description an entertainer, which means he'll say whatever he needs to say to get a rise out of people. Not that there's anything wrong with that; the real problem is that so many people have come to take him so seriously.