Poor Rush

[Natoma]

All taken with a grain of salt from a guy who calls himself bigus dickus. Yea.....

 

[Bigus Dickus]

As if our username had any relevance to what we say. Then again, you are the King (or is that Queen?) of bringing up irrelevant subjects.

 

[Natoma]

All you do is reinforce my point. You are indeed a true credit to your name.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I don't care if the charges are the same or if they're different for downloading music. As I said, I really don't care. So hard to believe that someone can have no opinion about something?

No, but it is hard to believe that someone could have "no opinion" on something that is directly parallel to something he does have a decided opinion on.

But assume away if that's your wish.

The only assumption I made, was that you are consistent. Yes, I know that's not necessarily a valid assumption.

Basically if your only crime was trying to obtain drugs illegally, no matter how you got to that point mind you, you should automatically be put into a drug rehab center, maybe even one that resides inside a prison if you're a repeat offender, even if you started off getting your drugs from a prescription. If you committed a violent act, then you should be sentenced appropriately for that violent act and also given drug treatment. But that would be the only difference imo in sentencing.

If you commit other crimes (like violent acts), whether or not drug induced, they should be additional charges. I agree. (And that's obvious to me.)

"If you break the law trying to obtain drugs illegally, then you should be prosecuted no matter if you got addicted off the street or from your doctor. How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you broke the law by getting drugs illegally, nor does it change the fact that you're still addicted. "

Being addicted is not a crime, as far as I know. You don't get punished or convicted for "being addicted to drugs."

You get punished for purchasing / posessing them. The intent for purchasing / posessing do and should impact the sentencing.

Should someone who doesn't use drugs, but is just "buying them for a firend", automatically go to rehab? Rush's maid (assuming the stories are true) would be guilty of posession / purchasing. If she's not a user, should she go to rehab? Should she get the same sentencing as Rush, even with respect to just the purchase aspect?

Can you clarify exactly what you would like to see happen to Rush? Of course, we have to make some assumptions, and let's go with these, since they are true as far as we know:

1) Rush purchased illegal drugs, at least some via a 3rd party.
2) Rush is using and is addicted to said to illegal drugs
3) This would be Rush's "first offese"
4) Rush is not involved in any other crime related to his drug use

If I understand you correctly, Rush should
1) Go to rehab, (at taxpayer expense,) as part of the "sentence" for being a "user."
2) Rush should face some charges for purchasing / possessing. Those charges should be no different than any other purchase / possession charge. Other than "related violence", there's no other mitigating circumstance that should be taken into consideration.

The result is the same, based on a need to rehabilitate, not incarcerate, if no violent crime is involved. That is where the difference lies. In the violent crime associated with the abuse of drugs, not the actual abuse of drugs. I don't know if you skipped over it or didn't read it closely enough, but I thought I was clear in that point.

I just don't see where violent crime related to drug use needed to enter this discussion at all? That's an entirely different issue.

As for a murder, violence is always involved, so that obviously cannot be the comparative factor between the two. In the case of drugs, the heavier sentence imo should be given on whether or not violence accompanies the drug offense. In the case of murder, the heavier sentence imo should be given on whether or not it was intended.

So, in a nutshell....you believe "intent" only matters in cases of violence, but not other offenses? (Is that correct?)

Not everything is comparitively black & white Joe.

Agreed. This is exactly why I don't think all sentences for drug purchase / posession should be the same. (Including all purchase / possession convictions where violence is not an issue...there are other mitigating circumstances.)

 

[Natoma]

I don't care if the charges are the same or if they're different for downloading music. As I said, I really don't care. So hard to believe that someone can have no opinion about something?

No, but it is hard to believe that someone could have "no opinion" on something that is directly parallel to something he does have a decided opinion on.

I see absolutely no parallel between downloading music and drug addiction and punishment.

But assume away if that's your wish.

The only assumption I made, was that you are consistent. Yes, I know that's not necessarily a valid assumption.

The only problem here is that you see a black & white comparison here where I don't believe there is one.

Basically if your only crime was trying to obtain drugs illegally, no matter how you got to that point mind you, you should automatically be put into a drug rehab center, maybe even one that resides inside a prison if you're a repeat offender, even if you started off getting your drugs from a prescription. If you committed a violent act, then you should be sentenced appropriately for that violent act and also given drug treatment. But that would be the only difference imo in sentencing.

If you commit other crimes (like violent acts), whether or not drug induced, they should be additional charges. I agree. (And that's obvious to me.)

Must be a blue moon.

"If you break the law trying to obtain drugs illegally, then you should be prosecuted no matter if you got addicted off the street or from your doctor. How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you broke the law by getting drugs illegally, nor does it change the fact that you're still addicted. "

Being addicted is not a crime, as far as I know. You don't get punished or convicted for "being addicted to drugs."

Never said it was a crime, nor did I allude to that. That statement should be read as "How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you broke the law by getting drugs illegally. How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you're still addicted and need help."

You get punished for purchasing / posessing them. The intent for purchasing / posessing do and should impact the sentencing.

Should someone who doesn't use drugs, but is just "buying them for a firend", automatically go to rehab? Rush's maid (assuming the stories are true) would be guilty of posession / purchasing. If she's not a user, should she go to rehab? Should she get the same sentencing as Rush, even with respect to just the purchase aspect?

Well this is something different. My statements have all been predicated on someone purchasing drugs for their drug abuse which is what I thought we were talking about. Someone who is involved in drug trafficking however would face different criminal charges as it is a different crime. It deals in the willfull addiction of another human being whether for profit or not, and that is a far worse offense than abusing drugs imo.

That's why our criminal system punishes drug traffickers far worse than drug abusers, and I agree with that. It's a different class of charges and cannot be compared to drug abuse imo.

Can you clarify exactly what you would like to see happen to Rush? Of course, we have to make some assumptions, and let's go with these, since they are true as far as we know:

1) Rush purchased illegal drugs, at least some via a 3rd party.
2) Rush is using and is addicted to said to illegal drugs
3) This would be Rush's "first offese"
4) Rush is not involved in any other crime related to his drug use

If I understand you correctly, Rush should
1) Go to rehab, (at taxpayer expense,) as part of the "sentence" for being a "user."
2) Rush should face some charges for purchasing / possessing. Those charges should be no different than any other purchase / possession charge. Other than "related violence", there's no other mitigating circumstance that should be taken into consideration.

Indeed.

The result is the same, based on a need to rehabilitate, not incarcerate, if no violent crime is involved. That is where the difference lies. In the violent crime associated with the abuse of drugs, not the actual abuse of drugs. I don't know if you skipped over it or didn't read it closely enough, but I thought I was clear in that point.

I just don't see where violent crime related to drug use needed to enter this discussion at all? That's an entirely different issue.

That's what I stated in my original post. As I said earlier I don't know if you skipped over it or didn't read it correctly, but that was how I was framing my opinion on the matter when it comes to whether prison time should be doled out or not.

First time offense, no violent crime: Rehab
Multiple offense, no violent crime: Rehab + Light prison time
Any offense + violent crime: Rehab + Appropriate prison time

As for a murder, violence is always involved, so that obviously cannot be the comparative factor between the two. In the case of drugs, the heavier sentence imo should be given on whether or not violence accompanies the drug offense. In the case of murder, the heavier sentence imo should be given on whether or not it was intended.

So, in a nutshell....you believe "intent" only matters in cases of violence, but not other offenses? (Is that correct?)

I'm not going to make a sweeping statement for "other" offenses. I'm only speaking about drug abuse and murder.

Not everything is comparitively black & white Joe.

Agreed. This is exactly why I don't think all sentences for drug purchase / posession should be the same. (Including all purchase / possession convictions where violence is not an issue...there are other mitigating circumstances.)

Well, I don't see how someone who purchases drugs illegally from a NARC is somehow less guilty or should be punished less because they became addicted through prescription drugs, and someone who purchases drugs illegally from a NARC is somehow more guilty or should be punished more because they became addicted through street pharma.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I see absolutely no parallel between downloading music and drug addiction and punishment.

The direct parallel is having different levels of punishment for the "same offense", based on mitigating circumstances.

Never said it was a crime, nor did I allude to that. That statement should be read as "How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you broke the law by getting drugs illegally. How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you're still addicted and need help."

Agreed on both.

How you get addicted should not influence whether you are convicted or not. How you get addicted can IMO, alter the punishment behind said conviction.

Well this is something different. My statements have all been predicated on someone purchasing drugs for their drug abuse which is what I thought we were talking about.

Understood....my statements have all been about brug use without violent crimes attached, which is what I thought we were talking about.

[Drug trafficking] involvesd willfull addiction of another human being whether for profit or not, and that is a far worse offense than abusing drugs imo.

Agreed.

2) Rush should face some charges for purchasing / possessing. Those charges should be no different than any other purchase / possession charge. Other than "related violence", there's no other mitigating circumstance that should be taken into consideration.

Indeed.

OK, then number 2 is where we differ. There are other mitigating circumstances other than related violence that should be taken into consideration when sentencing. One of these is, IMO, if whether or not the drug use is borne out due to an addiction that arose from the legal use of said drugs.

[quoite]First time offense, no violent crime: Rehab
Multiple offense, no violent crime: Rehab + Light prison time
Any offense + violent crime: Rehab + Appropriate prison time[/quote]

OK, then it comes down to my belief is not so black and white. That whether or not (or the extent of) prison time and the amount of fines is not just dependent on violent crime and number of offenses.

1) Rehab shouldn't even be considered if addiction cannot be documented.
2) SOME form of punishment should always be administered. The severity depends on mitigating circumstances.

On a side note, I'd be willing to put my tax dollars toward "one rehab." That is, upon first offense, and addiction is documented, I'd be willing to pony up for the offender's rehab.

After that, "rehab" may be part of the sentence, but it would be on the offender's own dime.

Well, I don't see how someone who purchases drugs illegally from a NARC is somehow less guilty or should be punished less because they became addicted through prescription drugs, and someone who purchases drugs illegally from a NARC is somehow more guilty or should be punished more because they became addicted through street pharma.

1) I never said less guilty. You are either guilty or innocent, and in both cases, you are guilty.

2) The severity of punishment is in part a question of how the addiction came about. If the addiction came about due to legally accepted use of drugs, or if the addiction comes about through illegal use of drugs in the first place.

I'm not sure how you can't see a clear distinction between the two.
In one case, a completely legal activity is largely a direct cause for the addiction. In the other case, not.

 

[Gump]

It's amazing how far this argument has gone when the major facts of the case are not even truly known and most if not all the above is conjecture...

 

[Legion]

1) Rehab shouldn't even be considered if addiction cannot be documented.

Would you consider emotional dependency a form of addiction?

 

[ByteMe]

Natoma: Why do you recommend rehab when it appears it is very unsuccessful (when tried in the past) ?

 

[Legion]

Natoma: Why do you recommend rehab when it appears it is very unsuccessful (when tried in the past) ?

No shit. I would imagine most pot smokers are not addicted to pot as they smoke it more for recreational reasons.

 

[ByteMe]

Screw this, anyone want to go get stoned?

 

[Natoma]

I see absolutely no parallel between downloading music and drug addiction and punishment.

The direct parallel is having different levels of punishment for the "same offense", based on mitigating circumstances.

I didn't say I didn't understand what you were talking about. I just don't agree with it.

OK, then number 2 is where we differ. There are other mitigating circumstances other than related violence that should be taken into consideration when sentencing. One of these is, IMO, if whether or not the drug use is borne out due to an addiction that arose from the legal use of said drugs.

While I agree in principle, it doesn't change the fact that drugs were obtained illegally. Again, as I said before, I don't think a first time offense such as Rush should mean prison time if there was no violent crime. However, if say a couple of years from now he was caught again, then I would say that he he should be sent back to rehab with light prison sentencing. Basically a graduated punishment scale.

While he got addicted to drugs because of his prescriptions, it doesn't change the fact that he purchased drugs (ok fine, allegedly) through illegal channels, which imo is no better than a street pharma abuser who purchases his/her drugs illegally. It's a fine line, yes.

First time offense, no violent crime: Rehab
Multiple offense, no violent crime: Rehab + Light prison time
Any offense + violent crime: Rehab + Appropriate prison time

OK, then it comes down to my belief is not so black and white. That whether or not (or the extent of) prison time and the amount of fines is not just dependent on violent crime and number of offenses.

1) Rehab shouldn't even be considered if addiction cannot be documented.
2) SOME form of punishment should always be administered. The severity depends on mitigating circumstances.

On a side note, I'd be willing to put my tax dollars toward "one rehab." That is, upon first offense, and addiction is documented, I'd be willing to pony up for the offender's rehab.

After that, "rehab" may be part of the sentence, but it would be on the offender's own dime.

I'm not sure how one can document an addiction? What precisely are you referring to?

As for punishment, my opinion on the matter, after seeing people become institutionalized and hearing about it as well, is that incarceration should be the last resort for non-violent crimes. Studies in criminology have shown that non-violent offenders who are incarcerated on their first offense are more likely to in the future commit violent crimes than non-violent offenders who are put into rehab or probation. Why? Because they are exposed to the harshness of prison life and begin the process of prison institutionalization. But then this is another subject that could be given its own topic.

Btw, that scale I gave for punishment was not an end-all-be-all-lets-write-it-into-law scale. It was merely a rough sketch to outline my opinion on the subject.

Well, I don't see how someone who purchases drugs illegally from a NARC is somehow less guilty or should be punished less because they became addicted through prescription drugs, and someone who purchases drugs illegally from a NARC is somehow more guilty or should be punished more because they became addicted through street pharma.

1) I never said less guilty. You are either guilty or innocent, and in both cases, you are guilty.

2) The severity of punishment is in part a question of how the addiction came about. If the addiction came about due to legally accepted use of drugs, or if the addiction comes about through illegal use of drugs in the first place.

I'm not sure how you can't see a clear distinction between the two.
In one case, a completely legal activity is largely a direct cause for the addiction. In the other case, not.

1) Agreed.

2) Well as established earlier this is where we disagree. My opinion, again, is that the activity that led to the addiction does not matter if you are still purchasing drugs through illegal means.

In both cases you're dealing with someone who is physically and mentally addicted to a drug trying to illegally obtain said drug. If you want to be truly anal about it, the person who got addicted to his/her drugs illegally should have known from the beginning to get help from his/her doctor as soon as addictive symptoms came up. You could easily argue that they are even worse than the street addict because they had every channel available to them in order to avoid their fate.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma: Why do you recommend rehab when it appears it is very unsuccessful (when tried in the past) ?

I have seen instances where Rehab has been highly unsuccessful, and cases (such as the case of my aunt) where rehab has been a complete success. I have also seen instances where prison time has been highly unsuccessful (as in the cases of my cousins on my great aunt's side of the family), and cases where it has been a complete success (as in the case with my cousin JT).

Why do I believe rehab should be used first before prison time? To try our best to avoid institutionalization. I believe in the innate ability of human beings to get themselves back on track if they have help. I don't believe in the lock-em-up-immediately mentality that a lot of people in this country have espoused. As you can see, we still have a terrible drug epidemic in this country despite all the prisons we've built.

Basically what it comes down to is that it's much easier to espouse prison immediately, i.e. zero tolerance drug laws, when it doesn't affect ones family and friends, as I'm sure many Rush supporters are confronting in light of the circumstances today.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma: Why do you recommend rehab when it appears it is very unsuccessful (when tried in the past) ?

No shit. I would imagine most pot smokers are not addicted to pot as they smoke it more for recreational reasons.

Pot as far as I know doesn't addict physically as much as mentally. It's a much harder addiction to beat because of that fact. With something like crack or heroin, the addiction is strongly physical, which makes it "easier" to beat after the withdrawal period has passed. However, the physical strain during the withdrawal period is apparently hellish.

But then this should all be taken with a grain of salt. It's not scientifically backed up. It comes from speaking with people in my family, and friends and acquaintances who have been addicted.

 

[Natoma]

Screw this, anyone want to go get stoned?

Gave it up years ago. It was fun for that weekend, but I just don't see the long term "joy" to continue it. It just aint that great imo.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I don't mean to re-hash this old topic, but since I know you're so genuinely compassionately interested, Natoma, you can hear a bit of the reposnse to your own "charges" directly from Rush himself:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111703/content/rush_speaks.guest.html

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111703/content/there_s_no_hypocrisy_here.guest.html

Not really anything different than exactly what I said...so nothing really new, but at least it comes directly from him....

 

[Natoma]

Just as long as he doesn't start on one of his patented hypocritical rants about how druggies should be sent up, we'll be fine.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Just as long as he doesn't start on one of his patented rants about how druggies should be sent up, we'll be fine.

From my second link...

But this business about me being hard on addicts, may I be honest with you? I was a drug addict - well, I still am - was a drug addict from about 1996, 1995, whenever, to just five weeks ago. The truth of the matter is I avoided the subject of drugs on this program for the precise reason that I was keeping a secret. I didn't want to sound as though I had any knowledge of them at all. In fact, there were some people who called here and started talking hydrocodone and oxycodone and I said, "What's that?" Knowing all along what it was. So this business that I've been hard on drug addicts - I am one, and I was doing what drug addicts do by keeping secrets. So I think there are a lot of phantom quotes out there or people making assumptions about things I've said and they're guilty of it because they think as a conservative I'm a hard-ass on this or that, but I think they're just wrong again.

 

[Natoma]

I read that. And the fact of the matter is, he didn't avoid the subject of drugs. He said specifically that druggies should be convicted and sent up. Where is this black and white appraisal of the situation wrt to his own situation? Why is he still free, given his "put em in jail!" mantra?

If he weren't being hypocritical, he'd volunteer to put himself away, just as he stated druggies should be.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I read that. And the fact of the matter is, he didn't avoid the subject of drugs. He said specifically that druggies should be convicted and sent up....

Pssst....that was before he became addicted...he avoided the subject of drugs after he became addicted.

If he weren't being hypocritical, he'd volunteer to put himself away, just as he stated druggies should be.

...well, there's a statement from my TV show they're using from 1995 which they are taking totally out of context about more white drug users need to be in jail.

Reporters taking statements out of context...nah...couldn't be.

I would like to hear all those statements in context myself, of course.