Rush Limbaugh: Big Fat Drug War Casualty?
Matthew Briggs, of the Drug Policy Alliance, says, "hero or big fat idiot, Rush Limbaugh should not face prison" if he did, indeed, buy and take tankloads of painkillers:
I hope, in fact, that this experience further opens Mr. Limbaugh's eyes to the plight of the hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders behind bars in this country. I would be happy to welcome him to the growing national movement for drug policy reform. We need all the help we can get.But first and foremost, I hope Mr. Limbaugh's life isn't destroyed by unjust, unscientific and uncompassionate drug laws. No one deserves that, friend or foe.
I'm with him. And I still don't know (and perhaps some fine legal mind who's dropped in here can explain it) how The Constitution gives anyone any right to tell anyone in this country what they can and can't put in their bodies (as long as their consumption isn't hurting anybody else).
"And I still don't know (and perhaps some fine legal mind who's dropped in here can explain it) how The Constitution gives anyone any right to tell anyone in this country what they can and can't put in their bodies"
The Constitution isn't the source of all law in this country. But I think that some religious groups who use drugs ritualistically have sought protection under the free exercise clause.
Lena Cuisina at October 8, 2003 11:10 PM
I recall having this discussion, or one like it, when I got my first personal trainer certification. When it comes to the freedom to put whatever you want into your body, one man's personal freedom is another man's burden in taxes and insurance premiums. Of course, following that logic, the government should now have the right to decide our diets for us and prescribe whatever supplementation we need. (Ugh... terrible idea. In the state of Florida, it's against the law for anyone who is not a licensed dietician to prescribe another's diet. Big mistake. A dietician is the last person on earth who should decide that.)
But I digress...
I suppose if a person's drug could be confined to his home, where his addle-brained self can't hurt anyone, and without any danger of his hallucinogenic self setting fire to his house (consequently running the risk of setting houses in his neighborhood on fire), I would be all for the use of drugs. As long as there's an unnecessary risk of his harming other people, then I have to vote "no."
Of course, you could argue convincingly that gun ownership is a danger to one's neighbors. And so is having children. And a person could just as easily burn down the neighborhood without the help of mind altering substances. So, I suppose as long as he confines himself to his home, and doesn't bring his enfeebled judgment to bear upon his intereactions with others, go for it.
Of course, it's no surprise to me that Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict. Some of his ideas are obviously from medicated thinking, such as there are more acres of forestland and more native Americans than there were when Columbus landed. That was certainly news to anyone with half a brain.
Patrick at October 9, 2003 7:58 AM
Children, when underparented and allowed out in public, are a danger to me. Sanity-wise. I think I should be allowed to take away underparented children from their sorry-ass excuses for parents, take them by the hand, and interview people standing in line at fertility clinics to see who would be the best parents, who'd then get to take their fully-formed child home...just as if they'd gone to babyland 7-11! Okay, I'm sick - but you have to admit, when you're besieged by some screaming brats in some adult place they don't belong...you might be willing to admit there's some merit to this idea!
Amy Alkon at October 9, 2003 10:20 AM
Yes, but why get an already screwed-up child when you have the opportunity to do it yourself?
Sarah at October 9, 2003 11:49 AM