Playing the Rush Limbaugh/drug addict game

shanek

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
15,990
Great article from Lady of Liberty Rachel Mills:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0312/forum_mills.html

[quot]Here's a fun game. Every time a Drug Warrior uses the phrase "drug addict," replace it with the name of their favorite hero, Rush Limbaugh, and see if they'd still agree with the statement.

Here's one from a Republican Drug Warrior, Vermont Governor James Douglas, from his budget message speech on January 23, 2003.

He said: "More than anything, these drugs threaten our way of life. All the values that make Vermonters great -- our independence, thrift, work ethic, and community spirit are endangered when drugs command our bodies. Addicts are not independent; they are dependent; they are not prudent in their finances, only concerned with funding their destructive habits; they are not industrious, but unproductive. When drugs come into our neighborhoods, violence follows and thugs and criminals dominate our streets."

Translated: "More than anything, these drugs threaten our way of life. All the values that make Vermonters great -- our independence, thrift, work ethic, and community spirit are endangered when drugs command our bodies. Rush Limbaugh is not independent; Rush is dependent; Rush is not prudent in his finances, only concerned with funding his destructive habits; Rush is not industrious, Rush is unproductive. When drugs come into our neighborhoods, violence follows and thugs and criminals like Rush Limbaugh dominate our streets."

See what I mean? Do you agree with that statement? I don't. I call it egregious stereotyping and generalization. I invite you to find more statements and run them through this translator.[/quote]

But to be fair and to make an example of him, he should be sent to prison. In fact, he should volunteer, if not charged. We have, I believe, a taped confession, so evidence is no problem for the prosecution. Go for it! He should go willingly, pain untreated, to writhe in agony for a mandatory minimum sentence, like the rest of us without political friends, at the mercy of the pundits and moralizers.

Do I want to see Rush suffer? Am I hateful and uncompassionate? Emphatically no. But what I do want is for Drug Warriors to be subject to the same scrutiny they impose on others. Fairness.

I want Rush, a person with intellectual access to more people, arguably than any other political analyst, to witness first-hand what the implications are for what he espouses; that lack of understanding for others, limiting the freedom of others, can also mean prison for you.
Click to expand...

Look at prison statistics. Look how mandatory minimums overcrowd our prisons with non-violent drug offenders while rapists and murderers are sent back out onto the streets. Look beyond "Drugs are bad, okay?" to the implications and unintended consequences. Because that is what Rush ultimately and tragically represents here -- a Big Fat Unintended Consequence.

I want the conservatives to finally say: Rush wasn't hurting anybody with what he put in his own body. He shouldn't be punished.

When they begin to say that for Rush, but not for everyone else, maybe then their Prohibitionist hysteria will be laughed out of Congress and we will again be the land of the free and the home of the brave, where not only are you assumed to be responsible enough to keep your money and feed and clothe your own kids, but also to decide what medications to take without a by-your-leave from the government.
Click to expand...

Okay, so let's hear from the conservatives here: Substitute the word "addict" for "Rush" in your stance on the War on Drugs, and then say why you agree with it.

This should be good...
 
Woo! What a fun game! Here's what I did: I searched the website of the most conservative christian party (SGP) we have in the Netherlands. They strongly oppose our present policy of tolerance. Their view most closely resembles that of drugwarriors in the US.

I found a nice text from their Party Program and played the game with their ideas of how drugaddicts should be treated...
The government should not close its eyes to reality but should start a clear drugpolicy. We feel that Rush Limbaugh should be central to this policy. He is not helped with a tolerant policy but needs to be provided with adequate care (to kick his habit) and the opportunities to start a normal life without drugs, to function once again in society. Our opinion is that drugs should be banned from society as much as possible. Of course we realize that a prohibition on drugs does not solve all problems, but it is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
 
I had almost exactly the same thought.

I happened to be listening to Sean Hannity (a fairly partisan, conservative talk show host that is broadcast nationally in the US) going on about how Rush had done the right thing about coming forward and meeting his problems head on, etc.

This went on for several minutes and I really didn't disagree with anything he said, but at the end of it I wished somebody would ask him about how much jail time Rush deserved for all his illegal behavior. Based on his glowing thoughts about Rush I'm sure he saw no relationship between Rush's activities and the average druggy that he is so sure needs to go to jail. But I'm sure to the average druggy cooling his heals in jail for his illegal drug use the distinction betwen Rush's activities and his own might not be so obvious.
 
Look at prison statistics. Look how mandatory minimums overcrowd our prisons with non-violent drug offenders while rapists and murderers are sent back out onto the streets.
Click to expand...

I just want to do a standard check here. Where can I find those statistics?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm

Summary findings
Jails are locally-operated correctional facilities that confine persons before or after adjudication. Inmates sentenced to jail usually have a sentence of a year or less, but jails also incarcerate persons in a wide variety of other categories.

Jail facilities

At midyear 2002, 665,475 inmates were held in the Nation's local jails, up from 631,240 at midyear 2001.


In 2002, jails reported adding 14,590 beds during the previous 12 months, bringing the total rated capacity to 713,899


93% of the rated capacity was occupied at midyear 2002.


On June 30, 2002 local jails were operating 7% below their related capacity.


In Indian country on June 28, 2002, 70 facilities were operating with the capacity to hold 2,177 persons. These jails held 2,006 inmates in custody and supervised an additional 74 persons in the community.
Click to expand...

Awefully curious how overcrowed prisons use 93% of thier rated capacity.

Gem
 
Gem said:


Awefully curious how overcrowed prisons use 93% of thier rated capacity.

Gem
Click to expand...

So a restaurant or dance-hall filled almost to capacity can't be described as crowded or over-crowded?

The drug war today is pretty much the closest thing we have to modern witch burning in western countries. In asian countries it's far worse. Of course if the drug war had anything to do with drugs and helping society and addicts it would certainly go a long way to changing policy. But, the war on drugs has little to do with that at all. Like the war on terror it is a convenient political tool. Yet another scare tactic to enforce and propagate political policy decisions on a populace that experiences the usually unfortunate results.

As for Rush, well of course he shouldn't go to jail for drugs. He should see a doctor to help him with his addiction if he's got a chemical dependency. What he might be jailed for is his part in propagating a system of cruel injustice against other addicts.
 
Ugh! As a Libertarian (big L and small) I think I'm apt to agree with conservatives on a lot of things. But I listen to Rush, and he makes me want to join the Green Party! And don't get me started on Hannity. He makes me want to vomit. How he got to a position of hosting a 3 hour radio show AND cohosting a TV show with his limited talents is just beyond my comprehension. What a Rush wanna-be, right down to his stoopid little Clinton impression.

And, Neal Boortz. I heard about him long before I listened to him. "Hooray!" I thought, a libertarian on the radio! Bug now I hardly listen to him at all. If his overbearing demeanor wasn't enough, he seems increasingly to be more Republican than Libertarian.
 
So a restaurant or dance-hall filled almost to capacity can't be described as crowded or over-crowded?
Click to expand...

But you won't kick out people of the restaurant or dance-hall because there are too many people, will you?

Gem
 
Gem said:
But you won't kick out people of the restaurant or dance-hall because there are too many people, will you?
Click to expand...

This is happening. Rapists and murderers and child molesters are being released because there isn't room for them; they can't release the nonviolent drug offenders because of mandatory sentencing.

Surely you can't be so ignorant of statistics as to not know that a 93% capacity overall in prisons does not comprise a 93% capacity in each and every prison? That many prisons will be less, but many will be much greater?
 
Based on his glowing thoughts about Rush I'm sure he saw no relationship between Rush's activities and the average druggy that he is so sure needs to go to jail.

Of course not; Rush isn't black or poor.
 
corplinx said:
Why not use "GWB" instead of Rush since he is a former addict?
Click to expand...

It's not as fun. Because in his case all the horrible evil things that drug users are suppose to be turn out to be true! :-P
 
This is happening. Rapists and murderers and child molesters are being released because there isn't room for them; they can't release the nonviolent drug offenders because of mandatory sentencing.

Surely you can't be so ignorant of statistics as to not know that a 93% capacity overall in prisons does not comprise a 93% capacity in each and every prison? That many prisons will be less, but many will be much greater?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that not all prisons have 93% capacity filled. I'm just asking you to to show me the mandatory sentencing (which could be removed, so instead of releasing rapists we release drug possessors instead, which would nullify the unintended consequence) and the overcrowding problem.

Gem
 
corplinx said:
Why not use "GWB" instead of Rush since he is a former addict?
Click to expand...

Because most conservatives are in complete denial of that fact. Ttrust me; we tried that angle in 2000. But as much as conservatives were in denial at first about Rush's drug problems (because we all know he could never be a drug addict, right?) this was pretty much quashed when he got on the radio and openly admitted it.
 
Gem said:
Yes, I know that not all prisons have 93% capacity filled. I'm just asking you to to show me the mandatory sentencing (which could be removed, so instead of releasing rapists we release drug possessors instead, which would nullify the unintended consequence) and the overcrowding problem.
Click to expand...

US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics: Drugs and Crime Facts /Drug law violations / Enforcement

You might also want to check out:

More Drug Offenders Creating Largest-Ever Jail Population
 
US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics: Drugs and Crime Facts /Drug law violations / Enforcement

You might also want to check out:

More Drug Offenders Creating Largest-Ever Jail Population
Click to expand...

What the links you gave me show is that drug-related crime arrests are increasing, and that jail population are mostly drug offenders.

But it doesn't show anywhere what you and the LP claimed about rapists going free to make room for drug offenders. It doesn't even mention mandatory minimum sentencing (I'll search for that).

Where's the beef?

Gem

P.S.: Wouldn't getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenders remove the unintended consequence that you mention?
 
Okay, well, here then:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/f...andatory_ny.cfm
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/f...eet_library.cfm
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/05/0512.html
http://www.famm.org/si_sbs_main.htm

Enough?
Click to expand...

I appriciate you doing the effort, but that's not what I was asking for.

I want to know where the LP got the statistics showing that rapists and murders are released to make room for drug offenders.

Also, I'd like you to explain why couldn't we just remove the mandatory minimum sentencing so that there wouldn't be a unintended consequence of overcrowing.

Gem
 
Gem said:
I want to know where the LP got the statistics showing that rapists and murders are released to make room for drug offenders.
Click to expand...

Sheesh! Okay, here:
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=382

Also, I'd like you to explain why couldn't we just remove the mandatory minimum sentencing so that there wouldn't be a unintended consequence of overcrowing.
Click to expand...

Because these people shouldn't even be in jail in the first place! Half of our prison inmates have never committed any acts of violence against anyone. That's prison space that most certainly could be used for violent offenders. The mandatory sentences just makes the problem worse; it doesn't go away with their removal, it just becomes less extreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom