's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Is Rush a drug lord?(91 posts)

Is Rush a drug lord?Spoiler
Dec 4, 2003 12:38 PM

"Unfortunately, because of Mr. Limbaugh's prominence and well-known political opinions, he is being subjected to an invasion of privacy no citizen of this republic should endure."

Next thing you know, they'll be asking him to pee in a cup while under direct observation! Perhaps someone should provide Rush with the 800-number for the ACLU.
re: Is Rush a drug lord?bill105
Dec 4, 2003 1:48 PM
Yes. Jesus. Next. wait, what day is it?
He wouldn't complain if he didn't have anything to hide. (nm)czardonic
Dec 4, 2003 4:32 PM
Wait a minute czardonic isn't that what John Ashcroft says?BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 8:21 AM
I'm with you about the Patriot Act but I try to be consistent. Saying 'if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be worried about the government snooping around your personal life' is a threat to the privacy and liberty of All Americans, IMHO.
"... no private citizen should endure"dr hoo
Dec 5, 2003 4:38 AM
Really, Rush is being singled out? Wow! You learn something new every day.

Here I thought all sorts of drug addicts and users had been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in the war on drugs. And I guess all those stories about people having their property seized (with no conviction), then having to prove they DID NOT get it with drug money to get the property back... all those stories must have been the result of the lies of the liberal media.

I highly doubt he is a dealer. He is just an addict. This is how our criminal justice system treats addicts.
Refresh my memory..oldbutslow
Dec 5, 2003 7:26 AM
because I can not remember one celebrity going to jail for drug abuse. Many, many have checked into rehab. For that matter, name a pro athelete that has gone to jail for steoroid use. Many have but only when they get caught with drughs on their person.

Of course, my memory leaves a lot to be desired.
durghs = drugs (nm)oldbutslow
Dec 5, 2003 7:28 AM
robert downey and tommy chong... nmDougSloan
Dec 5, 2003 7:34 AM
Robert Downey JuniorMJ
Dec 5, 2003 7:39 AM
Paul McCartney
John Lennon
Led Zeppelin
Mick Jagger et al
Todd Bridges (hehehe)
I believe all the referencedLive Steam
Dec 5, 2003 7:54 AM
were caught with drugs in their possession and a few were caught transporting them across International borders, though I am not 100% sure of this. Robert Downey is a multiple offender and served time after latter offenses.

The problem Rush may face is that his maid says that he coerced her to obtain them for him. At least I think that's what is alleged. I don't know where the DA thinks this is going to lead. It seems to be a stupid case for the DA to waste money and manpower on. Most celebrities get a slap on the wrist by the judge.
Especially considering he's got treatement and is being aBottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 8:14 AM
role model, spokesman etc for recovery. Can't buy that sort of anti-drug publicity. Prosecuting him might actually discourage people from seeking treatment IMHO.
Possible, but I think most .....Live Steam
Dec 5, 2003 8:21 AM
abusers only seek treatment on their own when they hit bottom and have no choice. The unfortunate nature of an addiction is the false idea that one can control it and stop whenever they choose. The idea that he is a role model for success in kicking addiction may not be so great. Most will probably say his money helped in some way. They may or may not be right about that. I guess he can certainly afford the best and most comfortable treatment available.
I guess I just meant he's talking about it almost every dayBottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 8:24 AM
on a radio show that thousands and thousands of people listen to. Spreading the word and such.
like who?MJ
Dec 5, 2003 8:18 AM
who gets a slap on the wrist in these circumstances - give a few examples

it appears Rush may soon become a multiple offender too - couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

why is it stupid - if Rush coerced his employee to break the law and effectively become his drug dealer that seems pretty serious to me - does it not to you? or is it just other drug sellers and abusers who need severe penalties - not the ones who neocons cream themselves over?

I guess it's karma - look at where spouting out all that intolerance leads - should make you think Steam
Obviously it's not as serious as lying about a BJ! LOL!BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 8:28 AM
Although in my view neither of them is a hanging offense, about as much of a crime as whacking a surly bartender, as Gus McCrae said.
Obviously it's not as serious as lying about a BJ! LOL!MJ
Dec 5, 2003 8:34 AM
the difficulty is that its the same folks who say that we should round up the drug users lock 'em up and throw away the key who now have the shoe on the other foot

punitive measures against abusers are short sighted meanspirited and ineffective (even in Rush's case) - usually of course the criminal is a young black male and it doesn't get a mention - a fact that most of Rush's supporters would rather not discuss honestly

I can smell the hyprocisy here in London...
There tends to be a vast difference between the two types of ...Live Steam
Dec 5, 2003 8:44 AM
abusers and color obviously doesn't come into play. Many athletes who are caught are of color. They too get treated differently. Your arguement doesn't hold water. The reason why the poor abuser get treated differently (not all have a minority status from my personal knowledge), is because they tend to commit other crimes in order to support their habbits. Getting them off of the street is one way to prevent the other crimes which also tend to be violent in nature, though not always. I don't think Rush or Daryl Strawberry are going to be holding up the corner deli anytime soon in order to pay for their drug addictions. Lawrence Taylor is another that comes to mind since his book just came out. His habit cost $1000/day, but he was able to foot the bill.
There tends to be a vast difference between the two types of ...MJ
Dec 5, 2003 8:59 AM
I think you'll find, if you look at ths stats, that the majority of folks in prison are there for drug related offences - not violent offences - drug offences - then you'll find that minorities are disproportionally represented as well

I agree that violent offenders should be in prison - I do not think drug offences should merit prison sentences - your argument blurs the issues and is not factually sound - not that you've ever been inhibited by such factors before - but again - you're just plain wrong
You still don't understand the pointLive Steam
Dec 5, 2003 9:18 AM
I am not condoning or condemning the practice. I'm just explaining why. Besides you are wrong about your position. Police do not lock up anyone because they find drugs for their personal consumption in their possession. At least not in most major cities. Some small municipalities may treat it that way. They lock up those they believe to be dealing. There aren't enough jail cells to do what you say is being done. When the user is caught, they get taken in and then released unless they have other outstanding issues. That is what is done here in NYC.

I have quite a few relatives and friends in all areas and levels of law enforcement - from the DAs office to the NYPD and Mayors office to the Sate Attorney Generals office. One of my best friends is an undercover NARC. I know what they do. How they do it and why and what the consequences are for the people they pick up. They do not throw abusers in jail. They may force them into treatment. Many of the abusers they do pick up and do get some jail time, get it because they have weapons in their possession or have violated parole from another crime. You really need to understand something before you display you ignorance here in this forum.
You still don't understand the pointMJ
Dec 5, 2003 9:40 AM
your personal contacts in NYC, as impressive as they are, do not change the facts for NY state or any other state in the US

the fact is that the majority of folks in prison are minorities locked up for non-violent drugs offences

you can't get away from that fact
Stupid that a Brit is obsessed with another continent,No_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 9:47 AM
men on another continent and thinks he can point those on another continent in the right direction when discussing said continent, which is not his own.

Useless, meaningless, irrelevant drivel.
Useless? Meaningless? Drivel?BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 9:54 AM
You mean it's not good stuff?

Your macro must be broken. I'm pretty sure you meant to say he was outside looking in. You may have forgot *spew* too, or is that your little buddy bill105's special word?

LOL!!! Good stuff!!!!!!!!!!!
Where's your LOL Good stuff nm? It's your trademark. nmNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 9:57 AM
Dec 5, 2003 9:58 AM
is that your real name or just what mj calls you?
LOL!!!! Hilarious!!!!!!!! Good stuff!!!!!!!!!!BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 10:14 AM
Did your bestest buddy non_sense give you that line?
Thank you. Imitation is the deepest form of flattery...No_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 10:59 AM
You must really like me. You're obsessed. Take a number, get in line, sit down, it'll be a long while.
Hey you got the 'imitation...take a number' macro fixed too!BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 11:05 AM
These macros are great for you! You don't have to type OR think!
You're obsessed. Your picture is at the top. :)No_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 11:08 AM
Huh? Did you actually type somethingBottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 11:19 AM
that wasn't in a macro? Where's spew and Eunuch twins and outside looking in and irrelevant and LOL!!! Good stuff!!?? It's all you've said for months on end, so I was sure it was all you were capable of.
Don't let him fool you. He's a Johnny Cochran caliber lawyer!czardonic
Dec 5, 2003 11:23 AM
Said so himself.
I never said that. Quote me, you'll see. Hardbottom the liar.No_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 11:25 AM
I believe I'm even better, just not a grandstander.
"I've had as much criminal law schooling as Johnny Cochran."czardonic
Dec 5, 2003 11:36 AM
That is what you said: No_sprint "Clinton did not lie about having sex" 12/4/03 2:18pm
Exactly! and I'm very literal.No_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 11:39 AM
Whereas you feel the need to dream up whatever you need to. Nowhere do I say I'm a Johnny Cochran caliber lawyer.

I think he's simply a publicity hog. He doesn't do much legal work, his not on TV army does though. I'm much better, no grandstanding here.
That is a semantic master-stroke worthy of Cochran himself! nmczardonic
Dec 5, 2003 11:45 AM
Nah, he's a mental patient. Has to be.BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 11:27 AM
No one could type the same toxic phrases over and over and over and over without being deranged.
You type the same things over and over, you're obsessed. nmNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 11:31 AM
"Take a number, get in line ..." You didn't finish your macro!BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 11:34 AM
LOL!!!! Good stuff!!
He swears, he is right up there with Cochran. (nm)czardonic
Dec 5, 2003 11:38 AM
Stupid that a Brit is obsessed with another continent,MJ
Dec 5, 2003 10:36 AM
I didn't think you cared if it wasn't re SoCal...

how do you know which continent I originate from?
I never mentioned anything about origination. nmNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 10:57 AM
Dec 5, 2003 11:53 AM
Just to clear this up, you're drawing ironic parallels to US foreign policy and not making a point to be taken literally, right?
Show me your source for that stat. They threw ....Live Steam
Dec 5, 2003 9:51 AM
Al Capone in jail for tax evasion. That wasn't really what they wanted him on, but it served the purpose of getting him out of public circulation. The same holds for may who you believe are simply going to jail for drug use. The technicality of it may be so, but the reality is much different. Most have a long list of other crimes for which the drug offense is a violation of their probation. Many are also prostitutes. I am sure you think this is not a crime either. But until they change the law, it is in most places. Hey if you want addicts running around unfettered on the streets jeopardizing the safety of your family and friends that is your irresponsible idea of prudence, but the laws are what they are until they are changed.
Still waiting. I am not doing your homework for you! nmLive Steam
Dec 5, 2003 10:24 AM
Show me your source for that stat. They threw ....MJ
Dec 5, 2003 10:34 AM
I'll stick with the stats - you stick with your baseless assertion that all of those minorities who were convicted of non-violent drug offences were actually guilty of other violent crimes that just couldn't be pinned on them

look at the DoJ website or any real newspaper

anyways - if abusers gotta be locked up like you say then I nominate Rush to join them
Here we go again. Nothing better than a LondonerNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 11:35 AM
trying to tell an American about America.

What a load of crap.
MJ, don't try to pull a fast one on this guy.czardonic
Dec 5, 2003 11:43 AM
He is right up there with Johnny Cochran as far as legal education. If he lacks in evidence to back up his claims, it must be for some other reason than that he simply has no idea what he is talking about. I'm sure his inflamatory diversionary tactics are merely an attempt to get back to his important work.
It gets much better than that.Spoiler
Dec 5, 2003 11:57 AM
How about a Londoner and a Texan telling the rest of the world about the rest of the world?
HORRORS! nmNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 1:12 PM
Show me your source for that stat. They threw ....bboc
Dec 5, 2003 12:09 PM
"Al Capone in jail for tax evasion. That wasn't really what they wanted him on, but it served the purpose of getting him out of public circulation. The same holds for may who you believe are simply going to jail for drug use."

Good point. If they aren't really sending them to jail for drug use, what could possibly be the motivation to get poor black men out of public circulation? Something smells racist (The system, not Steam).
The point obviously eludes youLive Steam
Dec 6, 2003 1:25 PM
Many of the "innocent" eople you are worried about getting jail time for simple posession are a serious threat on the street. They know the system and the game. They have long records of armed robbery, dealing and other hard core offenses. It is however, sometimes hard to nab them while committing these crimes or they are able to rid themselves of the critical evidence that would put them away. Getting them off the street for drug possession is a good way of doing just that.
You still don't understand the pointFredrico
Dec 8, 2003 2:08 PM
Many of the habitual users or abusers just happen to be passing the stuff along to friends. They too get jail time as "dealers."

This is just like back in prohibition. Arrest a guy with a joint, say, "Oh, that's alright. We'll just put you on probation." Then the poor sap smokes another joint or hangs out with his druggie friends, and "violates his parole."

There's no way any government is going to stamp out drugs. Making it illegal just drives it underground. If that's true, may as well get as many abusers into treatment as possible, a strategy now being adopted by the legal system to clear the prisons of non-violent offenders.

Rush L. probably is being investigated because he apparently went from doctor to doctor for no other purpose than to get the painkillers he was addicted to. I knew a guy who did this a few years back. He finally got caught trying to get a phony prescription filled. Two years after being put on probation, he still recklessly goes after painkillers. His wife left him. If he doesn't go home to his parents, he'll end up on the street. For him, prison would be counter-productive, although the typical DA probably thinks it would be his salvation. He needs treatment. Punishment would only make things worse.
Boring 1999 statisticsSpoiler
Dec 5, 2003 3:39 PM

For every 100,000 people, we had:
736 total drug related arrests
126 for sale or manufacturer

Of the 457 possession arrests:

237 for weed
220 for ALL other combined.

So it's obvious simple weed possession accounts for more arrests than any other offense.
Nice work Spoiler! But you're not done :O)Live Steam
Dec 5, 2003 5:21 PM
MJ is just too lazy to do his own work. Now of those arrested, how many served time for their offence? Your statistics also don't show what MJ alleged which is that most of the people sitting in prison, he alleges mostly balcks, are there for drug possession crimes. Not even dealing. Just plain old possession. Below are some statistics I gleened from your source.

So far I haven't found anything to support his position. I can't even tell where you got your numbers from.
Hasn't everyone learned? NEVER give a TABLE to Steam!dr hoo
Dec 6, 2003 6:47 AM
Live Steam has, shall we say trouble, with them.

Look at No. 311. Go past 1990, 95, and 98 to get to the 1999. Note that there are TOTAL numbers and REGIONAL numbers. Spoiler's numbers come from the 1999-Northeast column.


in 2000 there were an estimated 116,300 convictions for simple possession. An additional 203,400 for trafficking, btw.

Of those 116,300 possession cases, 33% got prison time (1 year +), 31% got jail time (< 1 year), and 36% got probation.

Of the 203,400 trafficking convictions it was 41% prison, 28% jail, and 31% probation.
What's your point? The original statement was ....Live Steam
Dec 6, 2003 1:43 PM
that most of the inmates in prison are black inmates there for drug possession. I asked for data to back up that assertion. I still haven't received the supporting data.

The information you supplied does not support MJs assertion. According to the data you supplied, 36% of crimes are drug related. Of that 36%, 36% are for possession. 64% is for trafficking. This pretty much renders MJs assertion as BUNK!
Why do you assume that I am on MJs side in this?dr hoo
Dec 6, 2003 3:49 PM
After all, I gave you ammunition for your point, right?

You seemed to be claiming that people don't do time for simple possession. That claim is false. Note that those state conviction numbers are for the MOST serious crime charged, so the possession numbers are for people where possession was the HIGHEST charge.

Also note that MJ is talking about non-violent drug crimes, which includes dealing.

However, I would note that the statistics I provided were for STATE crimes only, and do not look at federal crimes.

MJ's claim at the federal level is true, in terms of numbers.

"Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2001, down from 60% in 1995 (table 18). On September 30, 2001, the date of the latest available data in the Federal Justice Statistics Program, Federal prisons held 78,501 sentenced drug offenders, compared to 52,782 in 1995."

Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, July 2003), p. 11.

As for race (excuse the excessive cut and paste job):

Of the 246,100 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses in 2001, 139,700 (56.7%) were black, 47,000 (19%) were Hispanic, and 57,300 (23.2%) were white.

Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, July 2003), Table 15, p. 10.

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Summary Report 1998 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999), p. 13; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 343, Table 4.10, p. 435, Table 5.48, and p. 505, Table 6.52; Beck, Allen J., Ph.D. and Mumola, Christopher J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 10, Table 16; Beck, Allen J., PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, August 2001), p. 11, Table 16.

Among persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts, whites were less likely than African-Americans to be sent to prison. Thirty-three percent (33%) of convicted white defendants received a prison sentence, while 51% of African-American defendants received prison sentences.

Source: Durose, Matthew R., and Langan, Patrick A., Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1998 Statistical Tables (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, December 2001), Table 25, available on the web at, last accessed December 21, 2001.

In 1986, before mandatory minimums for crack offenses became effective, the average federal drug offense sentence for blacks was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later following the implementation of harsher drug sentencing laws, the average federal drug offense sentence was 49% higher for blacks.

Source: Meierhoefer, B. S., The General Effect of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Longitudinal Study of Federal Sentences Imposed (Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1992), p. 20.

Regardless of similar or e
continued:dr hoo
Dec 6, 2003 3:51 PM
Regardless of similar or equal levels of illicit drug use during pregnancy, black women are 10 times more likely than white women to be reported to child welfare agencies for prenatal drug use.

Source: Neuspiel, D.R., "Racism and Perinatal Addiction," Ethnicity and Disease, 6: 47-55 (1996); Chasnoff, I.J., Landress, H.J., & Barrett, M.E., "The Prevalence of Illicit-Drug or Alcohol Use during Pregnancy and Discrepancies in Mandatory Reporting in Pinellas County, Florida," New England Journal of Medicine, 322: 1202-1206 (1990).

OOPS! Guess I do come down mostly on MJ's side after all! The system does seem to punish people of color more in the drug war than whites.

Darn pesky facts, if it weren't for them then you would have had me.
What's with women and heroin?Spoiler
Dec 6, 2003 7:40 PM
Table number 310 is meant to which kinds of drugs arrestees are using. It also shows the differences between men and women. It looks like a significantly greater number of women are testing positive for heroin when compared to men.
I find that interesting.
one possible reason.dr hoo
Dec 7, 2003 7:05 AM
First, it is not true that women are testing postive more than men in ALL cities, but on average that seems to be the case.

I think that might be an artifact of sheer numbers of arrests. WAY more men get arrested than women. I would guess that you are seeing the effects of this difference.

For women, since so few get arrested, you tend to get women who are pretty far gone in a lot of ways. Heroin is one of them.

Both men and women who get arrested have subgroups on heroin. But since men are way more likely to get arrested, the numbers of non-heroin using men are going to be very large, and so the percentage of men testing postive for heroin would be lower.

That's just a guess, but even if it is not the only reason I am pretty sure it is a contributing reason.
Never made the claim you suggestedLive Steam
Dec 8, 2003 7:13 AM
I simply made an aside to the fact about certain types of arrests. The census statistics clearly state that 61% of those arrested for a drug abuse violation are white. And since that statistic is listed under "All other non-serious crimes" we can assume they are for non-violent crimes as well - dealing and or use. Unfortunately it does not break the data down further according to race. The breakdown is for type of drug arrest, but does not show race.

MJ stated that the majority of prisoners in our prisons are black and are there for drug use. That is entirely incorrect. The point I made about why many of them are there for just "use" is because they violated parole from another crime, by using drugs. White, black or purple, one does not get sent up the river for simple drug use. Not for a first offense and generally not for the fifth either. There have to be other circumstances associated with the arrest.
over 100,000 per year at state level are convicted...dr hoo
Dec 8, 2003 7:20 AM
... for possession. As in, possession is the MOST SERIOUS crime they were charged with.

2/3 of them see prison or jail. That's around 70,000 per year.

You can claim they MUST have done something else, but that's not what the facts say.

"The point I made about why many of them are there for just "use" is because they violated parole from another crime"

When people violate their parole, they don't show up as new convictions in these numbers. In fact, they usually don't even go through the system in terms of a trial. The DA will just violate their parole and send them back. Check your facts.
What is the breakdown by race?Live Steam
Dec 8, 2003 7:39 AM
Also possession is very broad. Though the authorities may not be able to legally show the possessed substance was going to be distributed (dealing) that may very well have been the determined intent - meaning that a large quantity was discovered, but the usual distributing paraphernalia was not associated with the crime for one reason or another. Anyway it's good reason to get that person off of the street, don't you think?

I guess you believe drugs should be legalized. Is this the case?
Why not find out yourself?dr hoo
Dec 8, 2003 8:01 AM
Really, I don't have time today.

Do I think drugs should be legalized? Depends on what you mean by the term. If you want to talk about dangerous drugs, the most dangerous drugs ARE legal. Alcohol (which contributes to violence and death in many ways) and tobacco (death and illness) and even over the counter and prescription medications cause HUGE amounts of death every year. Legal does not mean safe.

Legalization has a lot going for it. But I would put myself more in the "decriminalize use" category. I think users should get medical help, not jail time, as that would be a better use of government resources.

Save criminal prosecution for people that are violent or violate the property rights of others. Drug use does not do that. Neither does prostitution.

So, if someone gets high, on booze or pot or heroin, that's fine with me. If they steal to feed their habit, throw the book at them. It's the libertarian in me.
Well maybe we have found some common groundLive Steam
Dec 8, 2003 8:44 AM
I too believe that certain drugs should be legal. Well I guess I should say, just marijuana. I don't believe that certain hallucinogenics should, nor should cocaine be legalized. I think they are too detrimental to ones mental as well as physical health. I mean we are trying to cause people to stop smoking because of the alleged strain it puts on our healthcare resources. Why would we want to allow them to do worse?

I don't really have a problem with weed. It's generally considered to be rather innocuous. Heck you guys (liberals believing we aren't taxed enough) could cause another taxable substance to be born :O) Another source of revenue to spend on social programs :O)

I still don't believe that the majority of plain old users get jail time for first offenses or even latter offenses. I think rehab is ordered in most cases. When I have time I'll poke around for that info.
As for the numbers...dr hoo
Dec 8, 2003 9:18 AM
... I don't think the MAJORITY of users arrested see jail time. However, large numbers (even if small percentages) do. A lot depends on the judges and DAs. If they want to, they can do it.

We should encourage smoking cigarettes. It's a productivity drug, and kills people when they get old (before then start to leech off the social security/medicare system). Smokes and coffee built this country, and anyone who says different is attacking fundamental american values!

dr (grading papers makes me punchy) hoo
hey big boy - what's bunk now?MJ
Dec 8, 2003 1:15 AM
you gonna admit you're wrong and ignorant?
And I thought we were getting on so well lately :O)Live Steam
Dec 8, 2003 6:56 AM
Why would I admit I am wrong, when I am RIGHT? Dr. Boohoo conveniently selected a source limited to just Federal prisons. Spoilers source cites all prisoners held at every level of detention. Those numbers clearly show that both you and Dr. Boohoo are WRONG! I know it's tough for either of you to admit that just as it is for any waste in the panty liberal to do so. So no I do not admit to being wrong. I admit to being CORRECT :O)

I'll post the table again so one of you bobble heads can show me where you are right. I highlighted the relevant data so you don't have to strain your little brain. Oh I'll even post the US Census site. Knock yourselves out - literally :O)
Steam, I think you know I'm not a knee-jerk panty wasteOldEdScott
Dec 5, 2003 9:14 AM
about this drug thing, and I've consistently wished Rush well. So ponder this calmly, calmly ...

In Kentucky, we have like a zillion white trash* meth/oxycontin addicts running around, knocking over convenience stores for momey and lottery tickets to pay for their habits. We have a relatively small black population, most of it in Louisville, that's riddled with the usual crack houses, inhalant abuse, PCP, and the usual related violence.

Our state prison population, however, is overwhelmingly black, overwhelmingly incarcerated on drug charges. I cannot explain that, I just know it's true. Where the white trash hillbilly-heroin and crank addicts are sent after they steal 3000 lottery tickets and the store safe, I don't know. But it ain't to our prisons. A mystery.

*Disclaimer: I am white trash myself, so don't slam me for using an offensive ethnic slur.
You may be white trash, and ...Live Steam
Dec 5, 2003 9:24 AM
a panty waste liberal, but your OK with we :O) Sounds like you Dumocrats in Kentucky are a little prejudice though. Haven't you guys bee ruling the roost and been calling the shots down there for decades? Maybe you should legislate tolerance :O)
We tried! Didn't get the job finished before the RepubsOldEdScott
Dec 5, 2003 9:30 AM
took over! Now it's hopeless!
Wait a minute how long did you have?Live Steam
Dec 5, 2003 9:34 AM
You just got a Republican Gov. How about the Sate Legislature? What is it's makeup and for how long? I would think most of the judges down there are Dumocrats appointed or elected when you guys called the shots. What happened?
Senate went Repub 4 years ago.OldEdScott
Dec 5, 2003 9:45 AM
House is teetering, hanging by a thread.

We've been basically in charge for 32 years. Last Repub governor was 1967-71. He ran on a no-tax platform, then imposed a huge sales tax! Haw haw! Took the GOP three decades to recover.
Then why are your jails filled with ....Live Steam
Dec 5, 2003 9:53 AM
innocent black folk? Why have they been persecuted in Kentucky if Dumocrats carried the hammer for so long?
You got to it before I did, more spin will surely follow. nmNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 9:55 AM
Steam, I ain't sayin the black folk are innocent,OldEdScott
Dec 5, 2003 10:03 AM
I'm saying the white folk don't go to prison. I'm stumped. It could be the local small town courts trying the white trash meth cases salt away the locals in the county jail for a few months, while the big city courts in Louisville figure prison's the place for the blacks. Who knows? Like I say, it's a mystery. But if I were black, I'd sure see two tiers of justice at work.

But you're right, I'm SURE the Dumocrats are to blame somehow! Hell, I bet it's CLINTON's fault!
I know he visited there once :O) nmLive Steam
Dec 5, 2003 10:18 AM
A mystery that hasn't been figured out for 32 years... hmmm. nmNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 11:01 AM
LOL! HAHAHA Good Stuff!bill105
Dec 5, 2003 9:26 AM
that smell is your rotting society. or your teeth.
He should undoubtedly focus on his own placeNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 9:50 AM
rather than spew his garbage like he knows our place better than we do.

What a load of crap.
Good! Your macro is working again!BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 10:19 AM
You got *spew* *crap* and *garbage* in. I'm worried that you didn't have him *outside looking in* though. Maybe you need to work on it some more.

Your contributions are great. Thanks for leaving the EunuchNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 11:05 AM
message board to come here.
Hey! Do we have a new macro? The Eunuch macro?BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 11:09 AM
Man, this is getting complex. You're having to juggle three toxic thoughts at the same time. Must be draining. You've never had that many before.
You're obsessed with me. nmNo_sprint
Dec 5, 2003 11:11 AM
"Take a number, get in line .." Ya, ya, LOL!!!! Good stuff!!!!!BottomBracketShell
Dec 5, 2003 11:21 AM
like who?Live Steam
Dec 5, 2003 8:33 AM
Robert Downey got a slap on the wrist for his first offense. Paul McCartney spent 9 days in a Japanese prison for trafficking drugs across an International border. That is a slap on the wrist. You or I would have done much more. Drew Barrymore put herself in rehab and never faced any legal consequences for her addiction. There are hundreds of cases concerning athletes like Daryl Strawberry and Doc Gooden, who were repeat offenders and didn't face criminal charges until being caught violating the terms of their probation.

There are many more, but it really doesn't matter does it? It's obvious you just want to vilify Rush, so go ahead if it makes you feel good. That's tolerance and compassion for ya!
like who?MJ
Dec 5, 2003 8:40 AM
it's hard to have tolerance and compassion for someone who so clearly lacks any himself


on a personal level for him it must be terrible

and from where I sit - I don't think drug abuse should, in most circumstances, ever merit a custodial sentence - that goes for Rush too
like who?oldbutslow
Dec 5, 2003 8:39 AM
Robert Downey Junior, for one. He didn't go to jail till about the third screw up and he was caught in possesion of drugs.

I could go on and on, but I won't. Take a gander through your CD Collection and I'll bet half of them have been in rehab at least once.

I guess it comes down to what the law is specific about and also what the local law enforcement/DA care about. Maybe Doug can help out. Is it illegal to be a stoner?
That's what I thought.oldbutslow
Dec 5, 2003 8:25 AM
If the war on drugs ever seriously goes after the abusers, Hollywood would have a hard time casting any movie, and the upcoming Grammy awards would be sparsely attended.

That's what leads me to believe this is all one big witch hunt. Palm Beach County is known as liberal community, re: 2000 election.
Sure, there are some, as pointed out.dr hoo
Dec 5, 2003 7:57 AM
If Rush had a court appointed lawyer he would probably be serving time already.

But most celebrities get into rehab, as do most offenders who can afford lawyers. But, those people also usually plead guilty, take probation, and (if a first offense) have the record expunged when they clean up. Which is probably what will happen to Rush in the end. "Doctor shopping" is not exactly trafficing you know. The banking stuff is odd, but it can be explained by "personal use" I think. The only SERIOUS thing Rush *might* be open to would be conspiracy charges if he used his "people" to get things done and impede the investigation in any way.

My point was that the war on drugs has many, many cases of prosecution that does not fit the crime. This is just a fresh example.

Admit everything, blame the addiction, and get it over with. That would be my advice to any addict that gets caught, from the lowest levels all the way to Rush. In fact, that is the best thing they can do BEFORE they get busted... but few manage to do so.
Can't tell what he is yet.Turtleherder
Dec 5, 2003 11:54 AM
Maybe we should let the police finish with the investigation before we turn him loose or send him up the river. At this point the only thing we know for sure is that he went to rehab.
Will EIB be charged under the "RICO" statute? (nm)Alexx
Dec 5, 2003 1:36 PM