I know, I know, the entire blogosphere has been sitting on the edge of its collective chair, wondering what I think about Rush Limbaugh and his...errrmmm...issues.

First, let me say that I don't want to see him go to jail. But then, unlike him, I don't want to see anyone go to jail just because they decide to put a non-government-approved chemical or substance into their body, or do so in a non-government-approved manner. I, like others, wonder if this will cause him to rethink his position, or if he'll use the bogus excuses that others have (e.g., "he was in pain, the drugs weren't really illegal," etc.)

Specifically with regard to the "it's different because he was treating pain" excuse, I've never heard any of the current purveyors of that one using it in defense of medical marijuana, even for cancer or AIDS sufferers who can't otherwise keep food down. And as others have pointed out, few of us lead pain-free lives, and many people self-medicate for it, with both legal (alcohol, tobacco) and non-legal substances. And is the excuse for addiction of "he was in pain" really more compelling than the one of "he started when he was a dumb kid, and got hooked"?

And should he get off, as some argue, regardless of his financial and legal wherewithal because he's a "first-time offender"?

Well, that argument might have some force if it were true, but as far as I can tell, he's not a first-time offender. That is, he didn't do it just once, and got caught.

No, he's certainly a first-time apprehendee, but by his own admission, he seems to be a long-time, serial, even daily offender, and would be offending still had the case not come to the attention of the National Enquirer.

So, a key question, at least to me, is whether or not he is sorry in any sense other than that he got busted. That is, does he now, did he then, consider what he was doing wrong? If he does (and perhaps even if he doesn't) he may be relieved that he got caught, because it forced him to get treatment and get the monkey off his back.

And if he does believe that what he was doing is wrong, will he be willing to take his medicine (so to speak) and pay the criminal penalty for it? One suspects not, since he's already lawyered up, and is likely to be treated much differently than someone with few financial resources, and much less fame.

And if he doesn't, then he's saying that the current laws regulating prescription drugs must be wrong (unless he takes a narcissistic viewpoint that it might be wrong for some, but not him).

Some have argued that there's no hypocrisy here, or that hypocrisy is not the worst thing in the world--that it's better to at least preach the right thing, even if you're unwilling to practice it. And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, except that what is sauce for the goose should be at least a slight reduction for the gander. If Rush is unwilling to take his legal punishment for his long-time abuse of the drug laws that he's mostly stoutly defended for years, he shouldn't any longer be making the case for locking up a kid with a few ounces of grass.

That's what I think, anyway. But that's just me.

[Update on Friday late morning]

Jacob Sullum has some further thoughts.

Rand, I think you're assuming things here about Limbaugh's case that are not supported by the available information. As far as I know, the Palm Beach authorities haven't even asked to question him about whatever allegations they may believe apply to him.

I have no doubt that the timing of his admission to being hooked on painkillers is related to the news reeports, but beyond that...?

Rand, I think you're assuming things here about Limbaugh's case that are not supported by the available information.

I can't cite the sources, but the available information that I have is that he's been doing this for years, since back surgery.

In any event, if the facts that I've laid them out are correct, then my questions stand. If not, then simply consider my questions hypothetical, but still thought provoking. Even if it turns out not to be true for Rush, there's little doubt in my mind that it is for many people, including many erstwhile supporters of the War On (Some) Drugs.

As far as I know, the Palm Beach authorities haven't even asked to question him about whatever allegations they may believe apply to him.

And if that's the case, the question of why they haven't is an interesting one. Is it because there's insufficient evidence, or because...he's Rush?

And would the Palm Beach authorities be responsible? Did he violate any local laws, or just the federal ones?

I don't profess to know the answer, but as I said, it's an interesting question.

There are a lot of people who are addicted to these drugs who aren't breaking any laws at all. At what point did his doctors stop legally prescribing the medication? There are a lot of doctors out there giving people legal prescriptions for these drugs. The people taking them are certainly addicted, but not breaking any laws.
I don't think Rush has admitted to doing anything illegal, just that he was addicted. If he bought them from an illegal source, that is where the law was broken. Just being addicted though, isn't against the law.

f Rush is unwilling to take his legal punishment for his long-time abuse of the drug laws that he's mostly stoutly defended for years, he shouldn't any longer be making the case for locking up a kid with a few ounces of grass.

I've never heard Rush make the case for lockiing up a kid witha few ounces of grass. As for "stoutly" defending the drug laws, he hasn't done that either. Whether because he is addicted, or just because, Rush doesn't seem much interested in the issues surrounding drugs at all.

Someone (and unfortunately I didn't keep track of the link) did a search on Rushs transcripts and said the last time he talked about drugs at all was in 1995.

Well he was sure whipping up the hysteria in 1989, the last time I was force-fed lots of Rush involuntarily (forced listening in the car).

Rush's case is actually a good argument for drug controls.

Use of pot to control nauseau in cancer patients always seemed to be legit to me (though you can get the effects without getting high).

On the other hand, abusing narcotics until you've had hearing loss, etc. ....

Which, btw, begs the question about what the drug screens that Rush had before and during surgery must have shown his doctor and what was said to him there.

....

On the other hand, we are rapidly becoming a country where everyone has a chemical crutch. Should we just go over all the way?

Interesting thought.

I think Rand and others are assuming that the National Equirer story is true, and that Rush was obtaining prescription controlled substances without a prescription, as alleged by his domestic employee. If you're convinced she's telling the truth, then the foregoing analysis raises some relevant questions. But Rush has not admitted to these allegations, as others have pointed out. Until he is at least at charged, nevermind pleading guilty, it all seems a little premature to me.

Actually, the issue that's not being addressed in the Rush matter is this: that "addicts" can function perfectly well as productive members of society so long as they get their 'fix.'

Did anyone suspect that Limbaugh was hooked on OxyContin et.al. before the Enquirer revelations? No.

Limbaugh stands as an existence proof that narcotic abuse, while stupid on its face, does not lead inexorably to the horrors ascribed to it by his fellow conservatives. Indeed, Rush scored his current $300 million contract while "under the influence." Hmm.

Actually, some people have addressed that (and I would have, if it had occurred to me at the time I wrote the post). Virginia Postrel has noted it, as well as (not surprisingly), Jacob Sullum.

rush deserves whatever anyone else would get considering the circumstances. period.

but we all know that that is not what he is going to get because..... oh c'mon! we all know why!