For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Let the professionals start the threads.:P
Anyway......
Much as it would be fun to poke fun at Rush and his "arrest" and point out all the hypocrisies relating to his rant's about what should happen to addicts or even the ACLU standing in his corner, his sudden belief that the constitution does protect the right of privacy (in this instance) or even the pass he will no doubt be given by the dittoheads...........
Addiction is not a crime and shouldn't be treated as such. (Of course if one commits a crime to feed the addiction that's a different matter). Addicts need help not punishment and although I am not holding my breath, I hope Rush realises this now and will use this experience and his position at the mic. in a productive way instead of a dividing way.
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
The lyrics of Xanadu were based on the works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge.
He was probably full of laudanum when he wrote Kubla Khan though.
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Different rush
Who are you to tell people how to discuss the topic?
Quote:
For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Maybe you want to tunnel the subject, I choose not to.
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
I didn't say you couldn't talk about it I simply said different rush
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I didn't say you couldn't talk about it I simply said different rush
I didn't say you said I couldn't talk about it. I simply posed the question "Who are you to tell people how to discuss the topic?"
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Oh well, have fun with your straw man, I'm happy you have a friend
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Let the professionals start the threads.:P
Anyway......
Much as it would be fun to poke fun at Rush and his "arrest" and point out all the hypocrisies relating to his rant's about what should happen to addicts or even the ACLU standing in his corner, his sudden belief that the constitution does protect the right of privacy (in this instance) or even the pass he will no doubt be given by the dittoheads...........
Addiction is not a crime and shouldn't be treated as such. (Of course if one commits a crime to feed the addiction that's a different matter). Addicts need help not punishment and although I am not holding my breath, I hope Rush realises this now and will use this experience and his position at the mic. in a productive way instead of a dividing way.
Should one get punished for possession of illegal drugs?
They certainly shouldn't get off 'cause they are addicted. Possession is crime and in Rush's case, so is fraud.
Rush got off easy due to being a first time offender and his "agreement".
I guess it's great to be rich.
Btw, someone in this thread is smoking crack rock and it ain't me or you.:mellow:
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Should one get punished for possession of illegal drugs?
They certainly shouldn't get off 'cause they are addicted. Possession is crime and in Rush's case, so is fraud.
Rush got off easy due to being a first time offender and his "agreement".
I guess it's great to be rich.
Btw, someone in this thread is smoking crack rock and it ain't me or you.:mellow:
I see a difference between an addict and a pusher. IMO simple possesion of drugs for personal use should not be a crime in itself. I'm Probably splitting hairs with addiction not being a crime, but possesion technically is. But as I said if the addict commits a crime to feed his habit ( or any crime for any reason) that's a different matter and yes being an addict is no defence.
Then again these where not illegal drugs to be in possesion of with a prescription, which he had. It was prescription fraud via "doctor shopping".
One could say rush should know better and had he not been so outspoken about wanting to put other addicts in prison then his story wouldn't be pounced upon so harshly....... then again lets be realistic...it's rush limbaugh ...........and drugs :shifty:
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Should one get punished for possession of illegal drugs?
They certainly shouldn't get off 'cause they are addicted. Possession is crime and in Rush's case, so is fraud.
Rush got off easy due to being a first time offender and his "agreement".
I guess it's great to be rich.
Btw, someone in this thread is smoking crack rock and it ain't me or you.:mellow:
I see a difference between an addict and a pusher. IMO simple possesion of drugs for personal use should not be a crime in itself. I'm Probably splitting hairs with addiction not being a crime, but possesion technically is. But as I said if the addict commits a crime to feed his habit ( or any crime for any reason) that's a different matter and yes being an addict is no defence.
Then again these where not illegal drugs to be in possesion of with a prescription, which he had. It was prescription fraud via "doctor shopping".
One could say rush should know better and had he not been so outspoken about wanting to put other addicts in prison then his story wouldn't be pounced upon so harshly....... then again lets be realistic...it's rush limbaugh ...........and drugs :shifty:
Yeah Rush just committed fraud and got off with an agreement and fine.:ermm:
However, are you saying that for example if Frumpagus is an addict and gets caught with an eight-ball (cocaine) that she should simply get help but if I, a non-addict, get caught with a dime bag (marryjewwanna), I should get jail time?
Lets assume these are third offenses.
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Then again these where not illegal drugs to be in possesion of with a prescription, which he had.
Fair point.
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Yeah Rush just committed fraud and got off with an agreement and fine.:ermm:
He has been accused of it, not convicted (although it seems by this "deal" that he did it) But he didn't hold up a bank or feed the "underground" to feed his addiction. He went to different doctors. His payment for the public money spent investigating (seems low to me) and the condition of getting treatment IMO is more likely to get anyone off an addiction than locking them up in prison where they will come into contact with a whole range of negative influences.
It could be argued that court ordered treatment is punishment. The point I am trying to make is about locking people up is the wrong way to go, because addiction is a "sickness" not a "crime"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
However, are you saying that for example if Frumpagus is an addict and gets caught with an eight-ball (cocaine) that she should simply get help but if I, a non-addict, get caught with a dime bag (marryjewwanna), I should get jail time?
Lets assume these are third offenses.
I said simple possesion for personal use shouldn't be a crime, for an addict or not.
Your question goes to should drugs as a whole be legal or not, which is a huge debate. Making drugs illegal isn't going to stop them beng used, in fact the argument that soft drugs lead to hard is probably only true because the soft drug user has to get his stuff from the hard drug dealer. IMO If we just legalised weed and sold it at the pharmacy, that contact would be removed. But then I see no difference between soft drugs and alcohol.... I use nor do I wish to use either but it seems a double standard to me to ban one while drinking the other.
Re: For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
He has been accused of it, not convicted (although it seems by this "deal" that he did it) But he didn't hold up a bank or feed the "underground" to feed his addiction. He went to different doctors. His payment for the public money spent investigating (seems low to me) and the condition of getting treatment IMO is more likely to get anyone off an addiction than locking them up in prison where they will come into contact with a whole range of negative influences.
It could be argued that court ordered treatment is punishment. The point I am trying to make is about locking people up is the wrong way to go, because addiction is a "sickness" not a "crime"
Mmk, fraud is illegal. Possession of illegal drugs is illegal. I said nothing of addiction being illegal. Yes I know he was charged with fraud and "settled". Yes I know the drugs he had were not illegal. Mmk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
However, are you saying that for example if Frumpagus is an addict and gets caught with an eight-ball (cocaine) that she should simply get help but if I, a non-addict, get caught with a dime bag (marryjewwanna), I should get jail time?
Lets assume these are third offenses.
I said simple possesion for personal use shouldn't be a crime, for an addict or not.
Your question goes to should drugs as a whole be legal or not, which is a huge debate. Making drugs illegal isn't going to stop them beng used, in fact the argument that soft drugs lead to hard is probably only true because the soft drug user has to get his stuff from the hard drug dealer. IMO If we just legalised weed and sold it at the pharmacy, that contact would be removed. But then I see no difference between soft drugs and alcohol.... I use nor do I wish to use either but it seems a double standard to me to ban one while drinking the other.
That makes some sense. Drunk drivers kill tons of people every year. I don't want certain drugs legalized, however. Some o dat shit makes people too nutty. I have seen this first hand.
The more something is accepted, the more people will partake in it.
