Pubdate: Sat, 27 Dec 2003
Source: Wisconsin State Journal (WI)
Copyright: 2003 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wisconsinstatejournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/506
Author:  Bill Wineke

LIMBAUGH'S WOES CAN'T BE PINNED ON DEMOCRATS

Guess who's claming to be a victim now? Rush Limbaugh says he's a victim of 
Democratic smears by people who are using his admitted drug addiction as a 
means of wrecking his reputation through leaks of his legal problem.

Limbaugh's legal problem is that Florida investigators think he may have 
gone "doctor shopping" to get his drugs. After checking pharmacy records 
and finding four doctors prescribed him 2,000 highly addictive painkiller 
pills, they seized the radio personality's medical records. The assumption 
is no sane doctor would prescribe 2,000 pills.

A Florida judge ruled Tuesday the state acted within its legal rights, 
though Limbaugh's lawyers will appeal the ruling.

Doctor shopping for drugs is illegal in Florida and if authorities can show 
Limbaugh didn't tell his doctors about prescriptions issued by the other 
physicians, he could be in a heap of legal trouble.

Limbaugh says it's all unfair and that he is being victimized by Florida 
prosecutors and whined that "I'm being treated differently than anyone else 
in this circumstance."

Well, I don't know if that is true or not. I know that if it were a 
Democrat who was making that argument, Limbaugh would have a field day. 
But, hey, I'm hypocritical, too.

What the legal procedures do point out, however, is that addiction can have 
severe consequences, even for the rich and famous.

Limbaugh is a self-admitted prescription painkiller addict. Most people who 
know anything about addiction would say that's not his fault.

Most people can take even powerful painkillers without becoming addicted, 
just as most people can drink martinis without becoming alcoholics. But 
some people - I'm one of them - cannot safely use drugs or drink alcoholic 
beverages.

We didn't ask to be addicts or alcoholics, but we are. I'm no more morally 
culpable for my alcoholism than I am for my diabetes (though my actions may 
have made both conditions worse).However, we are legally culpable for the 
things we do as a result of our addictions.

My friend Eric Stearn is an alcoholic with a bipolar condition. That's not 
his fault and he tried over the years to deal with both conditions. But, a 
little more than a year ago, Eric got drunk, drove his car through a stop 
sign and hit another vehicle. A 6-year-old boy in that car died. Eric was 
arrested and is now serving a 13-year jail sentence.

Eric was devastated by the accident and would, obviously, have preferred a 
lighter sentence, but he accepted the legal responsibility for his actions 
with some degree of grace.

I, too, have driven cars after drinking. The fact I didn't smash into 
someone else is due more to the grace of God than to my moral superiority. 
But I was lucky and I face no legal consequences of my past behavior.

Rush Limbaugh is not morally responsible for being a drug addict. But if he 
broke the law in obtaining 2,000 (or more) addictive pills, then he is 
legally liable for the consequence of his actions.

He deserves his day in court and he will get it. He may well beat the rap. 
Perhaps his doctors should lose their licenses for prescribing so many 
pills. The purpose of the legal proceedings is to sort all that out.

But if he's a victim, he's a victim of his own genes and of his own 
arrogance, not of some Democratic political vendetta.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom