Rush Limbaugh's Drug Problem
US radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been charged with fraudulently obtaining prescription drugs or "doctor shopping" to put it nicely. Of course he wormed his way out by making a deal with the prosecutors, who said that the charges would be dropped if he continues the drug rehab program and pays a chunk of money to off set the costs.
Now, what I am wondering is, will he have to pee in a jar in front of a witness while he is in rehab, and if so, will he suffer from "shy blander" syndrome and will he try to use his shyness to get around that pee test?
We can only hope he enjoys his treatment. He deserves it and worse.
Here is just an example of what he had to say on his radio show last week:
"The FDA says there's no -- zilch, zero, nada -- shred of medicinal value to the evil weed marijuana. This is going to be a setback to the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd." (Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, April 21, 2006).
So, no pot for AIDS and cancer patients but it is fine to go "doctor shopping" for highly addictive drugs like OxyContin also called "hillbilly heroin" to treat back pain.
With the FDA being staffed by Bush "The "Decider" with people of the same sort as Limbaugh, it is not surprising that more and more prohibition is being dealt out. However, I can't help but smile when I see someone like Rush getting caught in a trap that he helped set. Rush, being well connected and wealthy got away with what most others don't.
If you believe a woman named Wilma Cline, the nationally syndicated radio personality Rush Limbaugh would drive three miles from his $23 million Palm Beach, Fla., estate to a Denny's parking lot so that she could hand over a cigar box concealing dozens of tiny prescription painkillers. The loquacious Limbaugh, his housekeeper says, was often high on "hillbilly heroin."
If Rush didn't have such a sick and distorted view on marijuana users, he could have used the good weed to curb his back pain and not had to commit fraud to attain his addictive pain killers. He could grow a nice plant, pick and dry the flowers and brew himself a fine drink for his pain. No withdrawal. So why not?
You know the answer. The New York Times calls it the "politics of pot."
Here is a nice item from the NY Times:
Editorial
The Politics of Pot
Published: April 22, 2006
The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief, poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to counteract state efforts to legalize the practice.
Ordinarily, when the F.D.A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use. This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement asserting that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana.
That assertion is based on an evaluation by federal agencies in 2001 that justified the government's decision to tightly regulate marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. But it appears to flout the spirit of a 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, a unit of the National Academy of Sciences.
The institute was appropriately cautious in its endorsement of marijuana. It said the active ingredients of marijuana appeared useful for treating pain, nausea and the severe weight loss associated with AIDS. It warned that these potential benefits were undermined by inhaling smoke that is more toxic than tobacco smoke. So marijuana smoking should be limited, it said, to those who are terminally ill or don't respond to other therapies.
Yet the F.D.A. statement, which was drafted with the help of other federal agencies that focus on drug abuse, does not allow even that much leeway. It argues that state laws permitting the smoking of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation are inconsistent with ensuring that all medications undergo rigorous scrutiny in the drug approval process.
That seems disingenuous. The government is actively discouraging relevant research, according to scientists quoted by Gardiner Harris in yesterday's Times. It's obviously easier and safer to issue a brief, dismissive statement than to back research that might undermine the administration's inflexible opposition to the medical use of marijuana.
