Limbaugh being investigated for purchasing drugs illegally

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/02/86/11/image_211862.gif

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

i like that one!

RE: Rush to Rehab...

The news that almost no one gets jail time for buying narcotics illegally for personal consumption would come as a big surprise to Robert Downey Jr., Noelle Bush and Marion Barry, among others.

Anyone recall the "zero tolerance" drug policy George H.W. Bush tried during his administration? How many people had property seized because drugs were found there, even though the drugs were purchased by someone else? Quite a few, I believe.

I don't know that jail time is the best remedy for drug addiction, but given the frequency with which addicts relapse after going through rehab, I'm not sure rehab is the best remedy either. Which raises the very real question of what will happen to Limbaugh if he goes through rehab and relapses later. It really is very common.

RE: Rush to Rehab...

correct, but the user would have to be caught actually buying or using. a simple admission of having done so in the past wouldn't really be the kind of case most prosecutors would (or, without evidence, could) bring.

seizures and forfeitures are different. one doesn't have to be convicted of ANYTHING to forfeit property or have it seized. of course, the person can petition for the return of the property, but that would very likely make a prosecution more probable. and the petition is routinely denied, so that the petitioner is forced to sue the government if he wants his property back. i once fedexed a friend a thousand dollars. there was no illegal activity nor intent (he was travelling, had a series of mishaps, and i was tiding him over until it could all be resolved), but the package was seized & forfeited. i submitted a request for return, but it was denied. i then had 2 choices:

1) hire an attorney who specialises in such matters, or

2) stop contesting the seizure.

i ended up not continuing the contestation, since the lawyer's fees would have cost more than the $1,000 i forfeited.

bottom line: prosecution of a user (who is not caught in a sting) is unlikely. (barry was caught smoking crack in a hotel room with a streetwalker.)

but, never say never... although it is unlikely that rush would be prosecuted, it is possible.

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>correct, but the user would have to be caught actually buying

>or using. a simple admission of having done so in the past

>wouldn't really be the kind of case most prosecutors would

>(or, without evidence, could) bring.

How about the testimony of an intermediary the user employed to help him purchase drugs, substantiated by tapes and emails kept by that intermediary -- would that be helpful? Since that is exactly what we have in the Limbaugh case?

>seizures and forfeitures are different. one doesn't have to be

>convicted of ANYTHING to forfeit property or have it seized.

The legal proceeding is taken against the property rather than against its owner. Nevertheless, such proceedings are used by American prosecutors to penalize drug users as well as sellers.

>bottom line: prosecution of a user (who is not caught in a

>sting) is unlikely.

Even if the user's employee, whom he used as an intermediary in buying, goes to the authorities and says "My boss pressured me to help him get drugs"?

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>How about the testimony of an intermediary the user employed

>to help him purchase drugs, substantiated by tapes and emails

>kept by that intermediary -- would that be helpful? Since

>that is exactly what we have in the Limbaugh case?

i'd have to check, but chances are that the tapes won't be admissable anyway.

>The legal proceeding is taken against the property rather than

>against its owner.

as i said, they're different. duh.

>Even if the user's employee, whom he used as an intermediary

>in buying, goes to the authorities and says "My boss pressured

>me to help him get drugs"?

i don't see that as what's been alleged.

you're all welcome to form your own opinions. i happen to think it is unlikely that he'll be prosecuted. not being a prosecutor, we'll just have to wait and see.

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>>How about the testimony of an intermediary the user

>employed

>>to help him purchase drugs, substantiated by tapes and

>emails

>>kept by that intermediary -- would that be helpful? Since

>>that is exactly what we have in the Limbaugh case?

>i'd have to check, but chances are that the tapes won't be

>admissable anyway.

Let me save you the trouble. If the tapes were not made by or at the behest of a law enforcement agent then Fourth Amendment restrictions on their use against the defendant would not apply. They would thus be inadmissible only if made in a state whose law prohibits such taping and makes the results of such taping inadmissible. I know of no rule that would render the intermediary's testimony inadmissible or keep out emails sent by the defendant to the intermediary asking her to buy drugs, of which the intermediary in this case has quite a few. So it should be clear to everyone that in this case there is a great deal more evidence than a simple admission by Limbaugh on his radio program.

>>The legal proceeding is taken against the property rather

>than

>>against its owner.

>as i said, they're different. duh.

Different in what way that has anything to do with this discussion? We're talking about the way in which drug users as opposed to sellers are penalized. Forfeiture is one such way. Anything else?

>>Even if the user's employee, whom he used as an intermediary

>>in buying, goes to the authorities and says "My boss

>pressured

>>me to help him get drugs"?

>i don't see that as what's been alleged.

If the housekeeper is put on the stand and asked "What did you think would happen if you refused Mr. Limbaugh's request that you help him get drugs," what do you think the answer will be?

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>The news that almost no one gets jail time for buying

>narcotics illegally for personal consumption would come as a

>big surprise to Robert Downey Jr., Noelle Bush and Marion

>Barry, among others.

The point that was made is that it is extremely uncommon for purchasers of PERSCRIPTION drugs to be imprisoned - indeed, it's extremely uncommon for them even to be prosecuted.

While slamming Rush, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz recently told Wolf Blitzer on CNN - and I quote - "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted, whereas people who illegally buy cocaine and heroin are prosecuted."

Why should Rush be treated differently?

And, even with regard to street drugs, it is very uncommon for people to go to prison for mere possession, particularly as a first-time offense. The overwhelming majority of people in prison for drug-related charges are there as a result of some participation in the sale and distribution process.

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>i once fedexed a friend a thousand dollars.

>there was no illegal activity nor intent (he was travelling,

>had a series of mishaps, and i was tiding him over until it

>could all be resolved), but the package was seized &

>forfeited.

What possible rationale could they possibly have to seize and forfeit?

(I'm sure you think there was none - but what to you think THEY thought was their rationale)

And how would the money have even come to their attention?

Just curious?

fukamarine (who at this moment is sure glad he lives in Canada)

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>fukamarine (who at this moment is sure glad he lives in

>Canada)

You're not the only one who is glad about that. In fact, every other nation other than that vast Northern wasteland of snow and drooling irrelevance feels the same way.

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>>The news that almost no one gets jail time for buying

>>narcotics illegally for personal consumption would come as a

>>big surprise to Robert Downey Jr., Noelle Bush and Marion

>>Barry, among others.

>The point that was made is that it is extremely uncommon for

>purchasers of PERSCRIPTION drugs to be imprisoned - indeed,

>it's extremely uncommon for them even to be prosecuted.

That is the offense for which Noelle Bush was prosecuted and jailed.

>Why should Rush be treated differently?

Differently than whom? Differently than the people who weren't prosecuted for the same offense, or differently than those who were?

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>That is the offense for which Noelle Bush was prosecuted and

>jailed.

You are mistaken. Noelle Bush was never sentenced to prison for possession of perscription drugs. To the contrary, she was sentenced to REHAB and probation - and was sentenced to jail time (a whole 10 days) only after she violated the terms of her probation by stealing drugs from the rehab center and then being found with crack cocaine.

VIRTUALLY NOBODY is setnenced to prison for a first-time offense of possession of unauthorized perscription drugs. Are you disputing that fact?

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>>That is the offense for which Noelle Bush was prosecuted

>and

>>jailed.

>You are mistaken. Noelle Bush was never sentenced to prison

>for possession of perscription drugs.

I never said she was sentenced to prison. Did you miss the word "jailed" in my post? It's right there, above.

>To the contrary, she

>was sentenced to REHAB and probation - and was sentenced to

>jail time (a whole 10 days) only after she violated the terms

>of her probation by stealing drugs from the rehab center and

>then being found with crack cocaine.

So? Do you understand what "probation" means? It means that the court imposes on the defendant a sentence of certain behavioral restrictions for a certain period of time in lieu of imprisonment, and that the alternative of imprisonment is invoked if and when the restrictions are violated. That is what happened to Bush.

>VIRTUALLY NOBODY is setnenced to prison for a first-time

>offense of possession of unauthorized perscription drugs. Are

>you disputing that fact?

It isn't "unauthorized possession" that is the issue in either the Bush case or the Limbaugh case. The issue in both cases is illegal purchase. Did you not understand that? In Limbaugh's case, if the account of his housekeeper is to be credited he is guilty of multiple counts (dozens, in fact) of both solicitation to commit illegal purchase and conspiracy to commit illegal purchase, both of which are felonies under state law. If he used interstate telephone lines to send emails instructing the woman to buy drugs illegally on his behalf, he has committed federal felonies as well.

I don't see what, if anything, is the significance of saying that a given crime is rarely prosecuted or if prosecuted rarely results in jail time. As I recall, Marion Barry made the exact same argument when he was caught buying cocaine. Did it work in that case? If not, why should Limbaugh be treated with greater leniency than Barry?

RE: Rush to Rehab...

Woody, you have to remember that neither Doug/FFF or is it Doug/TruthTeller (my head hurts) and orne never actualy read what people write, much less comprehend it. They go into automatic Faux News spin mode which renders them incapable of logic. They simply must defend their repiglican brethern at any cost.

I never stated that Rush should go to jail in this thread. I merely said that he should receive the appropriate punishment. However, being that thye are Repiglicans and/or cosnervatives, they feel they are above such petty things as the law (see Asskraft's Patriot Act for details).

Bill Clinton got what he deserved for getting his blowjob and lying to the Court. He lost his law license. Rush needs to get what he deserves too. Same principle.

RE: Rush to Rehab...

>What possible rationale could they possibly have to seize and

>forfeit?

they clearly thought it was drug money.

>And how would the money have even come to their attention?

fed ex x-rays random envelopes. apparently they noticed a wad of cash in mine, and then notified authorities.

How much Viagra does a big prick need?

Getting busted for painkiller abuse: sad/funny.

Getting busted for unprescribed Viagra: HYSTERICAL.

Rush Limbaugh (you know, big guy, used to date Daryn Kagan) was busted at the Palm Beach airport for possession of a bottle of Viagra that had the names of two Florida doctors, but not his.

Possession of unprescribed Viagra is, it turns out, a second-degree misdemeanor. But the bust makes sense, really — the painkillers, you know, tend to make things a little more difficult in that department.

A doctor had prescribed the drug, but it was “labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes,” Roy Black, Limbaugh’s attorney, said in a statement.

Yeah, that’s a great excuse. Brilliant legal mind, there. We always have our doctors prescribe our klonopin to other people, you know, for privacy concerns.

Oy, we’re not gonna have to listen to Rush today now, are we? Does someone else want to take that bullet for us?

RE: How much Viagra does a big prick need?

The Viagra was for Limbaugh's boyfriend! Surely you can't imagine Rush with a limp dick!!!

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/limbaugh_2.jpg

RE: How much Viagra does a big prick need?

Rush Limbaugh Announced as New Viagra Spokesman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- NEW YORK – June 28, 2006 -- Pfizer Inc. today announced conservative talk radio commentator Rush Limbaugh has been signed as the new spokesman for the company's erectile dysfunction drug, Viagra (sildenafil citrate). Limbaugh went public with his use of the medication following a security incident June 26 at the Palm Beach International Airport....

Pfizer is hoping the Limbaugh "dittohead" following will give a boost to sales. "His listeners will buy into anything he says, so we're hoping that transfers into them buying our product. With a doctor's prescription, of course."

Previous Viagra spokesmen have included Senator Bob Dole and NASCAR driver Mark Martin. The addition of the controversial radio personality to the Pfizer stable seems to indicate the drug manufacturer intends to target an increasingly conservative demographic.

However, Pfizer's representative denied reports that ultra-right-wing commentator and author Ann Coulter was also being wooed to push the erection-enhancing medication. "We feel that would be antithetical. As clinically effective as Viagra has proven to be, it has its limits."