Within these hallowed halls, Frank Pittel of
added the following to the collective
conscience:
In alt.politics.usa.republican Schizoid Man
wrote:

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message

WoW, you were wrong on everyone of them. How long did it take you
to make up this pack of lies??

Ummm... care to repudiate any of these points with, er, facts? It
might be more illuminating than simply calling them 'lies' and
dismissing them.

I'll argue any and all of the points with facts when there is a
single fact given to support them. Until then they're nothing more
then the delusions of a looney tune loser brain washed by the dnc lib
dem.

I'd have to agree, it's easier to prove then to disprove.

in article , Mikermckelvy at
wrote on 3/26/04 11:13 AM:

From: "clamnebula"

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You are of course referring to Rush Limbaugh. The fact is Rush never once
said
that persons who become accidentally addicted to pain medication should be in
jail.

Where does he make any distinction at all about the kind of illegal drugs
someone should go to jail over?

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the
laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating
the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug
use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are
getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is
not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in
jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who
are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

Looks pretty all-inclusive to me.

In alt.politics.usa.republican 21C BBS wrote:
: Within these hallowed halls, Frank Pittel of
: added the following to the collective
: conscience:
: In alt.politics.usa.republican Schizoid Man
: wrote:
:
: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
:
: WoW, you were wrong on everyone of them. How long did it take you
: to make up this pack of lies??
:
: Ummm... care to repudiate any of these points with, er, facts? It
: might be more illuminating than simply calling them 'lies' and
: dismissing them.
:
: I'll argue any and all of the points with facts when there is a
: single fact given to support them. Until then they're nothing more
: then the delusions of a looney tune loser brain washed by the dnc lib
: dem.
:
: I'd have to agree, it's easier to prove then to disprove.


There's still no proof and I'll bet there never will be.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

"E.E.Bud Keith" wrote in message
...

13. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

Here we are right back where we started liberals making claims about
global
warming and they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Actually the
fact of the matter is, everybody agrees that there is global warming.
The disagreement is what is causing it, and the true answer is no one
really
knows positively.

Well friend were back to my way or the highway. One theory is as good as
the
next. so in order to be fair(that nice liberal word) both should be
taught.

**Nonsense. Creationism is not a theory. It is a fairy tale. Evolution is
not a theory. Evolution is a fact. NATURAL SELECTION is the theory proposed
by Darwin, to explain the fact of Evolution. Only the terminally stupid
would allow equal time to a fairy tale to be taught to children.

"John Stone" wrote in message
...
in article , Mikermckelvy at
wrote on 3/26/04 11:13 AM:

From: "clamnebula"

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You are of course referring to Rush Limbaugh. The fact is Rush never
once
said
that persons who become accidentally addicted to pain medication should
be in
jail.

Where does he make any distinction at all about the kind of illegal drugs
someone should go to jail over?

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And
the
laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are
violating
the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug
use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are
getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity
is
not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others
in
jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones
who
are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

Looks pretty all-inclusive to me.

Yup. So when is Pig Boy gonna start doin his hard time?

And wtf is he still doing on the air spouting his lies and hate (and
interviewing Dick Cheney on the air to allow Dick to spout absurd lies about
Richard Clarke)?

From: John Stone

in article , Mikermckelvy at
wrote on 3/26/04 11:13 AM:

From: "clamnebula"

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You are of course referring to Rush Limbaugh. The fact is Rush never once
said
that persons who become accidentally addicted to pain medication should be
in
jail.

Where does he make any distinction at all about the kind of illegal drugs
someone should go to jail over?

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the
laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating
the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug
use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are
getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is
not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in
jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who
are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

Looks pretty all-inclusive to me.

He's referring to recreational drug use.

From: "Sandman"

Yup. So when is Pig Boy gonna start doin his hard time?


For what? There's no case. The DA is fishing or they would have charged him
with something. He's being persecuted for the same thing a Florida state pol
did and was let off. In his case they want to violate Florida law and sieze
his medical records to see IF they can find a crime. That's why the ACLU has
intervened with their Friend of the Court action.



And wtf is he still doing on the air spouting his lies and hate (and
interviewing Dick Cheney on the air to allow Dick to spout absurd lies about
Richard Clarke)?

Never happened.

Cheney was refuting Clarke's lies.

As usual you have it bass ackwards.

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message
...
From: John Stone

in article , Mikermckelvy at
wrote on 3/26/04 11:13 AM:

From: "clamnebula"

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You are of course referring to Rush Limbaugh. The fact is Rush never once
said
that persons who become accidentally addicted to pain medication should be
in
jail.

Where does he make any distinction at all about the kind of illegal drugs
someone should go to jail over?

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the
laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating
the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug
use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are
getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is
not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in
jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who
are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

Looks pretty all-inclusive to me.

He's referring to recreational drug use.

Some people consider Xanax and Valium recreational drugs... especiallly those
who take too many of them.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 3/10/2004

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:01:36 -0500, "clamnebula"
wrote:

-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug
use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are
getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is
not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in
jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who
are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

Looks pretty all-inclusive to me.

He's referring to recreational drug use.

Some people consider Xanax and Valium recreational drugs... especiallly those
who take too many of them.

Agreed. First of all, *any* drug use outside of a legitimate
prescription could reasonably be called "recreational". In fact, one
might resonably argue that a person who deliberatly circumvents legal
constraints on prescription drugs by obtaining thousands of pills from
multiple doctors are just as guilty of "getting away with drug use"
and "trafficking in this stuff".

Of course, since Mr. McKelvy is in favor of legalization of drugs,
he's not being inconsistant in *his* view of the stituation, only his
assesment of Mr. Limbaugh's view of the situation.

clamnebula wrote:


"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message
...
From: John Stone

in article , Mikermckelvy at
wrote on 3/26/04 11:13 AM:

From: "clamnebula"

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You are of course referring to Rush Limbaugh. The fact is Rush never
once
said
that persons who become accidentally addicted to pain medication should
be
in
jail.

Where does he make any distinction at all about the kind of illegal drugs
someone should go to jail over?

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And
the
laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are
violating
the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug
use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are
getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity
is
not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others
in
jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones
who
are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

Looks pretty all-inclusive to me.

He's referring to recreational drug use.

Some people consider Xanax and Valium recreational drugs... especiallly those
who take too many of them.


---

Very true. I've evaluated and/or treated numerous drug addicts over the years,
and I can assure you that in addition to Xanax and Valium, Ativan, Tylenol #3
with Codeine, Percoset, Fiorial, Oxycontin and many other legally prescribed
antianxiety drugs and pain medications (most of which are narcotics) are very
frequently used by them. "Doctor shopping" and "pharmacy shopping" for
multiple prescriptions is very common, as is making purchases on the street.
There have also been numerous examples of doctors being arrested for illegal
overprescription of many of these drugs.





Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 3/10/2004










Bruce J. Richman

"Sandman" wrote in message
news
And wtf is he still doing on the air spouting his lies and hate (and
interviewing Dick Cheney on the air to allow Dick to spout absurd lies
about
Richard Clarke)?

Sanders, you can't recognize lies when they come streaming out of your
own mouth, let alone anyone elses.

ScottW

"Sandman" wrote in message
news

"John Stone" wrote in message
...
in article , Mikermckelvy at
wrote on 3/26/04 11:13 AM:

From: "clamnebula"

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're
a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our
prayers
for your recovery.

You are of course referring to Rush Limbaugh. The fact is Rush never
once
said
that persons who become accidentally addicted to pain medication
should
be in
jail.

Where does he make any distinction at all about the kind of illegal
drugs
someone should go to jail over?

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And
the
laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are
violating
the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug
use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites
are
getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this
disparity
is
not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others
in
jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones
who
are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

Looks pretty all-inclusive to me.

Yup. So when is Pig Boy gonna start doin his hard time?

When he gets convicted in a court of law, not when you think he should
because you don't like him. He has all the protections that you would want
for yourself, so why do you try to withhold from him. Could it be that you
disagree with his politics that you feel he should have no rights and if
this is so would you feel the same way if someone who agees with you was so
treated?

And wtf is he still doing on the air spouting his lies and hate (and
interviewing Dick Cheney on the air to allow Dick to spout absurd lies
about
Richard Clarke)?


Let's see if I understand this: Cheney's comments are lies because you
disagree with them and they are not verified. Clarke's comments are truth
because you agree and they are not verified. But wait, in other interviews
and testimony Clarke contradicted what he has said in his book. This would
verify Cheney's comments but not Clarke's. It would seem the only reason
that you assume that Cheney is lying is that you don't like what he says and
the only reason you believe Clarke, this time, is that you do like what he
is saying.
It seems that the comments by Clarke and Cheney are immaterial your just
stating your own opinion and they're just props.

Phil

Liberals need to read there Bibles;
There is no fact for evolving but The Bible clearly tells us how we all
got here and it should be taught in every school every day.
Grams

**Nonsense. Creationism is not a theory. It is a fairy tale. Evolution is
not a theory. Evolution is a fact. NATURAL SELECTION is the theory proposed
by Darwin, to explain the fact of Evolution. Only the terminally stupid
would allow equal time to a fairy tale to be taught to children.

Uh...the use of the words "their" and "there" are indeed
different....or don't they "teach 'ya 'dat in 'dem dare Hick schools"?!

Yet another fine product of Voucher Driven Education.

ROFLMAO!

"Grams" wrote in message
nk.net...
Liberals need to read there Bibles;
There is no fact for evolving but The Bible clearly tells us how we all
got here and it should be taught in every school every day.
Grams

**Nonsense. Creationism is not a theory. It is a fairy tale. Evolution
is
not a theory. Evolution is a fact. NATURAL SELECTION is the theory
proposed
by Darwin, to explain the fact of Evolution. Only the terminally stupid
would allow equal time to a fairy tale to be taught to children.

"Grams" wrote in message
nk.net...
Liberals need to read there Bibles;

**Heheh. I'll betcha Liberals know how to spell.

There is no fact for evolving but The Bible clearly tells us how we all
got here and it should be taught in every school every day.

**Yeah, right.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Grams said:

Liberals need to read there Bibles;
There is no fact for evolving but The Bible clearly tells us how we all
got here and it should be taught in every school every day.
Grams

Since when are Amish connected to the Internet?
Do your "elderly" know about this?

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Grams said:

Liberals need to read there Bibles;

Republiwhores need to read their grammar textbooks.

From: (Bruce J. Richman)

Doctor shopping" and "pharmacy shopping" for
multiple prescriptions is very common, as is making purchases on the street.
There have also been numerous examples of doctors being arrested for illegal
overprescription of many of these drugs.





In the case of Rush Limbaugh, there is no evidence of doctor shopping.

From: Yeasty Cock-Slimmer s

Why don't you think there is a sad story behind many of the people who
get addicted to narcotics?

I think being addicted to drugs is in itself a sad story. Becoming addicted to
something you take for no other reason than you wish to be high is no sadder
than being a drunk.

IMO most people addicted to drugs in order to escape reality are doing so
because they other, deeper problems.

Limbaugh became addicted while trying to treat pain, something I can relate to.

I don't think that sort of addiction compares to people who become addicted for
purely recreational puproses.

I run the risk of becoming an addict myself due to the level of pain and the
kind of drugs I take for relief. My hunch is that it won't happen to me
because I hate the "high" I expierience when taking oxicontin or any version of
hydrocodone. They keep my from sleeping properly and make me cranky in the
extreme.

Limbaugh gets a pass because he could afford to pay for them?


Limbaugh is not getting a pass, he is bveing investigated and if any wrong
doing is found he will be tried.

The problem with his case is that there is no evidence that he has done what is
being reported. Aside from the fact that he has admitted to being addicted. I
don't know if the number of pills he was reproted to have been taking is
accurate or not, but I suspect it is not.

The DA in the case is trying to violate Florida law in order to make a case.

If it were as open and shut as some people seem to think the ACLU would not be
involved and he would be in jail by know.

Mike McKelvy wrote:


From: (Bruce J. Richman)

Doctor shopping" and "pharmacy shopping" for
multiple prescriptions is very common, as is making purchases on the street.

There have also been numerous examples of doctors being arrested for illegal
overprescription of many of these drugs.





In the case of Rush Limbaugh, there is no evidence of doctor shopping.










I didn't say that there was. However, his maid is being investigated for
possible prescription violations and Rush is being investigated by the FBI.
The large quantity of pills found between them suggests (a) addiction and (b)
the strong possibility of illegal obtaining of controlled, prescribed
substances.

The following 2 newspaper accounts strongly indicate that as a result of his
alleged illegal drug-seeking behavior, a criminal investigation has been
initiated and is ongoing:


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/U...3Limbaugh.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/10-02-200...p-110349c.html

The type of drug-seeking behavior, for which he is being investigated, is, in
my professional experience, very common among addicts.

The most egregious, yet at the same time humorous, in a bizarre sort of way,
case I'm personally familiar with involved an outpatient drug treatment program
run by one of my colleagues a few years ago. One of the group members, after
loudly and "sincerely" professing his dedication to rehabilitation during the
group's initial session, was later found in the parking lot of the office
building, distributing his "business card" to other group members at the end of
the session. Naturally, he told them he could "supply" them with whatever they
wanted. Sad but true.



Bruce J. Richman

Mike McKelvy wrote:

From: Yeasty Cock-Slimmer s

Why don't you think there is a sad story behind many of the people who
get addicted to narcotics?

I think being addicted to drugs is in itself a sad story. Becoming addicted
to
something you take for no other reason than you wish to be high is no sadder
than being a drunk.

IMO most people addicted to drugs in order to escape reality are doing so
because they other, deeper problems.


Agreed. (except for the word, "deeper", which implies that their other
problems are unconsciously motivated, perhaps - a psychodynamic notion not
supported by empirical evidence). Many drug addicts fall into a category known
as "dually diagnosed", meaning they have both a diagnosable drug problem and
*also* another psychological disorder meeting the criteria for 2 APA DSM-IV
diagnoses simultaneously. Both diagnoses are made on the basis of current,
explicit, presenting symptoms, and *not* on the hypothesis of "deeper
problems" that are perhaps below the level of awareness of the subject.


Limbaugh became addicted while trying to treat pain, something I can relate
to.

I don't think that sort of addiction compares to people who become addicted
for
purely recreational puproses.


It is entirely possible that his addiction was for both pain relief and
recreational reasons as well. One goal does not erxclude the other. Also, not
everybody that takes pain medications becomes addicted to them, obviously. It
will be interesting to see what the results of the criminal investigation
uncover.


I run the risk of becoming an addict myself due to the level of pain and the
kind of drugs I take for relief. My hunch is that it won't happen to me
because I hate the "high" I expierience when taking oxicontin or any version
of
hydrocodone. They keep my from sleeping properly and make me cranky in the
extreme.

Limbaugh gets a pass because he could afford to pay for them?


Limbaugh is not getting a pass, he is bveing investigated and if any wrong
doing is found he will be tried.

The problem with his case is that there is no evidence that he has done what
is
being reported. Aside from the fact that he has admitted to being addicted.
I
don't know if the number of pills he was reproted to have been taking is
accurate or not, but I suspect it is not.


And law enforcement authorities suspect that he is guilty, and therefore, are
investigating his activities.


The DA in the case is trying to violate Florida law in order to make a case.


Prove it. While medical records are confidential, they can be obtained legally
with a judge's order. If the investigating agencies (e.g. FBI, state's
attorney, etc.) can show "probable cause" to have this information and convince
a judge to sign the necessary legal documents, there is absolutely no violation
of state law.



If it were as open and shut as some people seem to think the ACLU would not
be
involved and he would be in jail by know.






Bruce J. Richman

From: (Bruce J. Richman)

Mike McKelvy wrote:


From: (Bruce J. Richman)

Doctor shopping" and "pharmacy shopping" for
multiple prescriptions is very common, as is making purchases on the
street.

There have also been numerous examples of doctors being arrested for
illegal
overprescription of many of these drugs.





In the case of Rush Limbaugh, there is no evidence of doctor shopping.










I didn't say that there was. However, his maid is being investigated for
possible prescription violations and Rush is being investigated by the FBI.

Investigations don't mean guilt.

The large quantity of pills found between them suggests (a) addiction and (b)
the strong possibility of illegal obtaining of controlled, prescribed
substances.

Rush already admitted to the addiction.

He may or may not have obtained them form his maid. In any case he's being
persecuted for his political views not for any real wrongdoing. A female Fla.
politicain was absoloved of any criminality and praised to the heavens for the
same thing Rush is accused of doing.


The following 2 newspaper accounts strongly indicate that as a result of his
alleged illegal drug-seeking behavior, a criminal investigation has been
initiated and is ongoing:


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/U...3Limbaugh.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/10-02-200...p-110349c.html

The type of drug-seeking behavior, for which he is being investigated, is, in
my professional experience, very common among addicts.

The most egregious, yet at the same time humorous, in a bizarre sort of way,
case I'm personally familiar with involved an outpatient drug treatment
program
run by one of my colleagues a few years ago. One of the group members, after
loudly and "sincerely" professing his dedication to rehabilitation during the
group's initial session, was later found in the parking lot of the office
building, distributing his "business card" to other group members at the end
of
the session. Naturally, he told them he could "supply" them with whatever
they
wanted. Sad but true.




And curiously irrelevant.

JEANINE PIRRO: Welcome back. Rush Limbaugh's attorney not backing down against
Florida prosecutors who are investigating the talk radio show host for crimes
related to an addiction to prescription drugs.

Noted defense attorney Roy Black's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last
week blasts Palm Beach County state attorney Barry Krischer for the ongoing
investigation and failing to file any charges. In the piece, Black accuses
prosecutors of seizing Limbaugh's medical records and threatening to make them
public and leaking what he calls false information to the media.

Among other charges, Black writes, quote, "Normally, people with drug
dependencies who acknowledge their problems and seek treatment are lauded for
their courage, not prosecuted. So am I wrong to wonder if something is out of
whack when the Palm Beach County state attorney pulls out all the stops in an
effort to nail Rush, while giving immunity to the traffickers who supposedly
kept him supplied with painkillers."

We called the Palm Beach County state's attorney's office. They declined to
comment. So what are Rush Limbaugh's rights in this case? Let's ask his
attorney. I'm now joined by Roy Black, my good friend. Roy, welcome. First
question.

ROY BLACK: Yes.

PIRRO: Prosecutors went ahead and got a search warrant. In order to do so, they
had to have probable cause, they had to appear before a judge, they executed
that search warrant pursuant to the orders of the warrant. What's wrong with
that, Roy?

BLACK: Well, in the normal case, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with
that, Jeanine. The only thing that's wrong with it in this case and in this
state is that we have a statute that specifically outlines how medical records
can be obtained. And this is done pursuant to our constitutional right of
privacy in the Florida Constitution. The number one thing that has to be done
is you have to give the patient notice and an opportunity to go to court to
block you from getting those records. The prosecutors deliberately bypassed
that requirement.

PIRRO: So what you're saying is that the Florida statute really surpasses or
requires law enforcement to go an extra step than the Constitution itself?

BLACK: Well, not only am I saying that, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal
two years ago in a similar case said the same thing. As you know, state
statutes can require a higher burden for prosecutors and police than the
Constitution does. We do that all the time in every state. In Florida we've
decided our medical records are so important that we need more protection than
the Fourth Amendment or the Florida Constitution gives us on search and
seizures.

PIRRO: Okay. But, Roy, when the evidence was seized, the names of Rush's
medications appeared on national television. How does that happen?

BLACK: You know, that's an excellent question. What happened is the prosecutors
for the first time that I've ever seen in my career filed a copy of the warrant
with the affidavit and the attachments in the public file. In every other case
they do so under seal because of the ongoing investigation. Not with Rush
Limbaugh. They put it in a public filing so it could get out on the Internet,
through every possible TV and radio station, all in an effort just to embarrass
my client.

PIRRO: But you know, Roy, we all know that there is a return on the warrant, as
you say, but, Roy, who has the obligation to do the seal? Does the court have
that obligation? Does the prosecution? Does the defense? Should they seek the
sealing? How does that happen?

BLACK: Well, prosecutors normally file search warrants in nonpublic files, or
they get sealing orders from judges. The judge, on their own, is not going to
do it. The defense, of course, doesn't know about it, so there's no way the
defense lawyer can file and ask for a sealing. It's up to the prosecutor, who's
the only person who's aware of it and has the power to do it, and they do it in
every other single case. Only in Rush's case is he singled out for special
treatment.

PIRRO: And, Roy, what about the letter that was released where there was
apparently discussions of a plea bargain or plea negotiations going on? How did
that end up in the press?

BLACK: Well, what happened is I wrote a letter to them saying, look, I know
this investigation is going on. Why don't you treat Rush just like you do
everybody else and have a diversion program with rehabilitation, you can
monitor him and satisfy yourself about his rehabilitation. The prosecutors
wrote me back saying, no, we're not going to allow that, he has to plead guilty
to a felony. And of course we rejected that. But then they turned around and
released all that to the press, claiming that the Florida bar and the Florida
attorney general's office required them to do so. Immediately upon that, both
the bar and the attorney general said that was false.

PIRRO: Not good. Final question, Roy, how is Rush doing?

BLACK: You know, all you have to do is listen to him every day and you can hear
he's in good spirits. He's a hard-working guy. And before I go I want to say
one thing, Jeanine. I'm glad to see you finally have your own TV show.

PIRRO: (Laughing.) No, I don't.

BLACK: You've been wasting your considerable talents as a prosecutor, and this
is what you ought to be doing.

PIRRO: But you know what, Roy, it's in our blood, we love what we do. But
anyway, we're just sitting in for Dan Abrams and delighted to be here. But,
Roy, it's great to see you. Thanks for joining us tonight.

BLACK: Thank you for inviting me.

PIRRO: My pleasure.


END TRANSCRIPT


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Welcome to HANNITY & COLMES. I'm Alan Colmes. We get
right to our top story tonight.

Earlier this evening, Sean had the chance to sit down with Rush Limbaugh's
attorney, Roy Black.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Roy, now that this new information has come to light in
the Rush Limbaugh case, this evidence is -- in the case that you have been
making now, since the beginning of this case, it is now overwhelming and
incontrovertible as it relates to Rush Limbaugh being singled out because of
who he is. Can you please explain the case of the judge in Palm Beach County?

ROY BLACK, RUSH LIMBAUGH'S ATTORNEY: Yes, Sean.

And we're not here to criticize what happened with the judge's matter. In fact,
we think it was handled properly, but it does put things in perspective. The
judge was on the bench for about 15 years, for the last eight of which he
admitted being addicted to OxyContin. He then went into rehab. There was never
any criminal investigation. When he came back from rehabilitation and found out
that he was disabled due to psychiatric disorders, and he was retired with his
full pension.

There was never any seizure of his medical records. There was no criminal
investigation, even though, for eight years, while he sat on the bench,
adjudicating people's cases and making decisions in their lives, there was
never any kind of investigation. But he was allowed to retire. And I'm not
criticizing what they did.

HANNITY: Right.

BLACK: But now to go after Rush, who is not a public official.

HANNITY: Sure.

BLACK: Who admitted that he had a dependency problem and went into
rehabilitation, to do a criminal investigation against him and to seize his
medical records just shows how outrageous this is.

HANNITY: But what we're really talking about here, Roy, is a double standard in
the application of the law. And obviously, Rush is political inasmuch as he
gives opinions every day for three hours a day, the most listened to talk show
host in America.

The Palm Beach County prosecutor, Barry -- what is it -- Krischer, is a
Democrat. He is up for re-election. And the way he handles this case, this
judge, I think, should greatly affect the way he handles all cases, if there's
an equal application of the law, no?

BLACK: Well, Sean, that's one of the most important constitutional principles
that we have, that people are entitled to equal protection of the laws. It
should not matter who you are or how much money you have, what your political
party is or how famous you are, everybody should be treated the same.

And what really offends lawyers, and what offends me personally -- and I think
this is one reason even the ACLU has gotten involved here -- is to treat Rush
different because of who he is and the opinions he expressed is totally against
our democratic system.

HANNITY: Well, I guess the point here is, why didn't the prosecutor in the case
of Judge Schwartz, you know, get his prescription records? Why didn't he go to
his doctor's office, if it's equal application of the law?

The judge had been addicted for eight years. They didn't go on a fishing
expedition in this particular case. He got rehab, as a lot of Hollywood
celebrities have in the past, a lot of sports stars have in the past. And
usually they're held up in the community as somebody who has done a good thing.
They're gotten their life together, et cetera, right?

BLACK: Not only that. But you would think that people who hold public positions
would be set to a higher standard than a private citizen like Rush. Take, for
example, the Democratic state Senator Mandy Dawson.

HANNITY: Right.

BLACK: She was arrested in a pharmacy, trying to pass a forged prescription.
And in fact she was only arrested because she said she was too important to be
arrested because she was a state senator.

HANNITY: Right.

BLACK: Demanded to talk to the chief of police, saying that they couldn't
arrest her because of who she is. Even with that, they arrested her. But then
let her go to rehabilitation, which I think is the proper thing to do, and
subsequently dismissed the case, never requiring her to plead guilty to any
felonies.

HANNITY: But there was one additional thing in the case of Senator Mandy
Dawson. I've been doing a lot of reading in this particular case here. She was
arrested. She was actually, literally caught in the act, and correct me if I'm
wrong, of forging prescriptions. There has been no case of Rush being caught
doing anything, period, except the woman that apparently got some plea-bargain
and was paid a lot of money to make up a story, correct?

BLACK: Absolutely. We don't have Rush being seized with any kind of illegal
medication or using forged prescriptions or anything like that. In fact, it's
not even an accusation that he's done that. They're doing some type of
historical investigation, hoping to find something to pin on him. But with the
state senator, she was in the pharmacy, caught red handed, having changed and
forged the prescriptions, and then accusing the police and telling them they
were going to get fired if they dared arrest her.

HANNITY: She created quite a scene, as I understand it from difference reports
that came out. She was arrested, pled not guilty and she then got a treatment
program. And then the charges were dropped after, though -- and this is a great
distinction here -- she was caught in the act of forging prescriptions in that
particular case?

BLACK: Absolutely. And you would think that these two public officials, if
anything, would be held to a higher standard than a private citizen, although
both the public officials were allowed to go to rehabilitation and no
punishment at all. And I'm not saying that's wrong. I think that's the right
thing to do. But why is Rush being treated differently...

HANNITY: It's unbelievable.

BLACK: ... a private citizen who has admitted his problem because of medical
problems. And now he is being subjected to this long, months-long
investigation, just searching for something to charge him with. And I think the
only basis, the only reason, is because of who he is.

HANNITY: I want to reiterate one point, Roy. We brought this up the last time
you were on the program and now we have these new developments here. Rush has
had failed spinal surgery and has a series of medical setbacks over a series of
years. And he was at a point where he had to make a decision to go for a
operation that would have gone through his throat and his vocal cords.

Now, this is how I make my living, also. I don't know if I could have gone
through that operation, either. The pain medication, which was prescribed, was
given to him originally so he could get up out of bed every morning. It seems
that in every report I read that is never put in context.

BLACK: Not only that, Sean. But anyone who has suffered from chronic,
intractable pain knows what this is like. You cannot live a normal life without
pain medication. And there's a number of people, millions of them in this
country, who have particularly spinal or back problems where an operation will
not solve the problem. They're going to suffer through pain through all of
their life. And the only way they can lead a normal life is to take medication.

And let's face it. Sometimes when you take this medication for years, you may
become dependent on it.

HANNITY: Look, I agree. And I know people that this has happened to in my life,
Roy. And I think a lot of our audience does as well. And I want to point out
Rush has never been arrested, found in possession of anything illegal. We're
talking about a prescription drug problem for a real medical issue he was
dealing with here, in spite of the overwhelming amount of biased media that's
been out there against him, I would argue because of his conservative point of
view.

But here's -- I think all liberals should be upset about this -- why should
anyone have to give up their civil rights, their right to their private medical
records, their right to their confidentiality with their doctor, to prove their
innocence? Is that not what's happening here?

BLACK: Absolutely. And you say are liberals concerned? They are. That's why the
ACLU and all of their members have joined in our appeals saying that this is
such an outrageous invasion of privacy. And they've even admitted in the brief
that just was filed on Monday, they don't have any evidence of a crime. They
want to look into his medical records, hoping to find something, in order to
make a case against him. And they put that in black and white in their brief.
And I think it shows exactly what their motive is here.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLMES: We'll show you more of Sean's interview with Roy Black right after the
break.


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: And here's more of my exclusive interview from earlier tonight with
Rush Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HANNITY: Roy, I wanted to go back to the issue of confidentiality and the issue
of not only the double standard that we're talking about and the application of
the law. But every citizen ought to have the right to private medical counsel
and our own medical records without having them seized without any evidence
whatsoever, which has not happened in any other case that I know of in Palm
Beach County. What is at risk? What are we talking about being at jeopardy for
all people here?

BLACK: Sean, there are number of things at concern here.

No. 1, people have to believe when they talk to their doctor about some of the
most private and embarrassing things they could ever discuss anywhere, that
that information will remain confidential. If you no longer believe that, you
can no longer talk to your doctor in confidence.

Secondly, when you a case like this, when you know they're just searching for
something to accuse you of or to leak, can you imagine giving them medical type
information in the hands of people like this, and what they could do with it?
To me that's one of the most frightening specters here.

HANNITY: I agree. And I think we all ought to have the right, which I guess is
even why the ACLU, which I don't often agree with, is right in this particular
case. But I guess the evidence that this is really a smear campaign to hurt
Rush, too. As originally we heard this there was going to be a money laundering
aspect to this, a drug ring aspect to this. Then the issue of doctor shopping
came out. In fact, when they seized his prescription records, the affidavits
for the warrants, the officers said that they contained evidence, quote, of ten
felonies, Roy. But in the brief the state attorney filed with the appeals court
yesterday, they admit they got nothing. Quote, "It says the state will not be
in position to know if they can charge anything until the records have been
revealed."

And the point that I'm trying to make, if they said they had enough for ten
counts, yet now they admit that they don't have anything in their own brief,
doesn't that prove it's politically motivated?

BLACK: Well, it certainly is a smear campaign. There's no question they've gone
out of their way to try to discredit Rush. They don't have the evidence to
bring a case. And by the way, I want to make it clear here, because a lot of
people are confused about this, there is no charges. He's never been arrested,
never been charged with anything. He has only been the victim of a smear
campaign and leaks from the state attorney's office.

HANNITY: Yes. It's frankly stunning. And I think it's a case -- Do you see any
end in sight here? Or are they just going to hold on until the end of the
election? I mean, was this to get through November to try and hurt Rush's
reputation?

BLACK: Well, we have a sneaking suspicion they want to keep this and drag it on
until November in some attempt to help silence Rush. But we're hoping that when
the appellate court looks at this, they're going to come down hard on it and
hopefully end this.

HANNITY: Am I missing anything else here, Roy? Because these are stunning
developments in this case. Is there anything else?

BLACK: Yes, the only other thing I wanted to mention, Sean, is that I picked up
this very engrossing book at my local bookstore. And I want to tell you, I
really enjoyed reading it. It's really a good-looking guy on the cover.

HANNITY: Yes, well, it's good for dart practice at home. But we're very proud.
No. 1 on "The New York Times." And I'm glad you got the book. And Roy, I've got
to tell you something. You're standing up for principles beyond Rush here, and
that is our civil liberties, our right to privacy, and our right to equal
application under the law in this case.

And what is happening here is one of the -- I tell you something, how the
liberals in Palm Beach can put up with this is outrageous, also. They ought to
be as outraged as both you and I are.

BLACK: Yes, and I think people of good will think the same way. And we're
getting a lot of support from the entire political spectrum.

END TRANSCRIPT

Mike McKelvy wrote:

From: (Bruce J. Richman)

Mike McKelvy wrote:


From: (Bruce J. Richman)

Doctor shopping" and "pharmacy shopping" for
multiple prescriptions is very common, as is making purchases on the
street.

There have also been numerous examples of doctors being arrested for
illegal
overprescription of many of these drugs.





In the case of Rush Limbaugh, there is no evidence of doctor shopping.










I didn't say that there was. However, his maid is being investigated for
possible prescription violations and Rush is being investigated by the FBI.

Investigations don't mean guilt.


Investigations are not usually initiated unless there is a collection of
evidence suggesting that a crime has been committed. See newspaper accounts
cited below.


The large quantity of pills found between them suggests (a) addiction and
(b)
the strong possibility of illegal obtaining of controlled, prescribed
substances.

Rush already admitted to the addiction.


Buit denies allegation (b).


He may or may not have obtained them form his maid. In any case he's being
persecuted for his political views not for any real wrongdoing.

OSAF. I seriously doubt that the D.A..'s office and/or FBI care about his
political views. They may even be fellow right-wing zealots who moralize
hypocritically about illegal drug use just as Limbaugh has done on the air.



A female
Fla.
politicain was absoloved of any criminality and praised to the heavens for
the
same thing Rush is accused of doing.


Totally irrelevant. And where is the evidence to support this claim. I
provided some newspaper references. Why don't you do the same?

Also, Gov. Bush's daughter got a "slap on the wrist" after being convicted and
even violating the terms of her "rehab", but I suppose that's OK with you since
she comes from the "right'" party.



The following 2 newspaper accounts strongly indicate that as a result of his
alleged illegal drug-seeking behavior, a criminal investigation has been
initiated and is ongoing:


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/U...3Limbaugh.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/10-02-200...p-110349c.html

The type of drug-seeking behavior, for which he is being investigated, is,
in
my professional experience, very common among addicts.

The most egregious, yet at the same time humorous, in a bizarre sort of way,
case I'm personally familiar with involved an outpatient drug treatment
program
run by one of my colleagues a few years ago. One of the group members,
after
loudly and "sincerely" professing his dedication to rehabilitation during
the
group's initial session, was later found in the parking lot of the office
building, distributing his "business card" to other group members at the end
of
the session. Naturally, he told them he could "supply" them with whatever
they
wanted. Sad but true.




And curiously irrelevant.



Never claimed to relevant, except to illustrate that on a professional level, I
have a lot more experience than you do in both the evaluation and treatment of
drug abuse.

You also saw fit to deliberately delete sections of this post that
successfully destroyed your unsupported allegation that Limbaugh probably just
used meds for pain relief not recreation. You also deleted factual information
about dual diagnosis.

Quite possibly relevant, and no doubt deleted because it didn't support your
views.

And that's an opinion about your selective deletion of post material that I get
to have.



Bruce J. Richman

He may or may not have obtained them form his maid. In any case he's
being
persecuted for his political views not for any real wrongdoing. A female
Fla.
politicain was absoloved of any criminality and praised to the heavens for
the
same thing Rush is accused of doing.

Persecuted for his political beliefs!? In a state that *gave* George Bush
the presidency?
By John Ashcroft's justice department!? You must think we are all as
ignorant
as you seem to be.
WS

From: "bernard spilman"

He may or may not have obtained them form his maid. In any case he's
being
persecuted for his political views not for any real wrongdoing. A female
Fla.
politicain was absoloved of any criminality and praised to the heavens for
the
same thing Rush is accused of doing.

Persecuted for his political beliefs!? In a state that *gave* George Bush
the presidency?
By John Ashcroft's justice department!? You must think we are all as
ignorant
as you seem to be.
WS


By the local DA.

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message
...
From: "bernard spilman"

He may or may not have obtained them form his maid. In any case he's
being
persecuted for his political views not for any real wrongdoing. A
female
Fla.
politicain was absoloved of any criminality and praised to the heavens
for
the
same thing Rush is accused of doing.

Persecuted for his political beliefs!? In a state that *gave* George Bush
the presidency?
By John Ashcroft's justice department!? You must think we are all as
ignorant
as you seem to be.
WS


By the local DA.


Good! I'll enjoy watching that fat, lying piece of slime squirm.
Hope he gets the biggest, gayest, blackest cellmate they
can find.
WS

From: "bernard spilman"

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message
...
From: "bernard spilman"

He may or may not have obtained them form his maid. In any case he's
being
persecuted for his political views not for any real wrongdoing. A
female
Fla.
politicain was absoloved of any criminality and praised to the heavens
for
the
same thing Rush is accused of doing.

Persecuted for his political beliefs!? In a state that *gave* George Bush
the presidency?
By John Ashcroft's justice department!? You must think we are all as
ignorant
as you seem to be.
WS


By the local DA.


Good! I'll enjoy watching that fat, lying piece of slime squirm.

He's not squirming, he's still free and will probably never serve a day.

Please document one lie he's ever told.



Hope he gets the biggest, gayest, blackest cellmate they
can find.
WS


Glad you hold no bias of your own.

He's not squirming, he's still free and will probably never serve a day.

Please document one lie he's ever told.


You're just a ****ing idiot.
WS

"bernard spilman" wrote in message
m...
He's not squirming, he's still free and will probably never serve a day.

Please document one lie he's ever told.


You're just a ****ing idiot.
WS


Surrender accepted.

Surrender accepted.


No surrender, you're just a ****ing idiot.
You talk real big behind that keyboard
pussy.
WS

"bernard spilman" wrote in message
.. .
Surrender accepted.


No surrender, you're just a ****ing idiot.
You talk real big behind that keyboard
pussy.
WS


I simply asked for proof of you bull**** statements, which naturally you
couldn't provide. Go have another glass of the Democrat Kool-Aid, liar.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Mike McKelvy wrote:

From: Yeasty Cock-Slimmer s

Why don't you think there is a sad story behind many of the people who
get addicted to narcotics?

I think being addicted to drugs is in itself a sad story. Becoming
addicted
to
something you take for no other reason than you wish to be high is no
sadder
than being a drunk.

IMO most people addicted to drugs in order to escape reality are doing so
because they other, deeper problems.


Agreed. (except for the word, "deeper", which implies that their other
problems are unconsciously motivated, perhaps - a psychodynamic notion not
supported by empirical evidence). Many drug addicts fall into a category
known
as "dually diagnosed", meaning they have both a diagnosable drug problem
and
*also* another psychological disorder meeting the criteria for 2 APA
DSM-IV
diagnoses simultaneously. Both diagnoses are made on the basis of
current,
explicit, presenting symptoms, and *not* on the hypothesis of "deeper
problems" that are perhaps below the level of awareness of the subject.

Instead of deeper, I should have said sgnificant other problems. It has
been true for everyone I've ever known that had a drug problem that was not
accidental, i.e. due to over use of a prescription they had valid reasons
for obtaining.

Limbaugh became addicted while trying to treat pain, something I can
relate
to.

I don't think that sort of addiction compares to people who become
addicted
for
purely recreational puproses.


It is entirely possible that his addiction was for both pain relief and
recreational reasons as well.

I don't think it likely that he was getting them for a high. In any case
he's gone to rehab and is AFAIK no longer taking them.

MOre importantly to me is this is another example of media bull**** and
government oppression. The fact that one chooses to indulge for whatever
reason in pain medication is not the business of the government.

One goal does not erxclude the other. Also, not
everybody that takes pain medications becomes addicted to them, obviously.

Despite your constant statements to the contrary, I am an example of that
kind of person.

It
will be interesting to see what the results of the criminal investigation
uncover.


I run the risk of becoming an addict myself due to the level of pain and
the
kind of drugs I take for relief. My hunch is that it won't happen to me
because I hate the "high" I expierience when taking oxicontin or any
version
of
hydrocodone. They keep my from sleeping properly and make me cranky in
the
extreme.

Limbaugh gets a pass because he could afford to pay for them?


Limbaugh is not getting a pass, he is bveing investigated and if any
wrong
doing is found he will be tried.

The problem with his case is that there is no evidence that he has done
what
is
being reported. Aside from the fact that he has admitted to being
addicted.
I
don't know if the number of pills he was reproted to have been taking is
accurate or not, but I suspect it is not.


And law enforcement authorities suspect that he is guilty, and therefore,
are
investigating his activities.


The DA in the case is trying to violate Florida law in order to make a
case.


Prove it. While medical records are confidential, they can be obtained
legally
with a judge's order.

But the DA has said they haven't any reason to see them other than to try
and find something. Not because they have evidence they are trying to
confirm, hence the involvement of the ACLU.

If the investigating agencies (e.g. FBI, state's
attorney, etc.) can show "probable cause" to have this information and
convince
a judge to sign the necessary legal documents, there is absolutely no
violation
of state law.



If it were as open and shut as some people seem to think the ACLU would
not
be
involved and he would be in jail by know.






Bruce J. Richman

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

(brevity edit)

It is entirely possible that his (Rush Limbaugh) addiction was for both
pain relief and
recreational reasons as well.

I don't think it likely that he was getting them for a high. In any case
he's gone to rehab and is AFAIK no longer taking them.

MOre importantly to me is this is another example of media bull**** and
government oppression. The fact that one chooses to indulge for whatever
reason in pain medication is not the business of the government.

So I take it, from the above statement, that you condone Limbaugh's
behavior? Do you also condone his hypocrisy, or are of the "there is a
difference between a pharmaceutical and a recreational drug" school?

Assume that some close to you suffers some horrible tragedy - they die in a
car accident or are murdered - and you are in a state of emotional pain
(that still qualifies as pain in the Republican dictionary, doesn't it?) and
you turn to alcohol and narcotics for alleviation and escapism (a completely
humane reaction), then in your one-sided mind does that constitue nefarious
drug abuse?

Furthermore, extending your own argument, shouldn't these kids be released
after they serve out their time in rehab, or should we throw them in jailed
after their rehabilitation? Or is that special privilege reserved for the
non-Republican and non-Rush Limbaughs of the world?

What eludes you, McKelvy, is that a lot of these kids come from broken homes
and shattered lives. They don't have the luxury (unlike you) of a suburban
Californian sprawl or a Hummer to drive them to the grocery store.

However, since you have shown yourself to be devoid of any jurisprudence,
compassion or humanity, I suspect that that fact will completely elude you.
All we will hear is you drone on and on about Limbaugh's legal troubles
actually being a 'Clintonian conspiracy', The Passion is the 'best movie
ever made' and how George Bush's vision of a 'peaceful, democratic,
liberated Middle East is finally occuring'.

Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Mike McKelvy wrote:

From: Yeasty Cock-Slimmer s

Why don't you think there is a sad story behind many of the people who
get addicted to narcotics?

I think being addicted to drugs is in itself a sad story. Becoming
addicted
to
something you take for no other reason than you wish to be high is no
sadder
than being a drunk.

IMO most people addicted to drugs in order to escape reality are doing so
because they other, deeper problems.


Agreed. (except for the word, "deeper", which implies that their other
problems are unconsciously motivated, perhaps - a psychodynamic notion not
supported by empirical evidence). Many drug addicts fall into a category
known
as "dually diagnosed", meaning they have both a diagnosable drug problem
and
*also* another psychological disorder meeting the criteria for 2 APA
DSM-IV
diagnoses simultaneously. Both diagnoses are made on the basis of
current,
explicit, presenting symptoms, and *not* on the hypothesis of "deeper
problems" that are perhaps below the level of awareness of the subject.

Instead of deeper, I should have said sgnificant other problems. It has
been true for everyone I've ever known that had a drug problem that was not
accidental, i.e. due to over use of a prescription they had valid reasons
for obtaining.

Limbaugh became addicted while trying to treat pain, something I can
relate
to.

I don't think that sort of addiction compares to people who become
addicted
for
purely recreational puproses.


It is entirely possible that his addiction was for both pain relief and
recreational reasons as well.

I don't think it likely that he was getting them for a high. In any case
he's gone to rehab and is AFAIK no longer taking them.

MOre importantly to me is this is another example of media bull**** and
government oppression. The fact that one chooses to indulge for whatever
reason in pain medication is not the business of the government.


However, if he is indicted for various felonious activities, such as doctor
shopping and the illegal abuse of pain medications, which may well happen, that
is indeed the business of the legal authorities. It has rtecently been
reported in newspaper accounts that I've read that Limbaugh is suspected of
having used up to 6 different doctors and of having obtained several thousand
analgesic prescription medications in a relatively short period of time. If
these allegations turn out to be proven, then he was indeed doctor shopping,
abusing prescription pain medications via fraud, and should suffer the legal
consequences, irrespective of his celebrity. Obviously, a search warrant was
issued by a judge who felt justified in doing so. What happens to the records
is now being decided in court:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/cen...on/8379507.htm

It will probably be a lot easier to prove his guilt or innocence than to prove
that his investigation is politically motivated. If anything, political
favoritism sometimes works the other way, as with Gov. Jeb Bush's daughter,
Noel, first found guilty of forging Xanax prescriptions, and then when given a
relatively mild sentence consisting of court-ordered rehab., was again caught
breaking the rules. Chances are if she were not the governor's daughter (and
the president's niece), she might be in a lot more trouble. So political
bull**** is in the eye of the beholder.




One goal does not erxclude the other. Also, not
everybody that takes pain medications becomes addicted to them, obviously.

Despite your constant statements to the contrary, I am an example of that
kind of person.


You've made a lot of statement about me constantly that are not accurate, so I
don't think you want to start comparing accuracy in reporting.



It
will be interesting to see what the results of the criminal investigation
uncover.


I run the risk of becoming an addict myself due to the level of pain and
the
kind of drugs I take for relief. My hunch is that it won't happen to me
because I hate the "high" I expierience when taking oxicontin or any
version
of
hydrocodone. They keep my from sleeping properly and make me cranky in
the
extreme.

Limbaugh gets a pass because he could afford to pay for them?


Limbaugh is not getting a pass, he is bveing investigated and if any
wrong
doing is found he will be tried.

The problem with his case is that there is no evidence that he has done
what
is
being reported. Aside from the fact that he has admitted to being
addicted.
I
don't know if the number of pills he was reproted to have been taking is
accurate or not, but I suspect it is not.


And law enforcement authorities suspect that he is guilty, and therefore,
are
investigating his activities.


The DA in the case is trying to violate Florida law in order to make a
case.


Prove it. While medical records are confidential, they can be obtained
legally
with a judge's order.

But the DA has said they haven't any reason to see them other than to try
and find something. Not because they have evidence they are trying to
confirm, hence the involvement of the ACLU.

If the investigating agencies (e.g. FBI, state's
attorney, etc.) can show "probable cause" to have this information and
convince
a judge to sign the necessary legal documents, there is absolutely no
violation
of state law.



If it were as open and shut as some people seem to think the ACLU would
not
be
involved and he would be in jail by know.






Bruce J. Richman





I think, as one attorney in the article I've cited has suggested, that a
compromise may well be found in which investigators/prosecutors/judges will
have access to Limbaugh's medical records, but that they will be shielded from
the public unless a trial actually takes place.
As one who has personally testified in trials as an expert witness, I am aware
that when it comes to medical records, judges have a fair amount of flexibility
in how they choose to either respect or override a patient's ride to privacy
when it comes to medical records.













Bruce J. Richman

I have seen no proof of anything you've said.
WS


"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

"bernard spilman" wrote in message
.. .
Surrender accepted.


No surrender, you're just a ****ing idiot.
You talk real big behind that keyboard
pussy.
WS


I simply asked for proof of you bull**** statements, which naturally you
couldn't provide. Go have another glass of the Democrat Kool-Aid, liar.