I am addicted to prescription pain medication


sorabji.com: Do you have any regrets?: I am addicted to prescription pain medication
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By spunky on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 09:44 am:

    You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life. So I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication.

    I first started taking prescription painkillers some years ago when my doctor prescribed them to treat post surgical pain following spinal surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was unsuccessful and I continued to have severe pain in my lower back and also in my neck due to herniated discs. I am still experiencing that pain. Rather than opt for additional surgery for these conditions, I chose to treat the pain with prescribed medication. This medication turned out to be highly addictive.

    Over the past several years I have tried to break my dependence on pain pills and, in fact, twice checked myself into medical facilities in an attempt to do so. I have recently agreed with my physician about the next steps.

    Immediately following this broadcast, I am checking myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me. The show will continue during this time, of course, with an array of guest hosts you have come to know and respect.

    I am not making any excuses. You know, over the years athletes and celebrities have emerged from treatment centers to great fanfare and praise for conquering great demons.

    They are said to be great role models and examples for others. Well, I am no role model. I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes.

    They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem.

    At the present time, the authorities are conducting an investigation, and I have been asked to limit my public comments until this investigation is complete. So I will only say that the stories you have read and heard contain inaccuracies and distortions, which I will clear up when I am free to speak about them.

    I deeply appreciate all your support over this last tumultuous week. It has sustained me. I ask now for your prayers. I look forward to resuming our excursion into broadcast excellence together.
    **************************************************

    Holy hot shit.


By dave. on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 12:46 pm:

    it's like hitler finding out he's a jew.

    i love how all the conservative talking heads suddenly got all tolerant and shit.

    i also noticed they're gonna try to go after the maid as if she was a pusher.

    this much is for sure, if he still has severe pain, as he stated, there's very little hope for a recovery any time soon. really though, it's no big deal. you can be a functioning addict no problem when your making ˝ a million a week.


By spunky on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 01:16 pm:

    My thoughts on this:

    It's a bad personal habit. It is illegal, but he is hurting no one but himself. And back pain is VERY hard to deal with.
    I could see getting hooked on these things.
    I came close to it with Vicadin and Furonal.

    And I do like the fact that he blamed no one but himself, and said he was weak. Because that is what it is, a weakness.

    Oh, and now I am chemically dependent.
    Eri finally drug my ass to the doctor, and now I am on Zoloft.


By spunky on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 01:16 pm:

    I blame you all for that, BTW.


By Hal on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 01:38 pm:

    Hitler was 1/2 jew.


By dave. on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 01:45 pm:


By dave. on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 01:46 pm:

    ok, then it's like everyone else finding out that hitler was ˝ jew.


By Rowlf on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 06:00 pm:

    I'm sorry for Rush. really.

    but I hope he learns something from this, and realizes that his public "play the victim" role is the kind of target he would normally go after.


By spunky on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 06:58 pm:

    "Well, I am no role model. I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes.

    They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem."


By Antigone on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 08:13 pm:

    He's not playing the victim on the pain pills. He will play the victim when anyone gives him any shit about it, though. You know, "the liberal media is beating up on me" line...


By TBone on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 09:29 pm:

    Makes him a bit of a hypocrite considering his public positions on drugs...
    .
    Back pain is really hard, yeah.
    .
    But becoming addicted to prescribed painkillers is very different from obtaining those drugs illegally to feed a habit.
    .
    He was careful to tell everyone that he's not playing the victim, and that he's not blaming anyone. We'll see if he sticks to that. Maybe he will. He's not really likely to see real punishment regardless.
    .
    Rocky year for his career though. He'll probably be put on Zoloft too.


By TBone on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 09:34 pm:

    By the way, do celebrities really emerge from treatment centers with "great fanfare"? Are they really seen as role models? Honestly, I haven't noticed.
    .
    I think that little part of his statement, along with the oh-so-humble refusal of the role-model title will assure him lots of "We're proud of you, Rush."


By V.v. on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 06:11 pm:

    My Hobbits are in re-hab,but back out in two weeks,{on parole}


By semillama on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 10:38 am:

    "Drug use destroys societies. 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."

    ok.


By dave. on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 11:23 am:

    yeah, but sem that was 1995. i mean, things change. hell, 9/11 changed all of that. all of it. everything's different. did you know that when those planes hit, specifically the south tower, every sub-atomic particle in the universe instantaneously reversed polarity and even more importantly, spin. but it happened in such a way that it didn't cause complete universal obliteration. no it was much more subtle. in fact, what it did was send a slow shockwave of irony spreading from the epicenter of ground zero out across the universe. now, we have things like homeland security, the patriot act, no child left behind, healthy forests, fair and balanced, rush limbaugh's a junky, etc. the list goes on and on. notice how bill clinton was the last man on earth who didn't get away with all kinds of messed up shit? yeah, it was scandalous when he did it, but now that the cat's out of the bag it's like, aww well hell, clinton did it. what the fuck, i'mo do it to! hell, because of clinton i can't even help myself anymore. i hate that bill clinton. i'm gonna go huff gas, waller in pig shit and run around naked in a school yard all because of that sonofabitch clinton and that goddam 9/11. see how it's all connected?


By Rowlf on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 12:43 pm:

    yeah, and clintons still taking shit for 9/11, when he fought terrorism much more than Bush Sr OR pre 9/11 Bush Jr. And W. gets credit for winning a war with Clintons "gutted" (HAHAHAHA) military.

    its a bizarro world.


By semillama on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 12:46 pm:

    Bizarro! Bizarro! I love you! Bizarro!


By Dougie on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 04:19 pm:

    The thing that pissed me off was the guy who's taking over RL's radio show was interviewed and just had to twist it back to Clinton by saying, "Well at least he didn't say that he didn't swallow [the pills]."


By Rowlf on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 04:27 pm:

    i'd love to put together some footage of O'Reilly and Hannity and Limbaugh calling protestors 'unamerican', 'unpatriotic', etc. for criticizing the presidents handling of a war.

    and then play some of their comments about Clintons handling of Kosovo.

    hypocrite assholes.


By dave. on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 01:06 am:


By spunky on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 11:09 am:

    Now let me say a few other things. Such as, maybe probably, Limbaugh would have been better off if he had been left alone with his pill problem. Whatever his problems, the intervention of the Palm Beach police is not going to make his life better. And so, too, for millions of other Americans: they have their own habits, having made their own lifestyle choices, some of which are legal, some not. They might need our sympathy, but they don't need our legal scrutiny. What they really need is their privacy, unvexed by fear of police and prison. Most Americans might not approve of what drug-users do with their lives, but if freedom means anything, it should mean the freedom to do their own thing, including the right to get high.

    Seriously. Remember, I am referring to users here, not pushers.


By Kramer on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 11:19 am:

    These pills are making me thirsty!


By J on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 01:01 pm:

    If we legalized drugs this country would be sooo much better,your cutting out all the middle men,you could tax it,bla bla bla.Look at the Netherlands and not to mention freeing up prison space for people who do real crimes.


By spunky on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 01:04 pm:

    i am coming around to your way of thinking on this issue.


By patrick on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 03:03 pm:

    wow spunk, are calling for selective enforcement of the law?


    shit man, you fold like a house of cards when you find out your bitch is no different than the rest of the populus muchless those he criticises.


By spunky on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 03:20 pm:

    I have said before that I was not opposed to making most drugs legal.
    You as usuall only read what you want to.


    You really need to look into Zoloft too, patrick.


By patrick on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 04:11 pm:

    zoloft is the last thing I need.

    too bad zoloft wont help your comprehension.

    im not talking about your philosophical stance on the legality drugs dipshit. im talking about your blunt and constant insistance on upholding the law.


    THE LAW SPUNK! THE LAW!


By semillama on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 04:21 pm:

    Another term for gray area is "cerebellum."


By spunky on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 04:34 pm:

    I can see where you are coming from.

    I wanted OJ to go jail for murder, but am willing to give rush a pass for breaking the law.

    I wanted Clinton to go to jail for grand jury perjury, you wanted him off.

    Depends on who's "bitch" is in the hot seat, am I right?


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 06:02 pm:

    I still think OJ is innocent.

    an asshole and a shitty human being.

    yet innocent.


By spunky on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 06:10 pm:

    that really tells me a lot about you.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 06:31 pm:

    no, that tells me a lot about how you didnt read the timeline of events of the night of the murder. Why dont you go and read it, come back here, reference it, and explain to me how OJ could have possibly done it.


By wisper on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 06:55 pm:

    i'm failing to see how being addicted to painkillers is illegal....?

    unless he's been stealing the painkillers?



By Nate on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 07:36 pm:

    or using them when they weren't prescribed to him.

    federal offense.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 08:32 pm:

    OUCH. didn't know that... they were prescribed to him before though, correct?


By V.v. on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 08:57 pm:

    I think im slowly turning into Elvis,i need pills to get to sleep,and pills to wake up.


By spunky on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 10:28 pm:

    Oh gzus, Rowlf. You will argue anything, wont you?


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 11:09 pm:

    no, this time I'm serious.

    the challenge has been set. using the timeline, try and prove OJ did it.


By Nate on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 03:57 am:

    just don't invalidate the chewbacca defense.


By LoneStranger on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 03:59 am:

    I bent my Wookiee.

    LS


By semillama on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 11:00 am:

    This just does not make sense.


By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 05:53 pm:

    if Chewbacca is from Endor you must acquit.


By Rowlf on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 09:04 pm:

    this is one of the funniest things I've ever read, particularly paragraph 5:




    "with half his brain tied behind his back"

    by Ann "The Dominatrix" Coulter


    SO LIBERALS have finally found a drug addict they don't like. And unlike the Lackawanna Six – those high-spirited young lads innocently seeking adventure in an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan – liberals could find no excuses for Rush Limbaugh.

    After years of the mainstream media assuring us that Rush was a has-been, a nobody, yesterday's news – the Rush painkiller story was front-page news last week. (Would anyone care if Howell Raines committed murder?) The airwaves and print media were on red alert with Rush's admission that, after an unsuccessful spinal operation a few years ago, he became addicted to powerful prescription painkillers

    Rush Limbaugh's misfortune is apparently a bigger story than his nearly $300 million radio contract signed two years ago. That was the biggest radio contract in broadcasting history. Yet there are only 12 documents on LexisNexis that reported it. The New York Times didn't take notice of Rush's $300 million radio contract, but a few weeks later, put Bill Clinton's comparatively measly $10 million book contract on its front page. Meanwhile, in the past week alone, LexisNexis has accumulated more than 50 documents with the words "Rush Limbaugh and hypocrisy." That should make up for the 12 documents on his $300 million radio contract.

    The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.

    At least Rush wasn't walking into church carrying a 10-pound Bible before rushing back to the Oval Office for sodomy with Monica Lewinsky. He wasn't enforcing absurd sexual harassment guidelines while dropping his pants in front of a half-dozen subordinates. (Evidently, Clinton wasn't a hypocrite because no one was supposed to take seriously the notion that he respected women or believed in God.)

    Rush has hardly been the anti-drug crusader liberals suggest. Indeed, Rush hasn't had much to say about drugs at all since that spinal operation. The Rush Limbaugh quote that has been endlessly recited in the last week to prove Rush's rank "hypocrisy" is this, made eight years ago: "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... 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."

    What precisely are liberals proposing that Rush should have said to avoid their indignant squeals of "hypocrisy"? Announce his support for the wide and legal availability of a prescription painkiller that may have caused him to go deaf and nearly ruined his career and wrecked his life? I believe that would have been both evil and hypocritical.

    Or is it simply that Rush should not have become addicted to painkillers in the first place? Well, no, I suppose not. You've caught us: Rush has a flaw. And yet, the wily hypocrite does not support flaws!

    When a conservative can be the biggest thing in talk radio, earning $30 million a year and attracting 20 million devoted listeners every week – all while addicted to drugs – I'll admit liberals have reason to believe that conservatives are some sort of super-race, incorruptible by original sin. But the only perfect man hasn't walked the Earth for 2,000 years. In liberals' worldview, any conservative who is not Jesus Christ is ipso facto a "hypocrite" for not publicly embracing dissolute behavior the way liberals do.

    In fact, Rush's behavior was not all that dissolute. There is a fundamental difference between taking any drug – legal, illegal, prescription, protected by the 21st Amendment or banned by Michael Bloomberg – for kicks and taking a painkiller for pain.

    There is a difference morally and a difference legally. While slamming Rush, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz recently told Wolf Blitzer, "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted, whereas people who illegally buy cocaine and heroin are prosecuted." What would the point be? Just say no to back surgery?

    I haven't checked with any Harvard Law professors, but I'm pretty sure that, generally, adulterous drunks who drive off bridges and kill girls are prosecuted. Ah, but Teddy Kennedy supports adultery and public drunkenness – so at least you can't call him a hypocrite! That must provide great consolation to Mary Jo Kopechne's parents.

    I have a rule about not feeling sorry for people worth $300 million, but I'm feeling sentimental. Evan Thomas wrote a cover story on Rush for Newsweek this week that was so vicious it read like conservative satire. Thomas called Rush a "schlub," "socially ill at ease," an Elmer Gantry, an actor whose "act has won over, or fooled, a lot of people." He compared Rush to the phony TV evangelist Jim Bakker and recommended that Rush start to "make a virtue out of honesty." (Liberals can lie under oath in legal proceedings and it's a "personal matter." Conservatives must scream their every failing from the rooftops or they are "liars.")

    As is standard procedure for profiles of conservatives, Newsweek gathered quotes on Rush from liberals, ex-wives and dumped dates. Covering himself, Thomas ruefully remarked that "it's hard to find many people who really know him." Well, there was me, Evan! But I guess Newsweek didn't have room for the quotes I promptly sent back to the Newsweek researchers. I could have even corrected Newsweek's absurd account of how Rush met his current wife. (It's kind of cute, too: She was a fan who began arguing with him about something he said on air.)

    Thomas also made the astute observation that "Rush Limbaugh has always had far more followers than friends." Needless to say, this floored those of us who were shocked to discover that Rush does not have 20 million friends.

    So the guy I really feel sorry for is Evan Thomas. How would little Evan fare in any competitive media? Any followers? Any fans? Any readers at all? And he's not even addicted to painkillers! This week, Rush proved his motto: He really can beat liberals with half his brain tied behind his back


By Rowlf on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 09:07 pm:

    P.S.

    someone keep an eye on this link for me:
    http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-ann.php

    Coulter was supposed to start up this blog where people can respond to her ideas of the day...

    and theres nothing there yet... why?

    because she wrote a check her mouth cant cash. you know how bloggers are, how they respond, and how they ahem... fact check.

    shes scared shitless.


By dave. on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:56 pm:

    (Liberals can lie under oath in legal proceedings and it's a "personal matter." Conservatives must scream their every failing from the rooftops or they are "liars.")

    yeah, well liberals don't make it such a fucking big deal in the first place. it also depends on what the lie is all about. but when a guy who beats the hell out of you day after day with the conservative values/morality stick turns out to be a hypocritical junky, what the fuck do you expect? respect and compassion?

    reap what'cha sow, beeyotches.


By Rowlf on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 09:30 am:

    now now dave

    you are forgetting about Clintons 1991 book "Blowjobs: If you have one you should be impeached"


By semillama on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 10:53 am:

    Note how anytime a right winger is critized, Bill Clinton is always brought up. What would they do without him and Ted Kennedy? Really, pick on Carter? Bitch about Dave Bonior and Carl Levin?

    In related news, I guess Rush complained about the Democratic Underground site but said of course (Don't go there) to counter claims of instigating a denial of service attack. Anyway, they got tons of hate mail and they posted the most hilarious ones in their hate mail bag. Pretty funny stuff. I especially like the responses to the ones at the bottom of the bag. And they do point out how you can tell what Rush said without listening to him by looking at the common words used in the dittoheads' emails.

    (and yes, I know that DU is a totally biased and partisan site. That's the point and they don't pretend otherwise)


By patrick on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 12:51 pm:

    can you imagine living with that woman? is Coulter married?


By Antigone on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 01:19 pm:

    Funny that Rush could have such a painful back condition while still playing so much golf...


By Antigone on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 01:21 pm:

    Just for fun, here's the first few lines:

    Q. How did your game go today?

    RUSH LIMBAUGH: Well, this is the third day I've played this week, and it was -- this is nothing to write home about. Last four holes, maybe, I played like I'm capable of. But I was doing things today that I haven't done in two years, topping drives and a number of other things.

    But it's good to get a round like this out of the system when it doesn't count. Makes the amateur partners feel really good. So it all turned out for the best.

    I mean, my attitude is, I'm just grateful to be here. I'm not a golfer. Thank God I don't make my living at it, and I feel very lucky, very privileged just to be able to participate in something like this.

    Q. What was the big bother, was it the number of people watching you?

    RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know, I've played the Bob Hope three times and the AT&T twice. It wasn't bad. It's just the game is mental. Once you've mastered the physical aspect, not mastered, but 90 percent of the game, all of the other things being equal is mental, and for some reason, I just was not able to execute my swing today.

    And I think it had nothing to do with physical characteristics. There's nothing wrong with me...


By spunky on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 02:35 pm:

    ummmmmmmm

    that's why he was taking oxycottem

    he said that.

    for back pain.

    regardless of what you read in the press, you do not get high off oxycottem.
    once you get hooked on it, and you try to quit, you feel every ache and pain 100% more then before.


By Rowlf on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 02:41 pm:

    which is exactly why I make sure to get some oxycottem samples when I'm at the Price Club.


By kazu on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 02:43 pm:

    What the hell is oxycottem?

    Is it like Oxycodan or Oxycocet? Both of these are narcotic analgesic mixes so it seems probable that you get a similar reaction that you'd get from demoral or percocet, however, I have no idea how the aspirin or acetaminophen in these drugs would counteract the "high" from its narcotic properties.


By kazu on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 02:47 pm:

    or OxyContin, which is also a narcotic.

    or oxycodone...also a narcotic?

    all of these have narcotic properties which lead me to think that they have the potential of triggering a "high" of some kind.


By spunky on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 02:58 pm:


By patrick on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 03:00 pm:

    OxyContin is up there with demoral or morphine. its a step above percocets.


    OxyContin was the beaver's gift to me once.

    that shit was beautiful. you do get high spunk. you dont know what you're talking about.

    though once you establish your addiction to OxyContin, which is in essence synthetic heroin, you do stop getting 'high' and it becomes a struggle with just getting 'normal' again. maybe thats what you meant. but you do get high as a mother in the beginning. thats what keeps you coming back.

    i don't blame anyone for getting hooked on that stuff.


By kazu on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 03:00 pm:

    from that site:

    "Once oxycodone enters the body, it works by stimulating certain opioid receptors that are located throughout the central nervous system, in the brain and along the spinal cord. When the oxycodone binds to the opioid receptors, a variety of physiologic responses can occur, ranging from pain relief to slowed breathing to euphoria. "


    euphoria's not a high?


    mmmmmmmmmkay


By semillama on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 03:02 pm:

    What is OxyContin?
    OxyContin is the trade name for the drug oxycodone hydrochloride. It is an opiate agonist, which means that it provides pain relief by acting upon the opioid receptors in the brain. Opioids are the most powerful pain relievers available. OxyContin is made by modifying an alkaloid found in opium. OxyContin is usually prescribed for pain relief associated with injuries, bursitis, dislocations, fractures, arthritis, and back pain.

    OxyContin is a central nervous system depressor. It works by stimulating the opioid receptors that in turn cause feelings of pain relief and euphoria in the user. Using the drug repeatedly will lead to development of a tolerance/resistance to it.

    OxyContin is taken orally, in tablet form. It is a controlled-release drug that works over the course of 12 hours. Side effects of OxyContin include drowsiness, constipation, blurred vision, and slowed mental ability. It is available in 10mg., 20mg., 40mg., 80mg., and 160mg. tablets.

    source


By 8 on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 03:02 pm:

    oxycotton. you put zit cream on cotton balls in paper bags and huff.

    as someone who has recreationally abused oxycodone (which is the active in OxyContin and vicodin, etc.,) there is definitely an associated "high".

    a 750mg viking (7.5mg oxycodone) a night for three nights gave me some pretty uncomfortable withdrawl affects on the fourth night. severe headache and sweats and insomnia. miserable.


By J on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 03:02 pm:

    It's probably what killed him.Sniff


By patrick on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 03:04 pm:

    mmmmmmmmm vikeys


By semillama on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 03:08 pm:

    You can't separate Rush from the "real" drug addicts he has criticized in the past. Why didn't he go to a docotr or a clinic to trat his addiction instead of obtaining the drug illegally?

    Hey, I guess this means Rush supports terrorism! At least, that's what the TV tells me to think!!!


By spunky on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 01:29 pm:

    If you try to draw a moral parallel between a person who became addicted to pain medication as a result of medically prescribed treatment and a person who decided to use crack cocaine for no other reason than to get high, you are beyond intellectually dishonest. The left typically shows more compassion for a mass murderer who lost his latest appeal than they are showing for Rush Limbaugh.


By Rowlf on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 03:42 pm:

    why would or should 'the typical left' show compassion for Limbaugh, who makes it his career to tell everyone how horrible they are?



    "who decided to use crack cocaine for no other reason than to get high"


    oh yes, of course getting high is the only reason anyone else besides Rush does drugs. Nope, those people dont have an awful life or pain of their own that they're escaping via the most cheap high they can find. yep, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM just wants to get high. its play time! yip yip yippee!


By Rowlf on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 03:44 pm:

    OUTSIDE THE BOX CHALLENGE

    Spunk, find a crackhead somewhere, anywhere, and ask him why he gets high. Your report is due Wednesday.


By kazu on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 03:56 pm:

    I don't hold any idealistic notions about the left, but I hate when the right continuously paints the left's desire to examine the social conditions under which people operate as a means of excusing individuals for their actions rather than to assert the need to change social conditions in an attempt to deal with social problems in a more pro-active manner. Or that the social programs that the left has in mind are mere handouts to the addicts who will just continue to fry their brains and not a way to expand the options for people living under dire circumstances.


By spunky on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 04:43 pm:

    "Spunk, find a crackhead somewhere, anywhere, and ask him why he gets high. Your report is due Wednesday."

    I have known plenty of crack heads.
    There is no other reason, other then to get high.
    Anything else is just an excuse to make it "ok".


By Lapis on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 05:57 pm:

    Escape? Overcoming a different addiction? Peer pressure?


By 8 on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 06:48 pm:

    my buddy hit his brother in the head with a garden hoe.


By Rowlf on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 07:28 pm:

    so because you can't get into another persons head or relate, it must be the only reason.

    "There is no other reason, other then to get high"

    hmmm...reasons people get high...

    depression over: loss of a loved one, job, loss of faith... pain, both physical and mental..



    are you really telling me we are saying it is OK, or justifying their actions?

    fuck off spunk, we're trying to figure out why it started. fixing the social problems will do more good then cutting off their supply. They're not criminals, they're SICK.


By moonit on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 01:31 am:

    I used to get high so I could sleep at night. Every night actually, after Darcy died. If I went to bed sober, straight, on my own, I would lie there. Unable to close my eyes, because I could see his face. Unable to stop the tears.

    Drugs took away that pain for me. Which I admit is not healthy, but I wasn't doing it for fun. I was doing it to sleep.


By Rowlf on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 02:16 am:

    thats now a friend of mine cured his insomnia as well...


By semillama on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 10:43 am:

    Isn't that how Spunky cured his insomnia as well? Or was it just to get high?


    "Intellectually Dishonest" MY ASS.


By semillama on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 10:57 am:

    Furthermore, apparently Rush was doing it for reasons other than to get high, while all crackheads do it to get high, according to spunky. Thanks, psychic friend network!


By Bill Hicks on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 12:03 pm:

    I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something, honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth- I had a great time doing drugs.

    Sorry.

    Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day.

    Sorry.

    Now, where's my commercial? Why don't I get a commercial? Why is it always that other guy that gets the commercial? "I lost my job, then my car, then my house, then my kids. Don't do drugs."

    Well, I'm definitely not doing them with you, fuck!

    Man, you're bumming me out, get him out of here! Who invited Mr. Doom over, get that guy out of here! That guy by the dip, he's bumming everyone out! He hasn't stopped talking, I wish he'd lose his fucking voice!

    I mean, I've lost my car before, okay. Found it the next day, you know, no biggie. I don't think that warranted a commercial. "I lost my car and uh... oh, there it is by that dumpster! Forget it! See you tomorrow! Honk, honk!" You know, I've lost stuff, I'm not saying that. I knew we were in trouble with that damn egg commercial, that guy. I knew that was the government's take on drugs, we're fucked, you know. "Here's your brain."

    I've seen a lot of weird shit on drugs, I have never ever ever ever ever looked at an egg and thought it was a fucking brain, not once, all right? I have seen UFO's split the sky like a sheet, but I have never ever ever looked at an egg and thought it was a fucking brain, not once. I have had seven balls of light come off of a UFO, lead me onto their ship, explain to me telepathically that we are all one and there is no such thing as death, but I have never ever ever ever ever looked at an egg, and thought it was a fucking brain. Now. Maybe I wasn't getting good shit. I admit it, I see that commercial, I feel cheated. Hey, where's the stuff that makes eggs look like brains? That sounds neat. Did I quit too soon? What is that, CIA stash? You see the guy in that commercial, that guy's got a beer gut- "All right, this is it. Look up, man. This is your brain. I ain't doing this again. That's your - " The guy's drunk and doing this fucking commercial. "Here's your brain." That's an egg! That's a frying pan, that's a stove, you're an alcoholic, dude, I'm tripping right now, and I still see that is a fucking egg, all right?

    I see the UFO's around it, but that is a goddamn egg in the middle. There's a hobbit eating it, but, goddamn it, that hobbit is eating a fucking egg. He's on a unicorn, but that dam-up-nup-oh-hop, that's a fucking egg, yeah. How dare you have a wino tell me not to do drugs.

    Why did I quit?

    Because after you've been taken aboard a UFO, it's kind of hard to top that, all right. They have Alcoholics Anonymous, they don't have Alien Anonymous. I tell you what, though, going to AA meetings, which I have to do, but going there and hearing people talking about their fucking booze stories, you know.

    "You know, I love the taste of gin, it's so good, tastes-"

    Fuck you, I've been on a UFO, fuck off! I went drinking with aliens, you fucker, shut up!

    "I lost my wife-"

    I lost an alien culture who wanted to take me to the planet Arcturus, fuck you! I mean, I don't know if I've got the resentment, you know, forgiveness part down in the book, but... "One day at a time . . ." I just cannot, you know, believe in a war against drugs when they've got anti-drug commercials on TV all day long, followed by, "This Bud's for you." I got news for you, folks. A-1, alcohol is a drug, and B-2, and here's the real one, alcohol kills more people than crack, coke and heroin ... combined each year.

    So, thanks for inviting me to your little alcoholic/drug den here tonight. You fine, upstanding citizens, you, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Now. You know what, if I was going to have a drug be legal, it would not be alcohol, you know why? There's better drugs and better drugs for you. That's a fact, so you can stop your internal dialogue. Wait a minute, Bill, alcohol is an accepted form of social interaction which for thousands of years has been the norm under which human beings have congregated in the form of social events and... Shut the fuck up. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Pot is a better drug than alcohol - fact, and I'll prove it. You're at a ballgame, you're at a concert, someone's really violent, aggressive and obnoxious, are they drunk or are they smoking pot?

    Drunk!

    The one and only correct answer, tell them what they've won, Johnny. I have never seen people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking impossible! Hey, buddy. Hey, what? End of argument. Say you get in a car accident, and you've been smoking pot. You're only going four miles an hour. Vroom... CRASH. Shit, we hit something. Forgot to open the garage door, man. We got to get the garage door open so Domino's knows we're home! But I'll tell you the truth, I have never heard one reason that rang true why marijuana is against the law. That rang true, now, I'm not talking about the reasons the government tells us, because I hope you know this, I think you do, all governments are lying cocksuckers. I hope you know that. Good. I mean, marijuana grows everywhere, it serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive, to make marijuana against the law is like saying God made a mistake, you know what I mean? It's like God, on the seventh day, looked down on his creation and said, "There it is. My creation. Perfect and holy in all ways. Now, I can rest... Oh my me. I left fucking pot everywhere. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. Shit. If I leave pot everywhere, that's gonna give people the impression they're supposed to use it. Shit. Now I have to create Republicans." So, you see, it's a vicious cycle. And I'm not promoting the use of drugs, believe me, I'm not. I've had bad times on drugs, I mean, just look at this haircut. Fuck. Tell you, I live in New York now, man, tell you, man, the war on drugs has taken a real cease fire there, it's, I mean, it's incredible. They sell drugs out loud on the street. "Heroin, heroin! Heroin, heroin!" "Coke, coke! Smoke, smoke!" "Heroin, heroin!" Those guys bug the shit out of me. I'm walking down the street one day, this guy's walking ahead of me, passes one of those dealers, he looks at him, he goes, "Heroin, heroin, heroin!" I pass him, he goes, "Glue!" I can afford heroin, you fucker. I'm doing laundry right now. Soon as my shirt's out of the cleaners, I'm coming back and buying some of that shit from you! I mean, he embarrassed me to death, I was mortified. Glue. Fucker. Where's a bank machine?

    C'mere! C'mere, Mr. Dealer, c'mere! I'm gonna show you my balance! Then I'm gonna buy heroin from that little kid across the street! Fuck you! New York's a rather tense town. See, I think drugs have done some good things for us, I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor, go home tonight and take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CD's and burn them. Because, you know what, the musicians who made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years... rrrrrrrreal fucking high on drugs. Man, the Beatles were so high, they let Ringo sing a couple of tunes. Tell me they weren't partying. (singing) "We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine." We all live in a-do you know how fucking high they were when they wrote that? They had to pull Ringo off the ceiling with a rake to sing that fucking song. (Beatle voices) John, get Ringo, he's in the corner. Ooh, look at him scoot, grab him! Hook his bellbottom, hook his bellbottom! He's got a song he wants to sing us. Something about living in a yellow tambourine or something. Ringo, Yoko's gone, come down, we can party again! They were real high, they wrote great music, drugs did have a positive effect.


By kazu on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 12:07 pm:

    That was beautiful.


By Bill HIcks on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 12:08 pm:

    I'm Bill Hicks

    and I'm dead now


By semillama on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 12:45 pm:

    I now have a Holy Mission.



    I have never heard anything by Bill Hicks except for an excerpt from the above rant ("....rrrrrrrreally fuckin high") in a song that I can't remember what it is now.

    But references to Hicks have been popping up everywhere I turn lately.

    So now I must go and get some.


    Suggestions?


By Skooter on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 01:01 pm:

    That song is on TOOL's "Anemia", but I don't know the name of it. Hicks is also the doctor operating on Maynard in the albums inside art.


By Rowlf on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 01:01 pm:

    the song you're thinking of is "Third Eye" by Tool



    recommendations, in order

    1. Rant in E Minor
    2. Relentless
    3. Arizona Bay (which i believe above rant is from)
    4. Dangerous
    5. Flying Saucer Tour Vol 1 Pittsburgh
    6. Lovelaughterandtruth

    or you could just get
    "philosophy: the best of bill hicks"... which is the best of compilation of recommendations 1-4


    Bill Hicks' releases are available in most stores, crammed between horrible Joe Avati and Ray Romano CDs


By Rowlf on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 01:05 pm:


By Bill Hicks on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 01:10 pm:

    back on topic.

    Doesn't Rush Limbaugh remind you of one of those gay guys who likes to lay in a tub while other men pee on him?

    Can't you see his fat body in a tub while Reagan, Quayle, and Bush just stand around pissing on him?

    And his little piggly-wiggly dick can't get hard.

    "Unh.. Unh, I can't get hard, Reagan, pee in my mouth!"
    "Well, how's that, Rush?"

    Still can't get hard, so they call in Barbara Bush. She takes her pearls off, puts 'em up his ass, then squats over him, undoes her girdle; her wrinkled, flaccid labia unfolds halfway down to her knees, like some balless scrotum.
    "Unh! Unh! Unh!"
    She squeezes out a link into his mouth, and finally his dick gets half hard.
    "Oooohhh!!"
    A little clear bubble forms on the end with a maggot inside. The maggot pops the bubble and runs off and joins a Pro-Life group somewhere. Am I the only one that sees that? Thank God I'm not alone.


By semillama on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 01:12 pm:

    I just found a new personal saviour.


By patrick on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 02:07 pm:

    "but I hate when the right continuously paints the left's desire to examine the social conditions under which people operate as a means of excusing individuals for their actions rather than to assert the need to change social conditions in an attempt to deal with social problems in a more pro-active manner"


    here here.


    spunk.


    you're extremely limited and clueless when it comes to drugs.

    i've done crack. i've hung with crack heads. you have no fucking idea. ok? can you just accept that? you can't generalize that crack heads or other despondant, disconnected drug addicts whether they are 'crackheads' (lets face it, your use of this word conjurs up some stereotypical characature of an indidual doesnt it?) or blue collar meth heads or white collar coke or heroin junkies as they do what they do to just get high.

    you can't say that. it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. I know its easy for you to put things in the us vs. them manner, but its not about that.


By spunky on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 02:52 pm:

    I have seen plenty of junkies.
    marijuanna and crack and speed.

    I know users.

    How on earth do any of you know what the users I know are like?

    I do not assume they represent all users.
    There are "functional addicts" and then there are "crackheads". I personally know 2 crack heads and a crack whore. And I know a functional addict.

    I am referring to the crackhead and crackwhore, and I will use those terms wether they offend you or not, because in my estimation, that is exactly what these users are.

    And kid yourself all you want, i don't have much respect for pot smokers either.
    Equate yourself to a tobacco smoker all you want, or a tylenol PM user, but there is a difference between you and me. Mine is not illegal. I don't have to look over my shoulder when I buy it. Aside from being a dumbass and burning myself with a cig butt, I wont cause any accidents because of them either.

    And do not even bother giving me the BS that pot is harmless. I have seen first hand the damage that shit does.


By patrick on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 03:12 pm:

    ok zoloft boy.












    TUSSIN TIME!!!


By spunky on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 03:31 pm:

    i have not used tylenol pm in months.

    i am not calling anyone a pot head, crack head or crack whore that is one this board, you all appear to be functional addicts, and that is fine.
    You contribute. Your goal is not your next fix.


By semillama on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 03:33 pm:

    Why even argue anymore, Patrick? he's already stated elsewhere that his worldview is set and there's no room for growth.

    Although the "legal/illegal" dichotomy is pretty weak and a total cop-out.


By semillama on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 03:34 pm:

    And once again he ignored the most salient post on this thread which Patrick acknowledged.


By patrick on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 04:33 pm:

    awww, more selective enforcement and straw people demons for the spunkster.

    you're so completely inconsistant spunk its retAWded

    hey spunk, if you're at all interested in a really god movie and some fresh perspective on drugs, since you've found something to replace the Tussin, go rent 'Requiem for Dream' and comeback with your double standards and discuss.

    Its not so black and white and red all over which is how you paint it, which is kinda sad cause now its getting to your heroes too.




By TBone on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 04:45 pm:

    I'd much sooner start smoking pot than start drinking.
    I've seen first hand how much damage that stuff can do.


By Nate on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 04:52 pm:

    i smoke pot but don't drink.

    i'm not a pot addict. i smoke once or twice a week.

    pot isn't harmless, but it is a lot less harmful than drinking, tylenol pm or zoloft.

    take running, for instance. you can get high from running. you can get addicted to running. running has benefits, and running can also damage your body in serious ways.

    but most of all, if you're a hot chick, running can cause automobile accidents.


By patrick on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 05:02 pm:

    spunk, if you get this within the hour of my posting, you need to log on and listen to a very relavent show hosted by an aquaintance of mine

    kcrw.org

    click on simulcast in the top left.

    Warren olney is one of the most objective radio discussion, current events hosts ive ever heard.


By Skooter on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 05:21 pm:

    Oh god. Whenever I think I've got these boards figured out...someone comes along and says something that blows my mind. Like that post by Spunk (what an appropriate name)...about how tobacco smoking is safer than pot. And how pot heads are junkies.
    "Hey man....you got a joint? I'll suck your dick man!"
    "Hey man...you got some reefer...I'll lick your asshole brother, I'll sell you my child!"
    How many people does tobacco kill every day via heart attack, cancer, stroke?
    How many people does pot kill a day via an insane case of the munchies? "He just ate a bunch of cheetos! Then his stomach blew up!"
    Right wing, conservative sheep will be sheared and then led to the slaughter.
    Oh in simple Sorabji speak..."Fuck you, you ass."


By Spider on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 05:35 pm:

    One danger of pot is that it makes my brother talkative, friendly and interested in my life. Here I thought he was finally making an effort to get to know me...turns out he was just high. :(


By semillama on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 06:18 pm:

    Maybe the effects of the pot let him lower his inhibitions enough to make the step to talk to you.

    A lot of stuff that seems like a huge social barrier tends to not seem so huge on that stuff.

    I know it helped me come out of my shell in college. It also helped REALLY enjoy some bass-heavy music then, too.

    Nowadays, Keith Green just makes me a littly giggly and eventually sleepy. So I don't use it that much.

    THC is like many other chemicals, it has it's uses and it can be abused. But you can't make blanket statements about it.


By TBone on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 06:47 pm:

    Blankets generally don't have much THC. But sometimes TLC.
    .
    I came dangerously close to getting some work done today.
    I'm not out of the woods yet.
    .
    Just can't chake this fuggin cough.
    .
    Tussin.


By spunky on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 07:21 pm:

    pot took my uncle from a good job with a pharmecutical company with a house and new car to a job cutting steel and living on his mom's land in a 50 year old travel trailer.

    pot took my other uncle from a OTR job to fired and stabbing trees because they were spying on him.

    excessive pot ussage produced a permentaly retarded and handicapped son for my aunt.

    pot took my brother from a full ride schollership to working in the electronics dept at wal-mart.

    pot took my cousin from an exec job at a consulting firm to welding at the local steel mill.


    My grandfather never smoked a cig in his life and died with lung cancer.
    My uncle (yes, I have a LOT) has smoked since he was twelve and is in perfect health.


By patrick on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 07:36 pm:

    noticed he states "pot took.."

    for a man so insistant on personal accountability you sure do blame pot for screwing people's lives.





By patrick on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 07:42 pm:

    lung cancer doesnt only effect cigarette smokers so that example is irrelavent.

    also in terms of mental health, pot can exploit prexisting conditions that could have been latent. Pot use alone is not likely to make someone crazy.

    otherwise your examples demonstrate you have many family members who exhibit poor poor decision making skillz and potentially severe ignorance (pot smoking while pregnant for one)

    so, your two uncles, cousin and brother...they what, tested positive and subsquently lost their jobs?

    how exactly did "pot take" these people?


By kazu on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 07:43 pm:

    yeah, blame the pot. I thought you were all about individual responsibility.

    Everything you have said about pot you can say about alcohol. Anything can be bad for you Spunk, if done in excess.

    I've been smoking pot for over 10 years. Since then I have gotten two free rides for my graduate education and haven't gotten anything lower than an A- in any course I have taken.

    on more than one occasion pot has served as a healthy way of recovering from insomia...in small doses...I don't become dependent on it.

    I still smoke pot. Most of my friends here smoke pot. All of my friends who smoked pot with me in the past are moving up in their respective professions or at least holding their own.

    I've never done crack. I've put all kinds of other fun and exciting things into my bod. I loved every minute of it. Except of course the time I took too much lorazepam. Now that was a waste of an overdose...no high.

    My brother is a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. he said giving up heroin was easier than cigarettes.

    My grandfather died of emphysemia, smoked excessively all his life. I don't believe that pot smoke is less harmful because any kind of smoke taken into your lungs is bad. I think on average people tend to smoke more cigs on average than they do pot. Hasn't I don't know how the toxin content differsit been proven that weed does produce the same kind of physical dependencies that other drugs do.




    Shit. Now I want some pot.


By kazu on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 07:43 pm:

    "Hasn't I don't know how the toxin content differsit"

    jeebus lady, get some sleep


By heather on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 07:49 pm:

    the difference with cig. smoke is all the other
    shit that's in there that you don't include with
    pot


By TBone on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 07:54 pm:

    <twangy voice> Don't shoot marijuana.</twangy voice>


By patrick on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 08:01 pm:

    im like sem. i dont have the capacity to smoke what i used to smoke.

    it blows me away when I think about puffing an 8th (of CA weed mind you) in a couple of days. or when i was back east, polishing off a quarter bag in a night, an ounce in a weekend.

    (for the uninitiated, CA weed just doesnt compare to much of the shit elsewhere. you can't even find the ditch weed here, just the top-shelf expensive shit)

    now, a joint will take me and nico one or two sittings to finish. a few puffs and some wine we're both toast.

    i've noticed the hangovers are more punishing too.
    and its always when you get your buzz on, say on a Fri. night, the shorty is sleeping, we have friends over, sitting outback under the stars with candles, listening to music and the idea of a puff of weed would be a "fanfuckintastic idea", then you get more stoned than you plan too and pay for it the next day.


By kazu on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 08:08 pm:

    speaking of weed, should I get pizza for dinner? I'm kind of craving some from savage pizza but I don't know for sure.


By patrick on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 08:20 pm:

    if you are near the star bar in L5P are you not a Fellini's junky by now?

    nothing better than a sloppy, floppy slice of cheese and a pitcher of beer served up by a dude with more holes than Bonnie & clyde.


By kazu on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 08:26 pm:

    I don't like Fellini's that much. I'm going get a white on red from savage pizza.


By Nate on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 08:35 pm:

    pot took me from being a highly successful software engineer to a lazy, unemployed fuck.

    pot took me from being engaged to a beautiful woman to being a masturbating fool. twice.

    pot took me from a sporty red car to a beige pickup with a camper shell.

    pot took me from porterhouse steaks to PB&J.

    pot took me from stalin to mccarthy to stalin again.

    high. my name is high. my name is high. my name is high.

    my
    name
    is
    high

    my name ishighmynameishigh my nameishigh.


By patrick on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 08:39 pm:

    didnt pot help put you through school too?


By Rowlf on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 09:00 pm:

    spunk, until i was 20 i thought very similarly to you.

    then I smoked pot.

    Only a few times. Ever.



    once that happens, you figure out very very quickly everything ever told to you was a lie.

    have you ever smoked pot, even once?


By Rowlf on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 09:04 pm:

    "pot took my uncle from a good job with a pharmecutical company with a house and new car to a job cutting steel and living on his mom's land in a 50 year old travel trailer. "

    of course spunk would never ever think that drug use is just a symptom of some larger problem.

    did you ever ask these people what happened to make them want to start doing drugs?


By heather on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 09:13 pm:

    chronic pot smoking is self-medication

    like all self-imposed chronic things

    maybe they [the relatives and victims of pot]
    just fell apart

    or maybe they just weren't happy with all those
    "wonderful things". i would say it's pretty clear
    they weren't.


    you never mentioned if they were happy.
    before or after.




    i just ate and i wasn't hungry. just cause i'd
    planned to eat. that annoys me.


By kazu on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 09:15 pm:

    I think most people start using drugs recreationally. But addiction/abuse often represents a range of issues that goes beyond fun and good times.

    They always told us that if you do heroin once you are immediately hooked, like you go one day from being a sweet catholic girl to being a strung out puffy faced emaciated skeleton overnight. It's true that the intense high often brings people back right away and heroin immediately starts working on your body in a particular way, but still becoming a junky takes a while. And generally, it doesn't attract psychologically stable people.


    Burroughes was borned on the same birfday as me.


By Skooter on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 09:38 pm:

    Okay. I admit it. Sometimes I have a tendency to blow up here. I am such a quiet person that I jsut overflow sometimes when I read something that really bugs me.
    Pot has helped me learn how to play drums.
    Pot has taught me about P-Funk and the Mothership
    Pot has increased my sexual pleasure with my mate, who also likes pot.
    It never makes me sick.
    I have never stolen someone's money for weed.
    I have never had sex with someone for weed.
    Pot makes me laugh and helps me with my manic depression, which sometimes makes me grind my teeth.
    Pot has taught me to love chocolate fudge brownies.
    All the good songs were written on Pot.
    If Bob Marley approved of it as "the healing of the nation," then who am I to argue with that?
    I was going to list some more things...but I'm stoned right now and I can't remember what I was gonna write.
    I am from a family with very high stages of mental illness. So far I've been able to maintain a job, a marriage and a full and healthy life.....(and I smoke pot.)


By Rowlf on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 09:40 pm:

    "And generally, it doesn't attract psychologically stable people"

    but there is the X factor:

    access


    so many do just because they can. not even because they want to. if its there, then why not?

    if it werent for art school, i could have gone years longer, who knows how long, without trying pot.


By Rowlf on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 09:44 pm:

    "All the good songs were written on Pot"

    well thats not true, but...


    anyway...

    whenever I'm at the mall and I walk past the Mrs. Vanelli's pizza, i remember the day after the first time I ever smoked a joint.

    I had a meat lovers slice and a caesar salad... and because of the leftover dope running through my system, that Caesar salad was, and still is to this day, THE BEST FUCKING MEAL I'VE EVER HAD IN MY LIFE.

    More than any spinning stucco wall or giggling (the giggling is awesome), I miss the food.


By eri on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 10:16 pm:

    "have you ever smoked pot, even once?"

    Forgive me for finding this funny. Yes, Spunky has tried it. Didn't like it. Never did it again.

    I have smoked pot before, on more than one occasion. It has been a damned long time, and sometimes I will crack jokes about wanting some, but I never do. I just don't care about it all anymore.

    I have seen lots of people start with pot and get much worse. I have seen habitual pot smokers do just fine. I think it depends on the person myself.

    My cousin K smokes pot daily and is doing just fine. Job is fine, home is fine, now dating again (after losing fiancee in horrible accident on new years).

    My aunt M is another story. Married to a loser who keeps supplying her, getting into all kinds of legal trouble, health problems she is only making worse by continuing this shit, and she has expanded well beyond just pot, but pot is always her fallback when all else fails. She works, and functions and pays the bills, but has one miserable fucking life, because she made the pot such a huge priority and continues to make bad decisions in her life to keep the pot near. The booz, the coke, whatever.

    I guess some people can handle it, some can't and then some don't give a fuck either way.


By Nate on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 11:01 pm:

    "I guess some people can handle it, some can't and then some don't give a fuck either way. "

    hey, kind of like life.


By eri on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 11:51 pm:

    Yeah, I guess so. I just never looked at it like that.


By Nate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:12 am:

    don't dwell on it. it gets scary.

    "I am told God lives in me -- and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."
    -mother theresa


By dave. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:38 am:

    yay GOD!!

    see, if i said that, people'd be all "dude, what's your problem? get help."


By dave. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:40 am:

    actually, most people would wish i simply went away. indeed, most people do.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:46 am:

    Mother Theresa was evil.

    sadistic hypocrite slave-driving betrayer of the dying


By Nate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:14 am:

    back that up, rowlf.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:24 am:

    heres my quick and dirty link, to save me some typing:

    http://www.sarahlawrence.org/Articles/MotherTeresa.html

    in her defense though, I could also say Abraham Lincoln and other important historical figures were bad people. whatever. take it with a grain of salt, and decide for yourself.


By dave. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 03:02 am:

    sarah lawrence is a haven for insanity.


By Nate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 03:50 am:

    there sure is a lot of mention of what is "morally right" for a libertarian website.


    and she has ann coulter crappy hair.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 09:33 am:

    granted, however I think she makes her point. And if its true it doesn't matter what her other political views are.

    and I think the Catholicism itself is the key factor in me thinking this way of Theresa. I don't think a hardcore for a religion that lacks compassion can really make a difference, at least one that has been worth all the attention Theresa was given.


By kazu on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 09:42 am:

    Christopher Hitchen's book on MT is excellent. He's harsh, but that's Hitch. To be fair, MT was just one arm of the hypocrisy that plagues the church, and only the face of what was really a huge problem in terms of managing and distributing her organizations funds. Her buddying up with dictators to get some cash leaves me feeling kind of ill though.


By Nate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:28 pm:

    you think that sarah chick makes her point? you wouldn't take that line of reasoning if you didn't agree with the point she was making, rowlf. that essay is weak as hell. it lacks sources and makes conclusions based on bad logic. if spunky posted that you'd rip him a new one.

    i don't know enough about mother theresa to argue one side or the other.


By kazu on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:30 pm:

    That essay was terrible. The Hitch book is better.


By patrick on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:52 pm:

    hey anyone paying attention to the recent absurdity from the church regarding AIDS and condoms?

    its like they're insisting the earth is flat again. or that the earth is the center of the solar system.

    I dont get it.


By semillama on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:05 pm:

    Haven't seen anything about it - post a link.


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:27 pm:

    I don't know what the Church has said recently about AIDS and condoms, but their position has always been that you should not sleep with anyone before and except for your spouse, and you should not use condoms for birth control. That has never changed and will never change.


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:28 pm:

    I would say more but it would angry up my blood.


By patrick on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:31 pm:

    really? its been all over Day to Day on NPR and thus Slate

    Scroll down to "Vatican Offical Claims Condoms Wont Stop Aids"


By patrick on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:33 pm:

    i heard the story last week, and it was reported again this week.

    i can't help but think it has something to do with the winding down of John Paul's reign. Planting seeds for the new papacy to come or something.


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:43 pm:

    Oh, well, that's just wrong. It sounds like something the nuns would have taught you a hundred years ago to scare you into celibacy. The Church should not, and usually does not (I don't know what this cardinal's problem was), make any scientific claims. They evaluate the ethics of medical advances, but they don't (other than this issue, it seems) make any judgement on the physical, scientific efficacy of the advances.

    Other crazy stuff has come from "Vatican officials" (not the Pope) recently. Someone said that girls shouldn't be altar servers because it will give them ideas about entering the priesthood. That really pissed me off.


By semillama on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 01:50 pm:

    It's really bad in Africa. "According to "Sex and the Holy City," in Africa, where HIV infects millions--20 percent in Kenya, 40 percent in Botswana, 34 percent in Zimbabwe--Catholic clergy, who oppose condoms as they do all contraception, are actively promoting the myth that condoms don't prevent transmission of the virus and may even spread it. The Guardian quotes the archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, as saying: "AIDS...has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms." Thus is a decade of painstaking work to mainstream and normalize condom use undone by the conscious promotion of an urban legend. "

    It's from the Nation so take at as you will, but he's quoting the BBC program. Incidently, now the RC Church is accusing the BBC of being anti-Catholic.

    I don't know that you will like that article, Spider. It's pretty critical of the Pope, or at least of some of what's been ascribed to him (such as the fall of communism).


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:07 pm:

    I don't really know what to say about Cardinal Trujillo and those who agree with him. I don't know what his damage is. Maybe it's like a misguided spirit of martyrdom, where it's better to die than to commit a sin.

    But this -- "Women's equality, sexual rights for all, the struggle of the individual against authoritarian religion and of course the global AIDS epidemic--the Pope has been a disaster on all these crucial issues of our new century....[etc]" -- this really pisses me off. It is totally idiotic for someone, usually not Catholic either, to criticize the Church (or *any* religion) for not changing their rules to conform to the desires of their critics. How can anyone not see how stupid that is?


By Nate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:08 pm:

    the beeb just recently got booted out of Israel for being anti-semetic, didn't it?


By kazu on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:13 pm:

    It's not just about criticizing religions for their beliefs, it's that these beliefs often affect people (other than adherents) in major ways.

    If religions want to oppose birth control or promote abstinence, fine, but these beliefs shouldn't affect how money is spent for things like sex-education and access to birth control. Taking birthcontrol education out of schools seems to me to be a violation of church and state. Perhaps parents should be able to request that thier kids not attend these classes grade unaffected, but to take scientific information about sexuality (a health, not a moral issue) it out of schools is absurd.


By dave. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:26 pm:

    spider, is it correct to say that the birth control law came about as a means to build an army? which pope made the decision and why?

    it's utterly irresponsible and cruel for the church to forbid birth control in areas where it is clearly needed.


By Nate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:35 pm:

    by your standards.


By dave. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:39 pm:

    when jesus returns, he's gonna hitch a trailer full of condoms to the popemobile and make john paul personally deliver a condom to every catholic on earth while that ice cream truck song blares forth from the loudspeakers.


By spunky on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:41 pm:

    "It's not just about criticizing religions for their beliefs, it's that these beliefs often affect people (other than adherents) in major ways."


    Funny thing.
    If the religion is a bible based one, like Baptists or Catholics, then they are based on the idea that God's word is never changing.
    That what was true 1,000 years ago is true today, and what is true today will be true 1,000 years from now.

    (Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 NIV)
    What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. {10} Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. {11} There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow. {12} I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. {13} I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! {14} I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

    Malachi 3:6: "For I the LORD do not change;"


By Nate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:57 pm:

    (2 Peter 3:15-17 NAB)
    {15}And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, {16}speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. {17} Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.


By spunky on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 03:21 pm:

    preach it brother nate.

    I can get VERY preachy if I want too.


By dave. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 04:19 pm:

    take it outside, godboys.


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 04:27 pm:

    There are two reasons birth control is not allowed. The first forbids birth control that terminates a fertilized egg -- that's obviously wrong because it terminates life. The second forbids birth control because it opens the door to treating someone as a means to sexual gratification, rather than as an end in themselves, as you have removed the consequences of sex and the aspect of sex which is larger than the two people involved (the creation of new life). When you have sex, you must always be open to the possibility of having a child.

    (Now this is where I have some doubts. Using a condom is different from getting a Deepo-Provera implant, which is different from getting a vasectomy. Can't you still be open to conceiving children, but just not tonight?)

    Regardless of that cardinal's insane claim of AIDS passing through latex, it is still known that condoms break not infrequently and are only about 75% effective in preventing pregnancy. It is pretty risky to have sex when you know there's a 25% chance you might infect your partner with a terminal disease. (I'm assuming that if the flaws in the condoms can let big sperm cells in, the probability has to be at least the same for letting AIDS viruses in.) You have the right to live, but you don't have the right to have sex.


    "If the religion is a bible based one, like Baptists or Catholics, then they are based on the idea that God's word is never changing."

    That is exactly right. God's word never changes because God and Good does not change.

    Since God's covenant with Abraham, the dichotomy has been set between God's ways and the world's ways. It is difficult to turn away from the ways of the world -- to stop having illicit sex, stop beating people up, stop wanting to be the richest person in your neighborhood -- this is known. This hasn't changed since the beginning. It's always been difficult.

    The bible does provide an example of one time when God changed the rules, but he changed lax rules to strict ones. God's covenant with Moses allowed for divorce in the case of adultery, but Jesus came and said that God had given them that law because he knew they weren't strong enough yet for the truth, which is that lawful divorce is impossible, since marriage is a spiritual union and human laws cannot change that.

    Same with the "eye for an eye" idea. God allowed that to be set up because mankind wasn't ready for "turn the other cheek." It's much harder to forgive someone and refrain from retaliating.

    He's always moved from easy to hard, never from hard to easy.







By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 04:30 pm:

    Oops, didn't finish.

    He's always moved from easy to hard, never from hard to easy. This is because humanity grows as one person grows -- they grow stronger and able to understand more as they go on. That's why the truth is revealed over thousands of years, because mankind can handle more and more as the generations pass.


By spunky on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 04:33 pm:

    wow.

    Spider, you nailed it. I never saw that before about changing the laws of divorce, but damn....


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 04:41 pm:

    Matthew 19:3-11

    ********
    Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "(Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

    And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?'
    So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

    They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

    He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

    The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."

    But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given."
    ******************

    The last verse is very important: it's saying not everyone is called to marry.


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 04:45 pm:

    I feel like an insufferable twit. I think I'll stop talking about this now.


By dave. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 04:45 pm:

    you can't argue logic based on faith. well, you can but it's futile.


By semillama on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 05:06 pm:

    I agree with dave.


    I personally think that the Bible is interpretations of oral history and jewish religon.

    but here's the thing: you can argue about what the bible says all you want, but if you can't step outside the belief that it's God's word then how can you assess it? and plus, you are trying to interpret the English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek Translation of Hebrew and Aramaic. And it's been shown that the meanings and words CHANGE through the translations. After all, the origianl Hebrew word for love was the same as for light in a religious context (and if I am not wrong, it was also the same for God).

    Anyway, I don't want to argue with anyone about their religion, just to say that the right to your beliefs ends where my civil rights begin.


    and as far as condoms go, I don't know where you are getting 25% failure, spider. The actual rate is 3-14%.

    "Pregnancy rates for condoms range from 3 percent to almost 14 percent. This means 3 to 14 out of 100 women get pregnant in a year using only condoms for contraception. However, these pregnancies are not due primarily to condom failure. Higher pregnancy rates during typical condom use reflect inconsistent and incorrect use. Non-use, i.e., inconsistent use, is particularly dramatic. If a women does not use a condom during just one fertile phase in a year, she has a four-times higher risk of becoming pregnant than if she uses condoms consistently and experiences occasional breakage. Moreover, the risk of breakage is concentrated in certain couples. This means that the majority of couples who use condoms consistently are at very low risk, at least of pregnancy. "

    source


By semillama on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 05:18 pm:

    CRAP. I hate when it does that. source


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 05:30 pm:

    Oops, I think I was thinking of the rhythm method. Ahh, whatever. Anyway, there's still a risk.


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 05:34 pm:

    BTW, you can find untranslated texts of the bible online. To get a PhD in Theology you must be able to translate the original texts from the Hebrew, koine Greek, and Coptic (apocryphal books), so it's not like the original meanings are lost to posterity....just find a professor or PhD candidate near you. The Oxford edition of the New Revised Standard Translation (I think that's what it is) comes with footnotes that provide synonyms and alternate translations.


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 05:41 pm:


By Spider on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 05:44 pm:

    Here's a fantastic source of biblical guides, histories, and the texts in their original languages.


By semillama on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 06:00 pm:

    but that misses the point of - oh, nevermind. I can't let myself get dragged into a debate over the authenticity of the bible. I'm slackingoff too much as it is!!


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 06:10 pm:

    "That essay was terrible. The Hitch book is better"

    I'm not citing the essay as the be-all, end-all of my research or knowledge. It was like 1am in the morning here, as i already stated then, i didnt want to type anything out, and took the first link i could find off google that went along with "mother+theresa+evil" if instead of "evil" i put "Fraud", you would have no doubt ended up with this:
    http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/490/theresa.htm



    I guess I felt she was making her point because I already knew what she was trying to say...




    anyways...



    I'd be interested in that Hitchens book... you know, I totally forgot about MT's involvement with Charles Keating... one evil motherfucker that man was.


By wisper on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 06:23 pm:

    it's true, you know.
    they told us that in highschool, that condoms don't stop AIDS and the virus can get through latex easily. Oh, catholic school.
    I'm pretty sure they only told the girls that...strange?

    We didn't believe them of course.
    At least i knew it was bullshit, i can only hope the other twits in my scripture class were smart enough too.

    Aww fuck, they're probably all dead now.

    in the teacher's defence, it was all too obvious by her expression that she was telling us this because NOT saying so would cost her her job.



    oh catholic school!


By kazu on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 06:26 pm:

    "I guess I felt she was making her point because I already knew what she was trying to say..."


    I hear you there. It made perfect sense in light of what I'd already heard. I often read essays as though I were grading them though and hers wasn't very well articulated.


    Hitch is great. I have a Christopher Hitchens pillow case.



By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 06:53 pm:

    serious? wow, that would be awesome if you did.


By kazu on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 06:56 pm:

    I am serious.

    My friend Shannon made it for me.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:03 pm:

    is it possible to scan a jpg in of it or something?

    i wanna see it.


By semillama on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:04 pm:

    maybe Kazu can bring it with her to Chicago (the pillow case), and I will take a digital photo of it for you.


By wisper on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:21 pm:

    this is by someone who lived in the area of her mission and was a student at the school MT taught at before 'making it big'
    ---

    ...But the project of Mother Teresa's that confused us most was her care of the terminally ill destitute who came to the Kalighat Temple to die near a holy place. She wasn't interested in prolonging their life. What she railed against was the squalor and loneliness of their last hours. Her apparent dread of mortality and her obsession with dignified dying were at odds with Hindu concepts of reincarnation and death as a hoped-for release from maya, the illusory reality of worldly existence.

    It wasn't until she had set up a leprosarium outside Calcutta on land provided by the government that I began to see her as an idealist rather than an eccentric. Lepers were a common sight all over India and in every part of Calcutta, but extending help beyond dropping a coin or two into their rag-wrapped stumps was not. As a child I was convinced even touching a spot a leper had rubbed against would lead to infection. The ultimate terror the city held had nothing to do with violence. It was fear of the Other, the poor, the dying--or to evoke a word with biblical authority--the pestilential. And so I could no longer be cynical about her motives. She wasn't just another Christian proselytizer. Her care of lepers changed the mind of many Calcuttans. Young physicians, one of them the uncle of a classmate, began to sign up as volunteers. It all made Mother Teresa seem less remote. The very people whom she had deserted when she broke with the Loreto nuns were now seeking her out.

    It is the fate of moral crusaders to be vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy or have the arbitrary selectiveness of their campaigns held against them. Mother Teresa's detractors have accused her of overemphasizing Calcuttans' destitution and of coercing conversion from the defenseless. In the context of lost causes, Mother Teresa took on battles she knew she could win. Taken together, it seems to me, the criticisms of her work do not undermine or topple her overall achievement. The real test might be, Did she inspire followers, skeptics and even opponents to larger acts of kindness or greater visions of possibility? If the church demands hard evidence of a miracle for sainthood, the transformation of many hearts might make the strongest case.


    -Bharati Mukherjee

    ------

    It seems to me that whether or not you think MT was deserving of all her praise (or any at all) is just based on your personal definitions of charity and goodness.

    Shit, i'm being so beige.

    Like this author says, yeah, she had no interest in curing anybody. i've read about 5 news biographies of MT just now, and there's no mention of the word 'cure' 'hospital' or 'medicine'. Or even 'help'. I want some article to finally pop up with the title
    Mother Teresa: WTF Does She Do All Day??

    Pro- she took the dying off the street and gave them peace in their last days.
    Con- and did it all to turn them over to jesus.

    It's kinda sad when the author of her write-up for the Time Top 100 People list can only come to the conclusion that she made other people do good things and inspired people....that's a good thing, right? That's enough to be a saint, right??? Not really doing much yourself but getting other people to think about doing good things?? That's a saint, right guys??

    that's really sad.

    But she did change local people's perception of lepers, that's a good thing, and important. She also ran several orphanages. That's good too.






    I think missionaries are a very specific, very deep and creepy and dirty kind of evil.

    Because it's like doing good with a gun to your head, doing good just for your god is an insincere and selfish thing. I'd hope that god sees through all that shit.


By kazu on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:25 pm:

    I heard that she wouldn't provide terminally ill folks with any meds that might ease their pain because their suffering was beautiful and would lead them to salvation.

    I can't remember if that's in the Hitch book or not. I don't think anyone's definition of charity and goodness should include withholding meds from someone who might want it, if said meds are available, which they should have been. That organization was not wanting for funds.


By kazu on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:32 pm:

    I don't care if people who do good are all good all over or not, I don't think it's fair to ask of anyone. Quite often people have to make compromises in specific situations that may look hypocritical or hurt those they intended to help. My problem is with people who are unwilling to face the fact that certain people totally sucked when compared to how they've been portrayed in society.


    The MT thing just irritates me so utterly because of how brutally some members of my family will treat politicians (for example, who often rightly deserve to be criticized) but go apeshit if you try to say the same thing about a religious leader. My irritating roommate thought that MT should be totally exempt from any criticism because she brought "hope" to people. Of course, this woman had no trouble criticizing ghandi for the ways that his private life differed from his public appearance. Of course, he only tried to bring what? independence? social change without violence. how silly. that's not worth as much as hope.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:39 pm:

    "I think missionaries are a very specific, very deep and creepy and dirty kind of evil. "

    I hate them... I hate them...

    and 'them' is, i guess 70% of my extended family. its a big family.



    You should see my grampa's "rumpus room". one wall of it (and it is a BIG wall), top to bottom, are pictures of kids that are on mission trips in various countries. Supposedly he prays for them every night.

    I had to sleep in that room when my parents visited my grandparents. They're in New Brunswick and we were and still are in Ontario. it was very very scary, having all these bizarre smiling kids you don't know staring at you when you're trying to sleep...


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:40 pm:

    heh:
    The Onion:

    Limbaugh Says Drug Addiction A Remnant Of
    Clinton Administration

    WEST PALM BEACH, FL—Frankly discussing his addiction to painkillers, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience Monday that his abuse of OxyContin was a "remnant of the anything-goes ideology of the Clinton Administration." "Friends, all I can say is 'I told you so,'" said Limbaugh, from an undisclosed drug-treatment facility. "Were it not for Bill Clinton's loose policies on drug offenders and his rampant immorality, I would not have found myself in this predicament." Limbaugh added that he's staying at a rehab center created by the tax-and-spend liberals.


By semillama on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:46 pm:

    hee hee


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:46 pm:

    The MT thing just irritates me so utterly because of how brutally some members of my family will treat politicians (for example, who often rightly deserve to be criticized) but go apeshit if you try to say the same thing about a religious leader. My irritating roommate thought that MT should be totally exempt from any criticism because she brought "hope" to people. Of course, this woman had no trouble criticizing ghandi for the ways that his private life differed from his public appearance. Of course, he only tried to bring what? independence? social change without violence. how silly. that's not worth as much as hope. "

    I think this is why I went all apeshit about theresa in the first place. I'm just so sick of it, and you can apply it to many situations.

    Like John Ritter. I mean really, come on. he seemed like a real swell guy and Threes Company was fun and I'm sure he could probably have done something with some better roles, but come on... he's being made out now to be THE talent of his generation...

    Or Princess Di. lets not go there.

    ...how we're supposed to lay down when Theresa is quoted because its Mother Fucking Theresa, it irritates me to no end.



    Its like the Simpsons episode about jebediah springfield... dont you dare reveal the truth, because they bring "hope"


By Nate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:49 pm:

    while you have some valid points, your bias is so extreme. you should be careful, it filters your reality.


By kazu on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 07:56 pm:

    heh. And Princess Di still won't go away! At least she never made herself out to be a saint, and all the attention that she got when she died seemed to be for all of the anglophile royal family obsessed 'mericans. Among other things.

    I know this isn't a conversation about the prses, but the way that the press treated JFKjr's death was obscene. I figured he deserved as much as any hollywood celebrity. I can understand why people cared, but it just got out of control. of course, I was personally affected because they pretty much stopped coverage of my friend's roommate who was missing and every day it was more and more and more kennedy crap.

    On the fox network they showed a little girl, not older than eight, bawling her eyes out, saying that he was such a good man? Why? Why should an eight year old be BAWLING about JFKjr, it just seemed like some kind of wierd emotional virus escaped.


By Sucker on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 08:41 pm:

    YOU ALL SUCK
    YOU SUCK
    YOU SUCK
    SUCK
    SUCK
    SUCK


    FREAKS


By dave. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 08:52 pm:

    go suck a fuck.


By Buck on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 08:59 pm:

    Chuck & Buck suck n fuck?


By dave. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 09:13 pm:

    oh man.


By Bucky Katt on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 09:24 pm:


By Satchel Pooch on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:43 pm:

    that posted wrong


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:46 pm:

    "while you have some valid points, your bias is so extreme. you should be careful, it filters your reality."

    I acknowledge an extreme bias against religion, particularly any Christian denomination, however I've got a lot of experience dealing with these (my) folks, and even being one of them for a big part of my life, to convince me its all real, that that is the reality.

    And yet I still love them. Well, except one of them. he kidnapped me. Fuck him.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:47 pm:

    "I know this isn't a conversation about the prses, but the way that the press treated JFKjr's death was obscene. I figured he deserved as much as any hollywood celebrity. I can understand why people cared, but it just got out of control"

    I think a lot of adults felt they grew up with him, so to a degree, I understand. Its like how I'd feel if Screech up and died.


By Nate on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 03:42 am:

    "however I've got a lot of experience"

    the jump from inductive to deductive is a leap of faith. accepting that you have enough evidence to make the generalization is a leap of faith.

    i'm not trying to say your views are wrong or that you shouldn't have them, just that your sight is clouded and you should be aware of it. you are at risk.

    so is your soul, kimosabe.


By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 09:36 am:

    I'm aware.

    a generalization against specific people who've perverted their own religion away from its true meaning isn't a generalization against spiritual belief.

    I think any supreme being would understand not wanting to be part of something that is missing the point completely.


By Any Supreme Being on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

    mild sauce please


By 8 on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 03:47 pm:

    to whom does the steak taste better? the rich man or the pauper?




    for some reason that struck me as incredibly profound a few minutes ago.











    this is some great fucking hash.


By V.v. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 04:51 pm:

    profound?indeed,you are correct.


By V.v. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 05:23 pm:

    Rowlf,so perhaps im not the only one that had a strange and creepy upbringing.You ever considered witchcraft?works for me,and i get to meet some very cool people.If you DO get into it,your in for some "strange days"and youl love it.(Lady bless)p.s.give this some consideration,it my be your way foward.Respect.


By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 05:52 pm:

    "You ever considered witchcraft?"

    anyone who has spent his teen years listening to death metal has considered witchcraft, at least for a second.

    a very foolish second.




    okay, so thats mean. but no, I'm not interested in witchcraft in any way whatsoever.


By semillama on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 05:54 pm:


By dave. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 06:03 pm:

    oh my god.


By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 06:19 pm:

    megadittos


By Nate on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 07:15 pm:

    i feel so incompetent.


By V.v. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 07:25 pm:

    Rowlf,you are missing out on a lot of fun,come and join us witches,you know you want to.


By patrick on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 07:29 pm:

    that kid will fall on her sword an alcoholic by age 9.

    its tough to peak at 3.


By V.v. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 07:44 pm:

    Rowlf,in the old days i was same as you,brought up in Catholic ways,but i found the light,i found Witchcraft,i swear to you it is the way foward.Join me.


By semillama on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 08:01 pm:

    No, Rowlf! Join me and the Church of the Subgenius! Only we offer an ironclad "Eternal Salvation or TRIPLE your money back" Guarantee!!! Praise "Bob"! (Who do you think the travelling salesman who sold those witches their cauldron was, anyway?)


By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 08:10 pm:

    i'm already committed to Vernon.

    we're goin down to the drive-in.

    He's mah MESSAHHHHHHH...


By semillama on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 08:11 pm:


By V.v. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 08:18 pm:

    SEM,somtimes i think you drink allmost as much as me!


By kazu on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 08:26 pm:

    no. that's a sober sem.


By semillama on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 08:28 pm:

    daddy would you like some sausages daddy would you like some sausage

    daddy would you like some sausages daddy would you like some sausage

    daddy would you like some sausages daddy would you like some sausage

    i need to go home now.


By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 08:32 pm:

    freddy got fingered rules


    i'm serious


By kazu on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 08:34 pm:

    he's going to re-enact that skit for on the night our kid goes on his/her first date.


By V.v. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 10:04 pm:

    If you kids had as much brains as you think you got,you would become witches,same as me.


By heather on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 10:59 pm:

    if you keep! talking! incessantly! of witches! i am going to send the witches after you

    mark my words


By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:01 pm:

    okay i'm going to ask.

    why a witch? what makes you believe any of it is real? and i'm not looking for some vague answer that i always get...

    "you know, i just love nature, and the religion is so boundless, you know? "

    It doesn't really make any sense to me. Most every wiccan or "neopagan" i've ever known got into it for reasons I can only suspect involve simply trying to be unique.

    I mean sure, you like nature? worship nature! but why is there a specific belief system and rituals for nature, of all things? Did Nature write a book and tell you to do them, or else you to hell, er, I mean, er, non-nature-realm? why label yourself as such? whats with the dance?



    I asked these questions on a Wicca board once and instead of answering I just got called (sic) "entollerent", and then they banned my user name.

    seriously, why?


By eri on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:21 pm:

    OK Rowlf your questions are fair, but I am probably not going to make sense when I answer them and there are probably other pagans or wiccans who will disagree with what I say. It is very open-minded to allow you to believe what you want to believe.

    Me personally, yes, I believe in nature, but not in the form of worshipping nature. I believe that God/ess is inherent in nature, and through the natural energies you feel, the positive/negative, natural duality. There is good and evil in all things, in us, in animals, in whatever......the god/ess is there to help put a balance between that, basically by using meditation and prayer to commune with the God/ess.

    So it is a Goddess and God based religion (with the most emphasis on the Goddess) who is open to believe what you want as long as you follow some basic principles, like harm none, things like that. Many do believe in the use of different forms of divination. They believe in reincarnation, and after death going to the summerland. But Wicca is a religion based on many older religions (bits and pieces of them) which include paganism, shamanism, druidism (if that's what you call it), alchemy, and many others. It also works with all kinds of other cultures, though I have mostly seen Celtic cultures (irish and scottish).

    I know I am probably not making sense to anyone but me, and you will probably have TONS to say about this, and will probably rip me or my beliefs apart. I just thought I would give a shot at trying to answer your question, because all of the true information will vary from person to person, each wiccan being different, but I would try to give it an honest try.

    BTW..........I am not a witch, not part of a coven, and have never been initiated. You are not to be called a witch until you have finished your studying and are ready to live it, like you have all the information you need to do all kinds of work on your own.......not me, not even close. I am still learning and will probably always be learning, and I don't cast spells (which are ways of asking God/ess for a change in life which you must follow up with lifestyle changes or actions, and not some way to curse someone else or make you rich while you sit on your ass and watch soap operas). So I am not even concidered a witch, which is fine by me. I am a wiccan, but not a witch if that makes sense, a student, not a teacher. Hell, I haven't even found my teacher yet.

    OK, that is enough of that for now.


By V.v. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:25 pm:

    Rowlfe,so i take it you ARE considering becomeing a witch?


By V.v. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:35 pm:

    And dont give me no shit,cuz i know your tempted.


By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:43 pm:

    no, V.v. - just asking questions.

    just like I'd ask a stripper questions. dig?

    I have follow-up questions for eri..

    "You are not to be called a witch until you have finished your studying and are ready to live it, like you have all the information you need to do all kinds of work on your own

    uh... who calls you to be a witch? what do they want you to memorize? is it like, park ranger stuff? I dont get it.

    "the summerland"

    the summerland?

    "the god/ess is there to help put a balance between that, basically by using meditation and prayer to commune with the God/ess"

    so....does Nature... want? to be communed with? Or does it just want some respect?










    I probably believe Nature is trying to get rid of the human race more than I'd ever believe it wants the human race to pray to it.



By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:44 pm:

    "And dont give me no shit,cuz i know your tempted."

    hearty gut laugh.


    thats all I have to say.


    Big hearty gut laugh.


By Bill Hicks on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:45 pm:

    "I probably believe Nature is trying to get rid of the human race more than I'd ever believe it wants the human race to pray to it"

    We're a disease with shoes


By V.v. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:53 pm:

    Whilst you are stuck with your old Christian dogmas,you are missing out on SO much.,and i say that with respect.I was as you.


By Rowlf on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:59 pm:

    Je n'a pas d'usage pour votre ou n'importe qui autrement le dogme




    anyways, back on topic....

    heres an excerpt (well, almost all of...) Bill Mahers latest statement on Rush and the drug war


    Me Likey:


    a week after I read the Limbaugh story in the Enquirer I read the rehash of it today in the Times, and again: Media, Pols, hello! If any time was the perfect time to make the case about the massive double standard that is the Drug War, this is it. Rush tearfully talks about his addition to a "medication." Yeah, well everybody likes their "medication" in different forms, pally. It would be funny, but substantially the same thing, if on the 6:30 news they sold bourbon and had the voice intone, "Ask your doctor if Jack Daniels is right for you."

    Or pot or whatever it is that mixes better with your body chemistry. Because that's all the Drug War is, persecuting people with a different body chemistry than Plan A. Why does one person like scotch, and another loathes it and likes vodka? Or one like cocaine, and another Metabolife?

    Who gives a fuck, that's why. The bottom line is, we all pick our poison and shouldn't arbitrarily punish and shame some, and accept and coddle others. There's nothing about preferring the high from oxycontin or liquor or speed (caffeine, ephedra, etc - speed, the drug America really loves) that makes you morally superior to people who like pot or mushrooms or even heroin for that matter, because that's what Oxycontin is, heroin in a pill. Gee, no wonder it's popular.

    When it comes to Rush and pills, an analagous situation would be Reagan and guns. After Reagan got shot, what an opportunity to change that debate on guns! Who could argue about at least debating it while he lay in the hospital from a gunshot wound - like how JFK's program got passed so easily after his assassination, or even Bush's after 911.

    But Reagan whiffed. Rush has the chance to change America for the better here. But it must involve his admitting the fundamental truths about drugs:
    A: Almost all Americans do them, legal or otherwise; B: It's wrong to inconsistently treat fact A.

    And Rush, if you don't see it that way yet, let me put it like this: When you're furtively meeting people in parking lots and exchanging ANYTHING in cigar boxes through car windows - OK, that's a drug addict. Issues of personal responsibility is where I often walked with Rush, and this is a classic. A true test of the man. If he comes out of rehab and says, 'I was wrong about our approach to drugs,' he could single handedly change the way America looks at this problem. If he admits that what separates him and Noelle Bush from crackheads is nothing. Nothing except money, race and lawyers. OK, well that is actually quite a lot. But nothing in the way that makes one of them a stronger or better human being. And that's what Rush has to say:

    "I am no better or stronger than a crackhead. I lived for the drug, just like he did; obsessed about getting it all the time, like he did; corrputed and lied about everything else in my life - career, health (the hearing problem is related to this, no doubt - check the amount he was taking daily - Elvis is going "whoa, dude, slow down with that shit"), relationships, like he did. And we both deserve the same treatment: compassion!"

    Because Rush wants, and is already getting, a lot of compassion for this. Let me add my full hearted endorsement of that, and hope for a successful rehab, and a happy life for him whatever he wants to do thereafter. Rush Limbaugh was the first one to say "Bill Maher was right" when I was in the hot seat after 911, and I will always appreciate and remember that. He also has a good sense of humor, and enjoys jokes I've done about him. I want to be able to back him.

    But he's gotta keep it real when he gets out. If he starts living the morally indefensible double standard he has been defending his whole career, game over. He learned nothing, or is too weak to admit it. That would be a shame, because I think he has it in him to do this, and the power and accomplishment from turning this battleship around would be, well - a rush


By V.v. on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:05 am:

    Rowlf,the day will come when you think the same as i.


By V.v. on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:33 am:

    And if you wish to coverse with me,i have no problem with medieval Latin,rather than French,i also understand it.Allthough i wish you no harm,you underestimate me.With respect.


By Nate on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 01:40 am:

    you're a fucking hoot, v.v.


By dave. on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 01:42 am:

    don't pollute.


By semillama on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 10:48 am:

    "The Summerland" - that's similar to the Elysian Fields, right? Just bringing that up as the image that sprung into my head was the Elysian Fields from 'Gladiator'.


    Rowlf- have you seen Maher's new book, Riding with Osama?

    As far as belief systems and philosophies go, I think it's best to figure things out for yourself and find the one that resonates with you, whatever it is. For some people, it's Catholicism, others Wicca, others some collection of jackasses.


By eri on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:48 am:

    For Rowlf....

    "uh... who calls you to be a witch? what do they want you to memorize? is it like, park ranger stuff? I dont get it."

    You aren't "called" to be a witch. There is a lot of studying involved with wicca, philosophies (and lots of them cuz you choose your own way), different belief systems, workshops, and lots of other things. This is typically more prevalent in covens or groups. Usually led by a high priestess or facilitator, when the group or coven feels you have studied and learned enough and have enough knowledge to practice and teach wicca to others then you are initiated as a witch. You learn spell casting and stuff like that (that I don't even want to mess with). The process typically takes 4-5 years.

    The summerland is most easily explained as the spiritual plane, where your spirit resides between lives. It is supposed to be the most beautiful place imagineable in nature, with everyone getting along in perfect harmony, etc.

    "so....does Nature... want? to be communed with? Or does it just want some respect?"

    To understand what I meant my that you have to think along the lines of the energies (positive and negative, male/female) in nature, and think about how people tend to draw strength from others (thus drawing energy from others) and doing the same with nature. Respect is a very important aspect of this. You return what you take, whether it be planting something cuz you have used a plant, or returning energies you have depleted. It's not take take take, but rather take/give, or give/take. Thus trying to keep the natural balance of energies and growth intact. You thank the earth for gifts whatever they be and return the favor to restore what you have taken. The pagan holidays are basically parts of the different phases of nature (in regards to growing plant life), Beltane being the fertility rights (planting) and then you have your 3 harvest holidays (samhain being the final harvest before the death of winter). Of course, this is an oversimplification, but hopefully helpful information.

    I haven't had much morning coffee yet, so I am gonna get outa here for now.


By spunky on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:53 am:

    Hey, at least I will be able to call my wife a witch and get away with it!


    That's all I have to say about that.


By eri on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:36 pm:

    As if you have never called me a witch and got away with it before!!!


By TBone on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 01:31 pm:

    If only this sort of give/take attitude was more prevalent.


By V.v. on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 01:53 pm:

    Nate,As he went on his way Jesus saw a man blind from his birth.His disciples put the question:"Rabbi,who sinned,this man or his parents?Why was he born blind?" "It is not that this man or his parents sinned,"Jesus answered,"he was born blind so that Gods power might be displayed in curing him"...


By semillama on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 02:55 pm:

    ...And, lo, "Bob" came forth and said unto the disciples: "Also so that a market for dark glasses and white canes could be delivered unto ye."


By spunky on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 03:07 pm:

    And "Fred" said "Fear ye not, for surely disability and a handi-cap chariot parking spot will followest thou the rest of your days"


By Al gore on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 03:54 pm:

    if the sun refused to shine i would still be lovin' you

    mountains crumble to the sea there would still be you and me


By semillama on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 05:23 pm:

    "Fred" is a False Prophet and verily do I CAST HIM OUT.



    There, ministerial duty discharged.


By Fred on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 06:17 pm:

    I pray thee, how doest thou cast a demon out of another, when thou hast four legions of thine own?


By semillama on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 06:46 pm:

    Church secret.


    All I can tell you is that it involves what I FEED my demons...


By kazu on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 06:53 pm:

    He feeds his demons crusty nose goblins with a side of toe jam.


By semillama on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 06:55 pm:

    Honey, NO! Church secrets! Church secrets! Bad! Bad bad!


By V.v. on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 07:09 pm:

    Verily i say unto thee,have you tried selling demons surplus to requirments on E-Bay?


By Rowlf on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:19 pm:

    V.v.'s posts make good typing excercises


    Verily i say unto thee,have you tried selling demons surplus to requirements on E-Bay?

    The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.


By V.v. on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:39 pm:

    Not allways,the lazy dog may sink its fangs into the fox as its in mid air,hence a free meal without any effort.


By Rowlf on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:41 pm:

    tell me more

    you are so wise


By V.v. on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:57 pm:

    Such power can be dangerous.Become a Witch,and i may consider your request.


By spunky on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 04:43 pm:

    Back on topic

    Courtney Love 'tried to make overdose fun for daughter'

    Courtney Love says she tried to make her recent drugs overdose "fun" for her 11-year-old daughter.

    The Hole singer was arrested earlier this month after becoming violent outside a house in Los Angeles.

    Hours after she was released by police, she fell ill from an accidental overdose of the narcotic OxyContin.

    Love, 39, said her daughter Frances Bean made her green tea as they waited at their Beverly Hills home for an ambulance to arrive.

    "That's the only time my daughter has ever, ever, ever pitched in on one of my little crises," Love said.

    "I made it fun. I said it was going to be gross and I was going to have to make myself throw up but it was going to be OK," she told People magazine's November 3 edition.

    Days later Frances was put in the care of Kurt Cobain's mother Wendy O'Connor and a bitter custody battle has since erupted.

    Love said: "I'm not on some downward spiral. I'm not on narcotics. I'm fine. I just want my daughter back."


By semillama on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 05:23 pm:

    That poor kid.


By wisper on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 06:50 pm:

    i will pay good money to have that child taken away from her.
    The kid is so lovely, have you seen her? She has his eyes.

    perhaps there is a fund i can donate to?


By Antigone on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 07:54 pm:

    Love is one fucked up chick. She shouldn't be sharing
    her fuckedupness with her daughter.


By Skooter on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 12:26 pm:

    That poor child surely has a lot of baggage. On Cobain's side you have a history of suicide, including at last eight in the family history of the males. Plus, a history of family self medication on both sides.
    Plus, your dad is one of the most famous genius losers in history. Your mom is an insane power hungry nutball drug addict, also it could argued that she is a genius in her own twisted right.
    I just wonder if this is all a publicity stunt for her new solo album, I wouldn't put it past her fucked up mind.
    Poor kid. I hope she stays away from the music business.


By Rowlf on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 07:16 pm:

    Jacko aint the only guy being investigimomated





    Source: Limbaugh Being Investigated
    1 hour, 59 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


    By JILL BARTON, Associated Press Writer

    WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Authorities are investigating whether Rush Limbaugh illegally funneled money to buy prescription painkillers, a law enforcement source who spoke on condition of anonymity said Wednesday.


    AP Photo
    Slideshow: Rush Limbaugh




    In his third day back on the air after rehab, Limbaugh responded with a blanket denial of the allegations first reported Tuesday by ABC News.


    "I was not laundering money. I was withdrawing money for crying out loud," Limbaugh said in his three-hour broadcast.


    Limbaugh was absent from his show for five weeks after announcing he was entering a drug rehabilitation program because of his addiction to prescription painkillers. But he told listeners he could tell them little about the allegations.


    "I know where the story comes from, I know who's behind it, and I know what the purpose of the story is, and I'll be able to tell you at some point," he said.


    Law enforcement sources in Palm Beach County, where Limbaugh owns a $24 million oceanfront mansion, previously confirmed that a criminal investigation into a prescription drug ring involved the conservative radio commentator. His former maid, Wilma Cline, reported supplying him with OxyContin and other painkillers.


    Authorities learned two years ago during an investigation of the U.S. Trust bank in New York that Limbaugh withdrew cash 30 to 40 times from his account at amounts just under the $10,000 bank reporting requirement, ABC News reported Tuesday. A bank employee was reported to have delivered some cash to Limbaugh.


    Limbaugh told listeners the report was misleading and said that he had the bank bring cash to him at his New York office "maybe four times, if that many." Otherwise, he said he obtained cash from a bank in Florida, where he was living.


    "When I went to get cash, I took a check to the bank. I went to the bank officer. I said, 'Here's my check,' and they gave me the cash. There were witnesses to this," he said.


    Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black, did not return a phone call for comment Wednesday.


    It can be a federal crime to structure financial transactions below the $10,000 limit to avoid the reporting requirement.


    Limbaugh said he started taking painkillers "some years ago" after a doctor prescribed them following spinal surgery. Limbaugh said he became hooked taking the pills for chronic post-surgical pain. He said he'd twice before undergone drug rehabilitation before entering a four-week program in Arizona last month.


    Limbaugh's drug admission came less than two weeks after he quit as an ESPN pro football commentator. He'd received criticism for saying on the sports network's "Sunday NFL Countdown" that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.


    Limbaugh reported two years ago that he had lost most of his hearing because of an autoimmune inner-ear disease, but some medical experts have said abusing opiate-based painkillers like OxyContin can lead to profound hearing loss.


    Limbaugh had surgery to implant an electronic device to restore his hearing.


    In the past, Limbaugh has decried drug use and abuse on his bluntly worded show, mocking then-President Clinton (news - web sites) for saying he had not inhaled when he tried marijuana and often making the case that drug crimes deserve punishment.


    "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... 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," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.





    During the same show, he commented that the statistics that show blacks go to prison more often than whites for the same drug offenses only illustrate that "too many whites are getting away with drug use."


By Rowlfe on Thursday, January 1, 2004 - 03:26 pm:

    Rush Limbaugh should stop whining
    By Bill Press
    TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES

    Stop! Don't touch that dial. There's nothing wrong with your radio. That piercing, high-pitched sound you hear is not a mechanical malfunction. It's just Rush Limbaugh, whining into the microphone.

    Silly me. And I thought conservatives were real men. You know: stand-up-and-take-your-medicine-like-a-man kind of men. Limbaugh is just the opposite. He's a crybaby conservative. He wants to take his medicine - mountains of those little blue pain pills - and suffer no consequences.

    At first, I admired the way Limbaugh handled his drug problem. True, he didn't come forward until he was outed by his maid. But once the story hit the media, he fessed up. He admitted he was a drug addict. He didn't deny that he fed his habit by obtaining an excessive supply of drugs illegally. And he checked himself into rehab. Good for him.

    The problem is, ever since he left the detox center and returned to the airwaves, Rush has never stopped complaining. He insists the police have no right to look at his medical records. He accuses the Palm Beach County district attorney of conducting a politically motivated investigation. And he says they're only going after him because he's so famous.

    Have you noticed? Rush Limbaugh is sounding more and more like Michael Jackson. Now it's Rush's turn to weep: "I'm a victim!" His attorney, Roy Black, even had the gall to ask: "Why is Rush Limbaugh the only person treated like this in America?"

    Whom does he think he's kidding? Thousands of Americans are treated like that every day. The only difference is: Most of them aren't zillionaires. Most of them can't afford to hire lawyers like Roy Black. And most of them go to prison, not to some fancy Arizona rehab resort.

    Whether Limbaugh is cured of his drug habit or not, there are still serious, unresolved issues. Was he, as his former maid alleges, buying drugs on the black market, using her as an intermediary? Was he also, as his medical records indicate, seeing four different doctors at the same time to get more of the same pills? Was he, as his bank records suggest, laundering money in order to buy the drugs?

    We don't know the answers. But we do know those actions are felonies and Rush is suspected of every one. The district attorney would be derelict in his duty if he dropped the Limbaugh matter without investigating possible criminal activity. That's law enforcement's job. It has nothing to do with politics. After all, as Rush never tired of reminding us, not so long ago, not even a president of the United States is above the law.

    It is also laugh-out-loud funny to hear Limbaugh complain about police having access to his medical and bank records. At one time, such records were considered private. But no longer. Any time they want, police can now snoop into our bank and medical affairs, as well as our e-mail, credit card accounts and library books. It's all part of John Ashcroft's Patriot Act - which Limbaugh gleefully supported.

    Of course, Limbaugh denies that he's a crybaby. He also denies he's a hypocrite. Yet here's what he told his listeners in 1995: "Too many whites are getting away with drug use. ... The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river."

    When he made that and numerous other attacks on those with drug problems, Limbaugh was, by his own admission, popping piles of pills himself. Saying one thing while doing just the opposite - if that's not the definition of a hypocrite, I don't know what is.

    Not once in all his comments on drugs did Limbaugh show any tolerance for drug addicts. Not once did he suggest that they be treated with respect and sent to rehab.

    We'll know Rush Limbaugh is really cured of his problem when he stands up like a man and admits: "I was wrong. Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal problem. It makes no sense to put nonviolent drug offenders in jail. Every drug addict deserves a chance at rehabilitation, just like me."

    OK, I know: It's too much to expect Rush Limbaugh to apologize. So instead, on behalf of all of us who choose or are forced to listen to his drivel every day, I make a more humble request. Please, Rush, stop whining!


By dave. on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 12:01 am:


By Rowlfe on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:56 pm:

    "I have denied repeatedly all kinds of defamatory allegations made about me. Did the press believe me? No, they kept believing the allegations despite my denial. Yet Kerry and all these people deny something, and okay, that's it."
    - Rush Limbaugh, today.


    let me paraphrase

    "WAH!"
    -Rush Limbaugh, today


By patrick on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:23 pm:

    the quote stands on its on two toothpick feet.


    that aside....wouldnt the grammatically correct way to phrase his first sentence be "I have repeatedly denied.." rather than "I have denied repeatedly.."


    Sounds odd the way its stated.



By Lapis on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 02:04 pm:

    It's those pills, man. Just say no!


By Rowlfe on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 08:59 pm:


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact