Mr. Limbaugh proclaimed in his broadcasted response that cannabis use does not solely apply to the individual exercising such use, but has a negative impact on “employment” and “family” (his words). Overall, the central theme of his response is upholding “public morality” (his words).
Preferring to avoid being harsh against Mr. Limbaugh, this series of posts is challenging for me, because his apparent position on the war on some drugs is outrageously hypocritical and highly immoral. I remain unconvinced that I could never get along with Mr. Limbaugh on a platonic kind of personal level (he did “appear” on Family Guy, after all). While I disagree with his ‘pre-American conservative’ support for wielding subjectively defined morality against the unalienable right to liberty, on behalf of upholding that right, I share his sentiment against government interference in the lives of well-behaving (i.e. non-rights-infringing) individuals. That includes government interference from the war on some drugs, which is where my moral consistency extends sadly without Mr. Limbaugh’s support (at least based upon the call prompting the HUSH for Rush series — https://spiritwave.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/hush-for-rush/).
Based upon the whole truth (and nothing but), the war on some drugs epitomizes the horribly selfish (so obviously immoral) outcome of such government interference, so Mr. Limbaugh should righteously constantly wield that interference example to at least cross political boundaries for the sake of (perhaps greatly) improving his already-impressive audience. His apparently powerful position to help end the demonstrably un-American and seriously destructive outrage that is the war on some drugs is unmistakable. Republican dominance on this issue would righteously put the “nail in the coffin” against Certain Drug Prohibition (i.e. apply dominant public pressure needed to sufficiently compel public servants to properly instantly repeal the Controlled Substances Act as unconstitutional — which it factually is, as I will conclusively prove in an upcoming post in this series — and then prevent state/local law from violating the self-proclaimed “supreme law of the land” that is the U.S. Constitution). Helping achieve that dominance remains my primary goal within this series of “HUSH for Rush” posts.
Importantly note that the popular talk show host wrestled with prescription drug abuse (the current status of that abuse unknown by yours truly with sincere hope that he has eliminated that threat). I casually wonder whether or not he believes that he violated public morality in exercising that abuse, and for similar reasons applied against non-violent cannabis possessors, should have criminal action (and all of the negativity against employment and family that inevitably comes with) applied against him as a remedy against his abusive conduct.
It now occurs to me that this post series naturally sensibly should constitute all of the mountainous number of points forming the conclusion regarding the war on some drugs, so my admittedly-not-brilliantly-titled “End Certain Drug Prohibition Now” series is redirected to this one. I am not being unethically biased against the whole truth here, folks. After remaining reasonably tuned in with this issue for many years, that truth demonstrably reveals that ‘certain drug’ prohibitionists literally cannot sustain a single point in their favor, and that is the main reason why momentum against them is so strong these days, even despite their enormously powerful public influence to the contrary (including powerful lobbying, too much biased mainstream media support, etc.)
Sustaining focus upon public morality would lengthen this post to encompass all points pertaining to Certain Drug Prohibition, so I shorten this already-lengthy post by simply listing those points here to provide my basic posting path forward on this issue.
– Mr. Limbaugh dropped (i.e. raised) the ‘Should society legalize heroin?’ point. Yes, and I will obviously explain why that makes optimal societal sense.
– Cannabis use is not even close to scientifically concluded to equal cannabis abuse, but prohibitionists clearly immorally equate the two to sustain their agenda.
– Certain Drug Prohibition costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually without even the tiniest shred of conclusive evidence proving we live in even a slightly more “drug free” America.
– The “New Deal” version of the Commerce Clause is the sole constitutional basis for Certain Drug Prohibition (i.e. the Controlled Substances Act is factually — intentionally or not — part of the political left’s agenda, Mr. Limbaugh). Law abuse (e.g. the judicial branch illegally redefining law) is not the proper remedy against drug abuse.
– Criminal organizations of all sizes grossly profit from Certain Drug Prohibition.
– Mistaken SWAT drug raids horribly scars (if not kills) innocent family members.
– The war on some drugs is a ‘feel-good only’ policy, Mr. ‘political left is all about feel-good policies’ Limbaugh.
– There are probably many more points escaping my consciousness offhand during authoring this post, so this list conforms to my tendency towards responsible flexibility (i.e. proper adaption).
This author sighs (actually remains understandably outraged, but reasonably composed to avoid unhealthy stress) at the continuous press by “team red” (Republicans, self-proclaimed American conservatives, etc.) to selectively wield morality on behalf of their constituency as a basis for liberty-infringing “law”. That historical snag (actually a continuous belief too often embraced seamlessly from now through pre-American conservatism constituting an effective revolution against the American revolution that progressively led to the concisely defined right to liberty in our national declaration — liberty and its properties — including self-evident, naturally given, and unalienable — are all absolutes) is responsible for ruining millions (if not billions) of lives without one tiniest shred of conclusively proven, net-resulting societal benefit, as exemplified by the cost/benefit analysis of the war on some drugs (that cost analysis including serious financial and human-suffering costs).
“Team red” proponents love to embed their popular failure to perfectly uphold our fundamental rights against law abuse (the form of abuse that our nation was clearly established against, according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence) by their insistence that America’s successful application of liberty (e.g. “free market” successes — reason for quotes in upcoming Liberty Shield post) is somehow positively caused by that “morality selectively applied against liberty” effort that (logically speaking) should instead be prosecutable as the unconstitutional stance it clearly is.
The Urban Dictionary term “sadomoralist” (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sadomoralist) is brilliant and deserves a formal place in the English language, Mr. Limbaugh (and linguists). That formality helps amplify the freedom-loving spotlight shone upon sadomoralists as the treasonous holdouts (operating within all American generations) against our fundamental rights that they actually are.
Hypocrisy is immoral (at least imho), Mr. Limbaugh, and there can be no doubt about the harm you effectively (if not outright) hypocritically advocate in upholding the war on some drugs and the undeniable (when being honest) damage against liberty, law, employment, family, and public morality that results from that war.
You “talk the talk” when it comes to public morality, Mr. Limbaugh. Now the time has come for you to honestly face my legitimate challenge against your self-conflicting stance in this “illicit” drug case, and make the positive adaptation to “walk the walk” for at least our nation’s sake.
I do not expect a response from you, Mr. Limbaugh, but if ever forthcoming, you should carefully reconsider your constantly expressed tactic of ‘tying half of your brain around your back to keep it fair’. While easy to dismiss critics of your anti-cannabis stance during your live program (e.g. by optionally rejecting callers capable of quickly dealing a humiliating blow against your credibility in front of your impressive audience, or by applying then-unchallenged selective reasoning that just sounds good), the public persistence of online communications leaves anyone relying upon selective reasoning vulnerable to people such as yours truly (and I never hesitate to fully apply my mind, especially in seriously destructive social matters such as this one). Intentional deception by selective reasoning is one of my top pet peeves and I maintain is highly immoral, because it has led (too often by misleading the masses) to enormous suffering from the earliest point in history through this moment.
Much more to come on this posting path, my awesome audience, so please feel free to stay tuned. Next I will address Mr. Limbaugh’s question regarding heroin legality in my post titled “Part 3: Worse than a Deal with the Devil”.