|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Right Wing |
|
Rush Limbaugh Has No Comment On Drug Investigation |
Current rating: 0 |
by ABC News
(No verified email address) |
03 Oct 2003
|
|
|
Oct. 3— Just after he resigned his ESPN gig because of comments he made about a black quarterback's performance, Rush Limbaugh could be facing the heat again. ABCNEWS has learned new details about his alleged ties to a black-market drug ring.
A high-ranking official in Florida has told ABCNEWS some surprising details about the state's investigation of Rush Limbaugh.
ABCNEWS has confirmed that radio mega-star Rush Limbaugh is being investigated for allegedly buying illegal prescription drugs near his Palm Beach, Fla., home. Palm Beach authorities had no official comment.
"We don't comment on investigations," said Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office.
But a source close to the investigation told ABCNEWS that Limbaugh's former housekeeper claims she helped Limbaugh purchase thousands of prescription painkillers over a four-year period — at times in the parking lot of a local Denny's restaurant. Among the drugs she says she purchased: the highly addictive Oxycontin.
The source also says investigators have audiotapes of at least two drug transactions — allegedly with Limbaugh's voice — but these were recorded secretly by the former housekeeper, not by police.
Premiere Radio Networks, which syndicates the politically focused Rush Limbaugh Show to more than 650 markets, issued a statement from Limbaugh on Thursday saying: "I am unaware of any investigation by any authority involving me. No government representative has contacted me directly or indirectly. If my assistance is required, I will, of course, cooperate fully."
If the allegations prove true, the talk show host will undoubtedly need to address some of his past comments about drug abuse.
Back in 1995, Limbaugh told his audience on the syndicated Rush Limbaugh, The Television Show that people who are obtaining drugs illegally should be held responsible.
"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. 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," he said to his audience during the broadcast.
Media Columnist Michael Wolff says Limbaugh's career might not be able to survive a drug charge.
"It would be labeled as an instance of incredible hypocrisy … Mr. Family values, Mr. Tough on Crime," Wolff said.
At risk for Limbaugh, not just his credibility, but a media empire that has earned his networks and stations more than a billion dollars since 1988.
"If this is a felony we're talking about here, than this is the end of Rush Limbaugh. That's it," Wolff said.
Limbaugh gave up his job as an ESPN sports analyst late Wednesday, three days after 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.
ABCNEWS' Bob Woodruff contributed to this report. |
Related stories on this site:
Limbaugh's Latest Slur: No Surprise?
|
Comments
|
Rush Limbaugh May Teach Conservatives A Lesson |
by Thom Hartmann
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
03 Oct 2003
|
The reaction to the drug problem - and drug felonies - recently alleged against Rush Limbaugh highlight sharply the differences between conservative morality and liberal/progressive morality.
Conservatives often mistakenly proclaim themselves the sole holders of morality.
Their error comes when they define this word first and foremost in terms of personal behavior: What goes on in people's bedrooms, what drugs others may be taking in their own living rooms, whether a woman should be allowed to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. In their fervor for these issues, many conservatives think they are the only ones concerned about morality in an otherwise decadent society.
Liberals, however, are equally passionate about morality.
While personal morality is key in the conservative world-view, public morality is the overarching concern of liberals. Some are so passionate about this morality that they're led to acts of civil disobedience.
Perhaps best summarized in Jesus' description in Matthew 25 of who will (and who won't) get into heaven, liberal morality asks: "Are the hungry fed? Does everybody have the housing, clothing, and health-care they need? Are those in prison treated humanely? Are we caring for the "strangers" - the less fortunate or less competent among us - in the same way we'd want to be cared for if we fell on hard times?"
Many liberals would say that what people do in the private lives is their own business, and that if we hold to the ancient standard that only those among us without sin may cast stones at those with personal failings, we'll have a more humane and decent society.
Just as liberals hold public morality as a high positive virtue, public immorality equally disgusts them: Movie stars using their power and position to force themselves sexually in a non-consensual way on others. Politicians using their positions to award their buddies taxpayer money in grants, contracts, and tax breaks. Bureaucrats, expecting a job with industry when they leave regulatory agencies, allowing those industries to make our air, water, or food more toxic.
Most liberals don't care how stoned Rush wants to get in the privacy of his own home (private morality), so long as he doesn't try to drive while high (public morality). Similarly, they don't have a problem with Bill Clinton's consensual extramarital sex (private morality), but are horrified that he'd sign GATT and NAFTA without human rights, environmental, or labor standards (public morality). Bill Bennett is welcome to gamble as much as he wants (private morality), but when he supports right wing causes that harm the environment or oppress women in America or people in the Third World (public morality) he has become toxic.
There's an interesting consistency to these differing definitions of morality. Conservatives like Falwell probably are free of personal sins like philandering or pot smoking, and so feel righteous in condemning others who do. And because Falwell's definition of morality is limited to private behavior, he's comfortable hobnobbing with millionaires who made their money harming the lives of others or making the world more toxic. (Just so long as they don't sleep with somebody of the same sex!)
On the other hand, because liberals like Martin Sheen define morality by how well we all are taking care of us, and he's most likely never worked to increase the amount of toxic waste in the air, he's willing to both overlook the personal foibles of others and to put his life and freedom on the line for the public morality he so passionately cares about.
Which brings us back to Rush. Some believe that these private/public morality differences that form the demarcation line between conservatives and liberals are instinctual, an early imprint, or genetic, the same as a person being an introvert or extravert. Others believe they're the result of experience, and people can learn from their experience and grow up enough to become a liberal. Psychologists tell us that nobody knows for sure what causes a person to become a liberal or a conservative (although there are some interesting, and frightening, studies about the latter - but let's leave that for a future discussion.)
It's going to be interesting to watch. Will Rush's apparent drug problem cause conservatives to grow in wisdom, reconsider the destructive nature of their so-called "war on drugs," and begin to treat drug addiction as a medical - instead of a legal - problem like so many other liberal nations have done? Might they even discover the importance of rebuilding the pillars of public morality on which this nation was founded - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Some say it's impossible. As a good liberal, however, I'm willing to cut Rush some slack and hope for his and his followers' enlightenment. Let's hope and pray that if he gets out of this okay, he'll work to help release the millions of others today in prison for personal poor choices about drugs.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the award-winning, best-selling author of over a dozen books, and the host of a syndicated daily talk show that runs opposite Rush Limbaugh in cities from coast to coast. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached and the title is unchanged. |
|
Rush's Vicodin Use May Be A Factor In Sudden Hearing Loss |
by from the wires
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
05 Oct 2003
|
There's been some speculation on the Net about this. From other liks, it appears this is associated with levels of use which are high enough that the acetaminophen in the Vicodin pills (750 mg/pill) is actually high enough to lead to chronic liver toxicity (lethal doses are about 150 mg per kg body weight- chronic toxicity could result at much less than this). The Los Angeles hospital in the article below apparently saw cases where people took as many as 20 Vicodins
per day.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.azcentral.com/health/news/articles/1002rush-hearingloss-ON.html
Cox News Service
Oct. 2, 2003 05:15 PM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- One of the prescription drugs national radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is alleged to have abused has been linked to sudden hearing loss, an affliction that struck Limbaugh two years ago.
At the time, doctors said they were unsure of the exact cause of Limbaugh's hearing loss, but said that overuse of medication was not a factor.
Limbaugh would not reveal the cause of his deafness.
Coincidentally, the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles, where Limbaugh sought treatment, discovered in 1999 that some of its patients with sudden hearing loss had overused a common painkiller that combines hydrocodone and acetaminophen.
The combination is sold under several brand names: Vicodin, Hydrocet, Norco and Lorcet. Lorcet is one of the prescriptions Limbaugh's former housekeeper said she procured for him.
Doctors at the clinic said prolonged use of the painkiller was a common factor among 29 patients with sudden hearing loss.
Limbaugh announced in October 2001 that he was deaf in his left ear and was losing hearing in his right ear. After undergoing drug therapy for several months, he decided to have an electronic device installed in his ear in January 2002. The cochlear implant has partially restored his hearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-091001vicodin.story
Misuse of Pain Drug Linked to Hearing Loss
* Doctors in L.A. and elsewhere have identified at least 48 cases of deafness tied to prolonged misuse of Vicodin and other comparable prescription medicines.
"The lack of information is what I’m most furious about. That, and the proclivity of doctors to write prescriptions for Vicodin like it’s candy."
-- CHRISTINA JAEGER
By LINDA MARSA, TIMES HEALTH WRITER
A powerful and potentially addictive painkiller used by millions of Americans is causing rapid hearing loss, even deafness, in some patients who are misusing the drug, according to hearing researchers in Los Angeles and elsewhere.
So far, at least 48 patients have been identified by doctors at the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles and several other medical centers who have treated patients with sudden hearing loss. The hearing problems appear to be limited to people who abuse Vicodin and other chemically comparable prescription drugs by taking exceptionally high dosages for several months or more, doctors said.
Vicodin, one of the most commonly prescribed painkillers, is frequently used improperly.
"This has become such a popular drug of abuse," says Dr. John W. House, president of the House Institute in Los Angeles, one of the nation's leading centers of hearing-related research.
Actress Melanie Griffith and Cindy McCain, wife of U.S. Sen John McCain, have acknowledged their struggle to overcome their addiction to Vicodin, which they both were prescribed for severe back pain.
But it's not just notables who are getting hooked.
Christina Jaeger of Sherman Oaks was prescribed Vicodin in 1993 after a back injury. Gradually, she got addicted. She would wean herself off Vicodin for brief periods, only to relapse when doctors continued to prescribe the drug for her recurring pain.
Then, earlier this year, the 36-year-old model and fitness trainer suddenly began to lose her hearing. When her doctors couldn't explain what was happening, she went to the House Institute, where specialists concluded that Vicodin was to blame. Jaeger immediately entered a treatment program to kick her Vicodin habit. But it was too late. By the time she completed the program, she was deaf.
"If I had only known, I would have tried anything to stop," Jaeger said. "The lack of information is what I'm most furious about. That, and the proclivity of doctors to write prescriptions for Vicodin like it's candy."
Some experts believe that doctors' willingness to liberally prescribe potent narcotic painkillers may be contributing to the rise in abuse.
A government survey found that more than 1.6 million Americans began using painkillers like Vicodin in 1998 for nonmedical reasons, up from fewer than 500,000 in 1990. A new U.S. survey on drug use due out in a few weeks will likely find "an upswing" in improper use of prescription pain drugs, said Frank J. Vocci, director of treatment research and development at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Vicodin, a synthetic opiate that is a chemical cousin of heroin and morphine, has long been known to doctors as a potentially addictive medication. "As soon as Vicodin hit the market, there was a steady stream of addicts," said Dr. Drew Pinsky, medical director for the chemical dependency program at Las Encinas Hospital in Pasadena. "It's such a huge problem already that I don't know how much bigger it could be."
Researchers at the House Institute were among the first to connect Vicodin use with sudden hearing loss. They now have identified 29 people who heavily abused the painkiller and who subsequently suffered a sudden hearing loss; 16 of those were diagnosed in the last two years. UCLA scientists said they have seen an additional 14 patients with opiate-inducing hearing loss, mostly from overuse of Vicodin, and other ear experts around the country report seeing at least five more of these cases.
Dr. Richard Wiet, a professor of otology at Northwestern University, said he began noticing cases of hearing loss tied to Vicodin use after learning of the findings of House Institute researchers. "Then I started watching for it and found two patients. There's definitely something to this."
But researchers at a dozen other medical institutions said in interviews that they were unaware of similar cases. "It's an interesting observation, but there's really no way to prove as yet that Vicodin caused this problem," said Dr. Steven D. Rauch, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Mass.
Doctors at the House Institute reported the hearing loss incidents to the Food and Drug Administration in 1999, and then again last month. Last year, Knoll Pharmaceutical Co., the firm that makes Vicodin, added a warning about the potential for hearing loss to the drug's label. But the label change appears to have gone largely unnoticed, even among some top hearing specialists. Knoll is now owned by Abbott Laboratories.
Susan Cruzan, an FDA spokeswoman in Rockville, Md., said the agency worked with the manufacturer on the wording of the label. No further action is planned, Cruzan said, because the FDA considers the hearing loss problem to be "a very rare side effect that is associated with using the drug in an inappropriate manner."
The 48 cases identified so far may seem small considering that 36 million prescriptions for Vicodin-type products were written in 2000, according to IMS Health, a health information company in Westport, Conn. (Vicodin is a combination of acetaminophen and hydrocodone and is also sold under the brand names Lorcet, Lortab and Hydrocet.)
But the hearing loss problem may be "much more prevalent than we think," said Dr. Akira Ishiyama, an assistant professor of otolaryngology at UCLA Medical School who has treated nearly a dozen cases. Some doctors, he said, may not have drawn a connection between Vicodin use and sudden hearing loss in patients because they "haven't been looking for it."
When doctors see isolated cases of sudden hearing loss, they may believe it's just a chance occurrence. At the same time, patients may not realize--or admit-- their addiction to painkillers. Vicodin is typically prescribed for short-term use of two to three weeks at most, with patients taking one pill every six hours. But many of the patients who have suffered hearing loss were taking 20 pills or more a day for at least two months, doctors said.
"This seems to be a relatively new phenomenon," House said. "Because we see thousands of hearing impaired patients a year, we can spot trends faster than the average ear, nose and throat doctor." The House Institute pioneered the development of cochlear implants, which are tiny electronic devices that aid in processing sounds for people who are deaf. Consequently, the research center sees a high number of people with sudden hearing loss.
House Institute researchers believe they saw their first patient with Vicodin-induced hearing loss in 1993, although they didn't realize then what caused the patient's condition. Until then, there had been no reports linking hearing deficits to this painkiller, which has been on the market since 1982.
Generally, if an adult with normal hearing experiences a sudden and rapidly progressing hearing loss, the cause is either certain medications, like antibiotics or diuretics, or the onset of an autoimmune disease. Usually, when a patient stops taking the antibiotics or diuretics, his or her hearing returns. Similarly, people stricken with autoimmune-related hearing loss respond to treatment with steroids.
That first patient at the House Institute, however, didn't fit the usual pattern. He wasn't taking antibiotics or diuretics, nor was he suffering from an autoimmune disorder. He ran a successful construction company in the west San Fernando Valley, owned a home and had a wife and kids--but also a secret vice: Vicodin.
He initially began taking the painkiller after two knee surgeries. He developed a tolerance and the drug lost its effect. Soon he was taking 20 to 30 pills a day. "I didn't even realize I was addicted," he said. "After all, this was a prescription drug. It took the pain away, and I functioned normally."
His life changed, however, in November 1993, when he started experiencing ringing in his ears. Then sounds became muffled, first in one ear, then the other, like an electrical short circuit in an amplifier. Alarmed, he went to see his doctor, who referred him to the House Institute. Doctors prescribed steroids, but the drugs didn't help. Four weeks after his first symptoms, he was completely deaf.
The construction manager blames his addiction and deafness for the loss of his business and the demise of his marriage. "I lost everything," he said. "All because of a stinking little pill."
Soon, other patients with the same symptoms began showing up at the House Institute. All admitted abusing drugs containing the hydrocodone-acetaminophen mix. Researchers began tracking these cases and, in April 1999--after identifying 13 patients--shared their findings with hearing specialists at a professional meeting in Palm Springs. At the time, House scientists considered the handful of cases an anomaly. Soon, however, 16 more people showed up with the same problem.
Hearing researchers are still trying to find out how these painkillers cause deafness. They know the delicate hair cells inside the inner ear are permanently damaged in people with opiate-induced hearing loss. These hair cells are like tiny microphones, picking up sound vibrations and transforming them into nerve impulses that are transmitted to the brain. Once they're destroyed, people lose the ability to sense sounds.
Researchers also suspect that the inner ear contains opioid receptors, or nerve endings that are highly sensitive to stimulation by drugs like morphine, heroin or hydrocodone. They believe that there is a connection between these two phenomena. "But we're still unclear as to the exact mechanism of damage," said Dr. Robert W. Baloh, a professor of neurology and head and neck surgery at UCLA Medical School.
It's unclear whether the damage can be reversed once patients start experiencing symptoms. "Some patients have retained some hearing if they stop using the painkillers immediately," House said. "But for most, the damage is already done. Once the process starts, it seems irreversible." |
|
Re: Rush Limbaugh Has No Comment On Drug Investigation |
by Scumbag
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
05 Oct 2003
|
|
It would be better if the drugs caused his mouth to stop working. |
|
Re: Rush Limbaugh Has No Comment On Drug Investigation |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
06 Oct 2003
|
I appears you all have already tried and convicted the man who arguably is probably the single most important person in
the incredible rightward shift in the country. Interesting how you folks on the left seem to rejoice in someone's misfortune.
My prayers go out to this man who has done more to improve this country than anyone other than Ronald Reagan.
Jack |
|
