What’s lost in discussion of Rush Limbaugh’s alleged illegal use of
painkillers is the inalienable right to medicate oneself, which is contained
in the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. True,
governments don’t recognize this right. Limbaugh himself has not recognized
it. But as some conservatives say about the right to keep and bear arms, a
right is a right even if the government doesn’t recognize it.
Limbaugh claims he became addicted to prescription painkillers after
unsuccessful back surgery failed to stop his pain. Published reports say he
purchased large quantities of pills illegally.
This is embarrassing to Limbaugh fans on several counts. He portrays himself
as a paragon if not of virtue, then of self-mastery; he opposes
law-breaking; and he is a devoted drug warrior, favoring jail terms for
users as well as sellers.
Predictably, Limbaugh’s predicament has prompted some conservatives to
discover distinctions they had hitherto overlooked. As columnist Ben Shapiro
wrote on Townhall.com, "It is despicable how the media have equated
prescription painkiller addiction with recreational drug addiction."
We have grown accustomed to such simple-mindedness from conservatives when
it comes to the persecution of drug users. In this regard, Jacob Sullum’s
new book, Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, should be read by anyone
looking for common sense on the subject.
As Sullum demonstrates, the distinction that Shapiro asserts is not obvious
at all. Most people who use drugs recreationally are not addicts by any
serious definition. They use drugs (including heroin and cocaine) moderately
and responsibly—just as most drinkers use alcohol, which is potentially more
harmful than many banned drugs. What’s more, they stop when they believe
drugs interfere with more important things in life. They don’t come close to
matching the addict stereotype.
This will surprise most people. Because such drugs are illegal, responsible
users are invisible. They don’t talk about their habit, and the media don’t
discuss them. All one hears about are the people who get in trouble, one way
or another, with drugs. The skewed media accounts are buttressed by the
incessant barrage of dishonest propaganda issuing from government agencies.
(Everything said about illegal drugs was once said about alcohol.)
The one-sided, negative view that people are given about drugs is similar to
the one-sided, negative view they are given about guns—something that
conservatives, including Limbaugh, complain about. Yet they don’t realize
that the same thing happens with drugs.
What about the people who use heroin or cocaine irresponsibly? First, they
are a small minority. Second, the drug war doesn’t stop such people, but it
can and does wreak social havoc. Third, contrary to the new conservative
insight, they are not conceptually different from people who irresponsibly
use prescription painkillers after back surgery.
Is there really a distinction between someone trying to escape a painful
back and someone trying to escape a painful life? Doctors tell us that
stress and anxiety can cause physical illness. So why is self-treating
psychic pain so different from self-treating physical pain? The real
distinction is between responsibility and irresponsibility, not between back
pain and stress.
The word "addiction" is thrown around too casually. What does it mean to say
that Rush Limbaugh is addicted to OxyContin or Vicodin? Presumably it means
that if he stopped taking the drugs he’d miss them. But it doesn’t mean he
is a slave to them. He was able to function for five or six years while
regularly using the drugs. Moreover, he chose to walk into a medical
facility knowing he would not have access to them for 30 days. He opted to
accept whatever discomfort that will ensue because he prefers the outcome
(which may include leniency from the authorities). As psychologist Jeffrey
Schaler says, "Addiction is a choice."
The Limbaugh case exposes the war on drug users as a religious crusade
against people who use what Sullum calls politically incorrect drugs in the
manner of their own choosing. Conservatives who still care about individual
liberty should defect and demand the repeal of prohibition.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine. Send him email.
|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
|
|
|
|
