Rehnquist drug dependency detailed

[Osborn F Enready]

Yahoo News Associated Press Story:
Rehnquist drug dependency detailed - Yahoo! News

Although Rehnquist's drug dependency was publicly known around the time he was hospitalized in 1981, the release of the FBI records provides new details. The justice was weaned off Placidyl in early 1982 in a detoxification process that took a month, according to the records. The hospital doctor who treated Rehnquist said the Capitol Hill physician who prescribed Placidyl for Rehnquist was practicing bad medicine, bordering on malpractice. Both doctors' names were deleted from the documents before they were released. The FBI documents were prepared in 1986 when Rehnquist — who began serving on the court on Jan. 7, 1972 — was nominated for chief justice, years after his problems with the drug had ended. They were released by the agency in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The agency said one of the seven folders of Rehnquist documents could not be found. A psychiatrist told the FBI that Rehnquist's family in 1981 noted "long-standing slurred speech which seems to coincide with administration of Placidyl," one FBI interview report stated. The psychiatrist also indicated that Rehnquist's chronic back pain led to his heavy use of such substances as Darvon and Tylenol 3, which the psychiatrist said also played a part in Rehnquist's condition. An attending physician at the U.S. Capitol detailed Rehnquist's problems with Placidyl for the FBI, saying that prior to his seeing the justice in 1972, Rehnquist was prescribed the drug by another doctor for relief from insomnia. The attending physician told the FBI he continued to prescribe Placidyl for the entire 10-year period that he treated Rehnquist. The physician said that Rehnquist had been prescribed 500 milligrams of Placidyl per evening, but that Rehnquist was actually taking 1,500 milligrams each night. The doctor said this increased consumption may have coincided with Mrs. Rehnquist's illness and treatment for cancer. Rehnquist had told the physician that he was taking one pill before going to bed and he would take other pills if he awakened during the night.

The HYPOCRISY of U.S. PROHIBITION LAWS never cease to amaze me, nor do its so called "protectors".

Its time to end the war on drugs, when even our highest esteemed court judges are junkies, without conscience, while prosecuting others for the same crimes.

Cost of the War on Drugs?
War On Drugs Clock

[StrongHeartsWin]

The hypocracy of the person or institution which enacts laws or enforces them is irrelevant to the rightfulness and necessity of and for those laws.

Hypocracy is merely a character flaw of the person -- it does not mean that THAT which they have acted in a manner contrary to their stated opinions is wrong in and of themselves. Those are seperate issues.

[ByaKya]

I'm against the war on drugs becuase of its very nature and the way its carried out, hurts one segment of american society than others, specifically blacks.

If whites in this country had the same type of problem with the same drugs that are abused by blacks, wed become a western european drug haven over night.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: ByaKya I'm against the war on drugs becuase of its very nature and the way its carried out, hurts one segment of american society than others, specifically blacks. If whites in this country had the same type of problem with the same drugs that are abused by blacks, wed become a western european drug haven over night.

Don't blacks do more of the selling, and whites the buying?

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yahoo News Associated Press Story: Rehnquist drug dependency detailed - Yahoo! News The HYPOCRISY of U.S. PROHIBITION LAWS never cease to amaze me, nor do its so called "protectors". Its time to end the war on drugs, when even our highest esteemed court judges are junkies, without conscience, while prosecuting others for the same crimes. Cost of the War on Drugs? War On Drugs Clock

Your reasoning here is questionable. This would not be news, except the drugs caused a problem. I was reading the article to understand the drug and the problem, and you say we should put this stuff out for people use as they please? How would it be a good thing to expose more people to having problems with drugs?

Yesterday was physically a very bad day for me, and I was day dreaming about a wonder drug that would make my life better. However, the side effects of many drugs and problems of addiction, keep me away from the drug choices we have today.

How about if we take a good look at ourselves and perhaps change our expectations and life style?

[Athena]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Don't blacks do more of the selling, and whites the buying?

The drug dealers I have known are White. This could vary from city to city.
In the late 1950's early 1960's the drug problem was pretty limited to the slums. It was ignored. It might not have been a good idea to ignore what was happening in the slums.

But also since then, our expections have soared. We expect better lives for ourselves, and more is expected from individuals, like we have gone mad with superhuman expectations. This is a very unfriendly and alienating situation that increases the use of drugs.

[Osborn F Enready]

SHW said: Hypocracy is merely a character flaw of the person -- it does not mean that THAT which they have acted in a manner contrary to their stated opinions is wrong in and of themselves. Those are seperate issues.

The government has been hypocritical since it enacted the laws of prohibition, since it stands in direct violation of citizen rights, the nature of liberty, and our entire history of emancipation of the individual based on individual responsibility.

The arguments used to outlaw most drugs, were fabricated, biased propaganda, based on bad science and lies.

The government skirted, side-stepped and abused the Constitution, and the rights of citizens by creating prohibition laws.

Rhenquist was a hypocrite, because he was INDIVIDUALLY BREAKING THE LAWS HE WAS PUT IN PLACE TO UPHOLD, against the Constitution.

Even he himself was a person willing to set the law aside, to satiate HIS needs, something people of his position can rarely, if EVER be excused from.

ByaKya said: I'm against the war on drugs becuase of its very nature and the way its carried out, hurts one segment of american society than others, specifically blacks. If whites in this country had the same type of problem with the same drugs that are abused by blacks, wed become a western european drug haven over night.

Oh of course..... it must be racism alone.... right.

Marilyn said: Don't blacks do more of the selling, and whites the buying?

Thats because there are more blacks unemployed as a rule, and the black market pays well for those willing to risk being put in jail for partaking in the business.

It is the DEMAND that creates the market, and it is the LAW that makes that market illegal. The demand is not going away, nor is it going to. This is why rational people need to UNDERSTAND where their money for the war on drugs is going, and why the entire fight to illegalize drugs is a failure.

Sensible legalization is the only sensible answer in my opinion.

That regulates the market, and removes most of the crime from the drugs use, users and WEAKENS the black market and the criminals who run it.

Athena said: Your reasoning here is questionable. This would not be news, except the drugs caused a problem. I was reading the article to understand the drug and the problem, and you say we should put this stuff out for people use as they please?

I am saying there should be no law against me purchasing and using a drug at my own risk, with my own responsibility. (exactly as REHNQUIST was doing, against the law.)

Athena said: How would it be a good thing to expose more people to having problems with drugs?

You have it backwards. More people, ESPECIALLY kids, are exposed to drugs via the black market than by legal advertising, and more importantly, they are also more INFLUENCED by the quick cash that the black market has to offer if you are willing to risk your freedom.

It is a government created, and perpetuated circle of ignorance, being pushed by subjective morals on to people who are UNWILLING to accept that burden.
The fact is, the black markets strength in reference to drugs, speaks just how much of a failure the notion of prohibition is.

Athena said: Yesterday was physically a very bad day for me, and I was day dreaming about a wonder drug that would make my life better. However, the side effects of many drugs and problems of addiction, keep me away from the drug choices we have today.

Thats a personal choice, that only YOU are free to exercise for YOURSELF.
That is why I have a problem with a government trying to do it for everyone.

Athena said: How about if we take a good look at ourselves and perhaps change our expectations and life style?

How about if you worry about what is behind your nose, instead of in front of it? If we take care of OURSELVES, this isn't a problem.

The problem comes from when people want to dictate to others what is right and wrong, based on propaganda. Welcome to the drug war.

[brien]

The hypocracy of the person or institution which enacts laws or enforces them is irrelevant to the rightfulness and necessity of and for those laws.

A POI. The judiciary doesn't enact law. A Supreme Court Justice is supposed to represent the finest of all judges. And the Chief Justice is supposed to represent the finest of all Supeme Courts Justices. In light of Rehnquist's behavior, amoung a boatload of other reasons, the so called War on Drugs is a national farce.