Drugs, Rush Limbaugh, and your workplace

Bruce S · #1 17th October 2003, 08:08 AM

BIZNETDAILY COMMENTARY
Drugs, Rush Limbaugh, and your workplace

Posted: October 16, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Steve Marr
© 2003 Business Reform

The startling admission by Rush Limbaugh to addiction and misuse of pain medication merely highlights the reality that substance abuse in any form can, and does, strike at every level in business.

To protect your business, you must first establish a policy of dealing with subsistence abuse. If you choose a zero tolerance policy, then each and every offender must be discharged for any infraction. You can't release a marginal performer for drinking on the job while turning a blind eye to the star salesmen returning from a customer lunch "in the bag." In establishing a zero tolerance policy, you must be prepared to dismiss your best worker and friend for any violation.

Another option is to establish a second chance policy. To be effective, any violation must be quickly and directly confronted with an option to seek appropriate medicinal treatment immediately. Most people will deny they have a problem (which forces you to move to termination) rather then confessing and seeking treatment. King Solomon wrote, "He who conceals his sins dos not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy" (Proverbs 28:13 NIV).

Most people who admit to substance abuse will either insist they don't have a problem or claim that this was their first offense. However, as King Solomon understood, step #1 is confession and step #2 is turning from sin. Repeating step #1 will bring no long-term change.

If your company's policy is to extend grace, then insure that you go beyond accepting just a confession and demand assurance of true change.

I would insist that those who want to break an addiction should follow Rush's example and enter a treatment program. Some people may need long-term residential care while others may require outpatient care, but only competent professionals can make that determination. Research also shows that Christian-based programs are far more effective then secular-based programs, but wherever you send your employees, get legal advice in establishing and implementing your policy.

Lastly, don't turn a blind eye. Moses instructed the people, "and it is told to you, and you hear it, then you shall inquire diligently" (Deuteronomy 17:4). Don't pretend that nothing is happening, despite the obvious warning signs. If you do, then the potential for hurt, injury, and lawsuits will only increase.

Steve Marr is the former CEO of the fourth largest import-export firm in the U.S., a company which facilitated international trade for many of the largest companies in America. Currently, Steve consults with with businesses and ministries utilizing ancient Biblical principles for success in today's marketplace.

Doctrine1st · #2 17th October 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Bruce S

I would insist that those who want to break an addiction should follow Rush's example and enter a treatment program. Some people may need long-term residential care while others may require outpatient care, but only competent professionals can make that determination. Research also shows that Christian-based programs are far more effective then secular-based programs, but wherever you send your employees, get legal advice in establishing and implementing your policy.

Doesn't this writer know that:

1. This is Rush's third attempt.

2. Most experts are rolling their eyes in Rush thinking he just needs 30 days of detox to lick his addition.

3. Statistics have shown that Christian based drug programs are NOT far more effective. Even the head of the Bush's faith base program could not refute the facts are being skewed.

Bruce S · #3 17th October 2003, 09:35 AM

[quote=Doctrine1st]Doesn't this writer know that:

This is Rush's third attempt.

Having been in AA now for over 12 years, I have seen multiple rehabs a LOT. Generally, for the hard core addict, you need a HARD CORE LANDING, then the need for real rehabilitation kicks in, this one is a real "bottom" for a high profile person like Rush. So the third time might just BE the "charm" for him

Most experts are rolling their eyes in Rush thinking he just needs 30 days of detox to lick his addition.

Standard rehab IN PATIENT, is only 30 days, but that is followed by a LIFETIME of "going to meetings" in a narcotics support program.

3. Statistics have shown that Christian based drug programs are NOT far more effective. Even the head of the Bush's faith base program could not refute the facts are being skewed.

Being "in AA" I have an ongoing "problem" with church based recovery problems. It is mulitiple in complaints. First, they "lump in" all the recovery issues into one program, overeating, alcohol, drugs, emotional things, everything and everyone is tossed into one program. Then you are supposed to deal with them all as the same thing. AA has what we call "singleness of purpose" where you deal with ONE THING, and ONE THING ONLY. We have found that those dealing with alcholism don't do well when you confuse recovery issues with other needs.

Secondly, the faith based programs want to get people into church, that is a GOOD THING, ,don't get me wrong, but most recovering people, have a REAL PROBLEM thinking they are outcasts, loners, rejected. And they will go back to church, but usually it takes a year or more to get them stabilized and feeling adequate about themselves again.

Fellowship with other recovering people is the key, God and Faith comes later, but can't be the primary emphasis initially, just getting them to fellowship with others who have overcome the same issues is.

Doctrine1st · #4 17th October 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Bruce S

Having been in AA now for over 12 years, I have seen multiple rehabs a LOT. Generally, for the hard core addict, you need a HARD CORE LANDING, then the need for real rehabilitation kicks in, this one is a real "bottom" for a high profile person like Rush. So the third time might just BE the "charm" for him

Standard rehab IN PATIENT, is only 30 days, but that is followed by a LIFETIME of "going to meetings" in a narcotics support program.

Being "in AA" I have an ongoing "problem" with church based recovery problems. It is mulitiple in complaints. First, they "lump in" all the recovery issues into one program, overeating, alcohol, drugs, emotional things, everything and everyone is tossed into one program. Then you are supposed to deal with them all as the same thing. AA has what we call "singleness of purpose" where you deal with ONE THING, and ONE THING ONLY. We have found that those dealing with alcholism don't do well when you confuse recovery issues with other needs.

Secondly, the faith based programs want to get people into church, that is a GOOD THING, ,don't get me wrong, but most recovering people, have a REAL PROBLEM thinking they are outcasts, loners, rejected. And they will go back to church, but usually it takes a year or more to get them stabilized and feeling adequate about themselves again.

Fellowship with other recovering people is the key, God and Faith comes later, but can't be the primary emphasis initially, just getting them to fellowship with others who have overcome the same issues is.

Congrats on turning your life around.

And actually I hope the best for Rush and more importantly, he'll think before he degrades those in his very same shoes that he's done on the regular in the past.

TheBear · #5 17th October 2003, 11:09 AM

From my understanding of these addictions, there is a three-fold illness: physical, mental, and spiritual.

Physical - the physical craving for more, once the substance is in the body.

Mental - even without any substance in the body, the mind 'chooses' to put the substance in the body. Once the substance is taken, the physical craving takes over.

Spiritual - underlying the mental aspect, there is a spiritual illness - eg. not feeling at ease with others, not feeling comfortable with themselves, not able to cope in life, and so forth, without being under the influence.

30 days of separation from the substance will, in most cases, remove the physical aspect of the problem. But, unless the person addresses the mental and the spiritual aspects of the problem, statistics show that most will return to the substance.

My question is, with over 400,000 who have been jailed for doing exactly what Rush did, why aren't there any criminal charges being filed against him?

Lillithspeak · #6 17th October 2003, 12:57 PM

Why not prosecute him? All the religious right would be up in arms about how he needs to be forgiven, or how he's being picked on because he's right a wing darling.

But, did any of them protest when he was trashing other addicts? NOOOO, don't think so.

Lillith

bubble_blower · #7 17th October 2003, 09:47 PM

I don't care much for Rush. But here's an honest question: What degree of harm does his habit inflict on society? Considering he's rich and continues to be employed, it isn't like he's stealing car radios to feed his habit. Unless he operates a vehicle, I have to wonder if it is worth our attention.

notto · #8 17th October 2003, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by bubble_blower

I don't care much for Rush. But here's an honest question: What degree of harm does his habit inflict on society? Considering he's rich and continues to be employed, it isn't like he's stealing car radios to feed his habit. Unless he operates a vehicle, I have to wonder if it is worth our attention.

So if I grow weed in my own home, you may not have a problem with it, but my guess is that Rush would.

Somewhere down the chain from Rush's hands to his illegal supplier is probably a crime of greater degree, whether it be stealing the drugs in the first place, laundering the money made from it, or the dealer selling the same drugs to people who ARE stealing car radios to feed their habit.

Rush was just rich enough to pay enough middle men to keep his hands somewhat clean.

Susan · #9 18th October 2003, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by notto

So if I grow weed in my own home, you may not have a problem with it, but my guess is that Rush would.

Somewhere down the chain from Rush's hands to his illegal supplier is probably a crime of greater degree, whether it be stealing the drugs in the first place, laundering the money made from it, or the dealer selling the same drugs to people who ARE stealing car radios to feed their habit.

Rush was just rich enough to pay enough middle men to keep his hands somewhat clean.

Agreed. I personally believe that Rush should be held just as accountable as anyone else who is involved in his crime.

It is the consumers of illegal drugs that drive the drug trade as such. Someone probably robbed a pharmacy somewhere along the line for the drugs that he bought, or acquired them in a fraudulent transaction. He should not be excused from the consequences of the crime, IMHO.

MichaelFJF · #10 18th October 2003, 10:58 AM

I thought the point of the OP was drugs in your work place. I was wrong - seems to be just another thread to tee off on Limbaugh. Boring. M