Tuesday, June 27, 2006

LIMBAUGH'S LATEST LEGAL LAPSE
For those who enjoy playing the "Which is Worse?" game, here's a new one to add:

If you're Rush Limbaugh, which is worse: (a) being found with a jar of non-prescription pills in you luggage when you're not supposed to have them, or (b) being found with a jar of non-prescription Viagra in your luggage when you're not supposed to have them?

Well, Rush is playing this one at home, folks. Following a three-hour chat with some nice customs people at West Palm Beach airport on Monday. On arriving from his vacation in the Dominican republic, Rush "I-have-been-totally-indicated" Limbaugh had a bottle of Viagra taken from him because there was no name on any prescription.

It seems that he has changed from non-prescribed pain killers to non-prescribed pleasure makers. I suppose there's more than one way to cure a headache.

According to Rush's attorney, Roy Black - who must be on Rush's speed-dial - the Viagra had been legitimately prescribed but the bottle had been "labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes."

Ah, so that explains it. You and I would just have our names printed in bold, highlighted in yellow, and have to listen to the pharmacy assistant shout across the store "Hey, how many Viagra tablets are there supposed to be in this dudes jar?" but Rush gets away with needing privacy.

Look, if the dude's having problems getting it up - and that would at least explain why he seems to permanently have a stick up his rear end - that's none of my business. But if he's breaking the law by obtaining illegal drugs while he's still being monitored for his previous episode of using non-prescribed painkillers, then he should be hit just as hard as any other working stiff out there. A kid takes an ibruprofen to school and gets suspended under a "zero tolerance" rule, but Rush can get hold of bottles of whatever and rely on his money and position to get him off any hooks.

File this one under the "...with Liberty, and Justice, for All??" label.

No comments: