If I'm ever caught for felony prescription fraud not once, but twice, I hope I can get off the hook just by telling some really funny jokes.

greg, "freed on the basis of hilarity!" mode

I'm not trying to unnecessarily minimize the significance of his crime, but the Viagra use was not a felony. It'd be a second-degree misdemeanor.

His crime was of minimal significance -- if he committed it. There is probably a point to be made about the flaws in the War on (Some) Drugs. Nevertheless, if I were Rush and subject to a drug-related plea agreement, I'd be extremely careful about any pills I was carrying around.

liberal blogs are asking why he was carrying viagra to the dominican republic. apparently, rush is involved with a cnn anchor who was not on that trip. the blogs are trying to draw a connection between the viagra in rush's bag and the prominent sex tourism offered in the paradise nation.

I disagree.

This crime, if committed, is very significant. First, it was in the doctor's name. Doctors are not allowed to write subscriptions for themselves and most ethical guidelines prohibit (AMA is just one) writing subscriptions to family members. This doctor could potentially suffer serious ramifications by the Florida Medical Licensing Board. Besides, under HIPAA, anyone who "leaked" his use of Viagra could find themselves in plenty of trouble. Thus, his privacy argument carries little weight. I find it a little ironic that he touts family values, yet he his twice divorced, currently unwed, carrying a bottle of viagra on a weekend getaway with a bunch of buddies.

Second, although not a narcotic, it is still a regulated drug.

Third, Rush got off on a lighter setence regarding his "doctor shopping" and abuse of a narcotic than a friend of mine who got busted with a joint at a concert.

Fourth, he violated his parole if he was using/carrying the Viagra.

I no fan of Limbaugh, but I do sympathize for him...just as I do for any public person whose private life gets attacked because people disagree with his/her political opinions.

First, there is not necessarily a crime that has been committed. From the article Josh linked:

It is generally not illegal under Florida law for a physician to prescribe medication in a third party's name if all parties are aware and the doctor documents it correctly, said Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the state attorney in Palm Beach County...The alleged violation could be a second-degree misdemeanor if Limbaugh's doctor doesn't confirm the prescription. (emphasis added)

Anon went on to write:

Second, although not a narcotic, it is still a regulated drug.

Regulated in what way? Do you mean simply that it is a prescription drug? Well, obviously--if it were OTC there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

Third, Rush got off on a lighter setence...than a friend of mine who got busted with a joint at a concert.

However, it appears that Rush did not begin using painkillers recreationally. He was using them to treat pain and (as many people do) became addicted. We could still debate all afternoon whether the comparative sentences are just, but that's an important point to keep in mind.

I find it a little ironic that he touts family values, yet he his twice divorced, currently unwed, carrying a bottle of viagra on a weekend getaway with a bunch of buddies.

It is generally not illegal under Florida law for a physician to prescribe medication in a third party's name...

Whose the third party? The prescription was in the Doctors' name, correct? Rush, MD... I got 2. I agree with the poster that suggests that the MD could be in more troble than Rush on this one.

Eric,

You wrote or quoted: "It is generally not illegal under Florida law for a physician to prescribe medication in a third party's name if all parties are aware and the doctor documents it correctly, said Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the state attorney in Palm Beach County...The alleged violation could be a second-degree misdemeanor if Limbaugh's doctor doesn't confirm the prescription. (emphasis added)"

But, there is no third party. It is Rush and his doctor. Florida would have allowed the doctor to write a prescription in Rush's wife's name (one of the three) since she would constitute a third party. But, it does not allow for physicians to write themselves or their own family members prescriptions.

Also, does it matter that Rush became addicted to pain killers even though he originally was injured? He still violated the law instead of seeking treatment. One could argue which is worse, a little recreational pot use or sustaining an addiction. Judgment call.

But, there is no third party. It is Rush and his doctor.

Well, then, assuming it wasn't written by a specialist in Limbaugh's primary physician's name or something like that, the quote by the state attorney's spokesman was a non sequitur. And I agree that the doctor may be in more trouble than Rush. But in any case it's clear we don't know the whole picture yet.

Also, does it matter that Rush became addicted to pain killers even though he originally was injured? He still violated the law instead of seeking treatment.

You are correct, he should have sought treatment rather than violating the law. As I said before, it is debatable which form of drug violation deserves harsher punishment.

Much ado about nothing.

Limbaugh-haters have another reason to vent, film at 11.

Good grief, how empty some people's lives must be.

How did Bob Dole's luggage get on my airplane? I told my doctor I was worried about the next election.

Hilarious!!! I'm sure that Rush's lawyer and his Palm Beach prosecutor, judge and probation officer are all in stitches!

I'm not saying it's minor in terms of the potential legal consequences, but I think that says more about how out of control the War on (Some) Drugs has gotten than it does about the seriousness of the crimes that may have been committed.

A guy has some marijuana or Viagra he shouldn't have? Society is not threatened by these things. The legal consequences are disproportionate to the threat to society, in my humble opinion.

If it's going to cause someone trouble, however, I'm happy that it is happening to someone like Rush who aids and abets the drug warriors. There is always a certain amount of satisfaction when someone is hoist by his own petard.

It reminds me (a little bit) of the dilemma for anyone buying 222's with codeine in Canada and bringing them over the bridge (or through the tunnel) into Michigan. Possession of codeine as a class-whatever narcotic is clearly against the law, yet.... People did it (and for all I know still do) for personal use without any doctor's prescription whatsoever.

Granted, those people weren't going to their local Walgreen's - ooo. strike that CVS! - with a prescription in someone else's name to obtain it, but they were technically in violation of state and Federal law.

Part of Blowhard's plea agreement was to not break any laws for eighteen months. He couldn't even go four months before committing a second-degree misdemeanor.

People trying to minimize this crime by ignoring the context (a probation violation) are ignoring a reality of our criminal justice system.

A huge number of individuals in prison and jail in this country would not be there but for a "small" act that violated their probation. Probation hearings generaly do not provide individuals with the same rights as initial trials.

The criminal justice system in general does not give the benefit of the doubt to probation violators; generally, it's presumed that if you violate probation, you belong in prison. The fact that your violation was "small" is of very litle relevance in these cases, especialy if it's a repeat offense (Rush essentially violated the same set of laws again).

If Rush gets the benefit of the doubt regarding this violation, it will be a classic example of how the conservative "tought on crime" elite don't apply their own rules to themselves. Not a new or surprising revalation, but sad, nonetheless.

Yet, Phil, there's no contradiction for those of us who oppose the "war on drugs" to begin with.

There's quite a lot of jumping to conclusions going on among the Rush-haters. It's not clear to me that any crime was actually committed, or even if there was, who committed it.

I don't advocate any special treatment for Limbaugh, I am merely pointing out that he is presumed innocent until the relevant facts are sorted out. Funny how the presumption of innocence goes right out the window for certain people when the supposed perpetrator is someone they refer to as "Blowhard."

Eric is correct. Maybe we "Rush haters" have jumped the gun. I should have earlier written that ""The Doctor of Democracy" appears to have violated customs rules in that the name on the prescription drug bottles he was carrying didn't match the name on the travel doc.

And that according to the Miami Herald, it only appears that possession of drugs prescribed to someone else is a second degree misdemeanor. It also appears that he would have skated had he simply carried the pills in an unmarked bottle. But he may skate yet anyway, such is the power of "America's Anchorman" and the saavy of his defenders in the ACLU. But don't expect any crocodile tears from the legions of his un-fans if the Palm Beach prosecutor says this negates El Rushbo's plea deal.

Because after years of this:

"If it were up to you people (liberals)... you probably wouldn't have cared about the war on terror or the bombing on 9-11. You would have sought out bin Laden and tried to make a deal with him."

and this:

"I mean, if there is a party that's soulless, it's the Democratic Party. If there are people by definition who are soulless, it is liberals -- by definition. You know, souls come from God. You know? No. No. You can't go there."

and this

"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."

who can blame us if we're just a little too excited about this latest chapter in the sordid saga of America's most opiated --- whoops I mean opinionated --- "Anchorman" entirely too much? "Maha Rushie," indeed!

Ironically, you are obviously a lot more familiar with Rush than I am. Sorta like the anti-MTV crusader who watches hours of music videos every day and calls it "research"--so he/she can tell everyone just how dangerous and corrupting MTV is for "impressionable young minds."

MTV has videos?

Actually, Rush has all those quotes on his website. My dad used to listen to him but has since seen the light.

Ironically, you are obviously a lot more familiar with Rush than I am..."

I highly doubt it, but then I'm not going to make any assumptions about how you spend your time or conduct your "research."

Rush has those quotes on his website? Where?? Out of sheer curiosity, I used the "search the website" function on rushlimbaugh.com, and it came up with zero hits for "soulless." By contrast, it came up with 1407 hits for "Clinton."

I'm not saying he never said those things. Those quotes don't even seem particularly unusual for a pundit/agitator like Limbaugh. I just think it's funny that there are people who are so fixated on hating Rush that they are more familiar with him than people who would agree with him a majority of the time.

Like Tibbs said, "Good grief, how empty some people's lives must be."

El Rushbo's above comments are easily Googled. And his various nicknames (self-given) are listed on his Wiki page...

Anyway, since we're busy quoting, like B. Russell said, "the time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."

I forgot to add a ? after self-given, as in (self-given?)...

The question mark is not even necessary. He does give himself those nicknames (with a few exceptions), as a joke.

People that are high on marijuana do stupid things, sometimes putting others at harm. Is there really a comparable risk with that little blue pill? Are people getting a viagra buzz and going out for the evening?