This is going to be a tough post, but I see some major new anti-drug tyranny ahead, and, while I know I can do little to stop it, I couldn't live with myself if I remained silent and watched while another of the few remaining shreds of freedom is lost forever.

I sincerely, truly hope that the drug allegations against Rush Limbaugh turn out to be false. Because if there is anything to them, this country may be in for one of the most sickening displays of moral hypocrisy in our history. Bad as that will be, I fear that it will be followed by yet another phase in the foul, treacherous, anti-American "War on Drugs." Because if the allegations are well-founded, the anti-drug forces hold in their hand (and by the balls) a leading spokesman who could be counted on to do or say anything, no matter how dishonest or perfidious.

The threat to freedom, in my view, dwarfs the obviously political timing of the Limbaugh attack. (They held back for two years, in my view to assist the Democrats' election strategy, and to coincide with the unveiling of a major liberal talk radio venture. But this post is not about the political timing.)

If anything, the political timing of this affair puts even more pressure on the Republicans to put the strongest possible anti-drug spin on this, and ASAP. In their shortsighted view, the best way to do that is to force Rush to become a rat and a victim, and then (after allowing him a comfortable pause for "detoxification"), have him emerge as a major anti-drug crusader....

I want to emphasize once again that I hope and pray that I am mistaken, and that this horrible vision never comes to pass. But I worry, because if the allegations are true, I see it as boiling down to simple political math. (I mean, what's the other alternative? For a leading Drug War advocate to suddenly announce he is a victim of drug laws? That would be suicidal to his career -- and guarantee him a stretch in the slammer. If, through some miracle, he showed such courage, I would do literally anything I could to help him.)

OK, now suppose (for the sake of argument) there are some readers to this blog who favor the "Drug War," and who think that having Rush emerge as a leading anti-drug spokesman is the best possible outcome if the allegations are true. I would urge you to consider the following:

And now, for an entirely new wrinkle:

The latter will most likely emerge subtly, as if by accident, when one fine morning, the gun grabbers wake up to reread the existing gun laws, and "discover" that addiction to drugs is a prohibited category. Much the same way they demanded that Charlton Heston surrender his firearms, there will be a hue and cry that Rush Limbaugh -- the "drug addict" -- must be disarmed in the interests of public safety!

NOTE: Eugene Volokh disagreed with the above Slate analysis, so maybe he can help out Rush (and the Second Amendment community) this time. (Link thanks to Instapundit.)

Will it end there? Will only Rush lose his guns? (I don't know whether he owns any guns, but these comments, and the forward to this book, make it a fair assumption.)

Normal American middle-class taxpayers have become quite accustomed to routine drug tests -- both for themselves and their schoolchildren. Once the idea "strikes them" they'll demand to know why the right wing yahoos who want to buy guns shouldn't have to pass the same piss test their little Johnny has to take to play on the soccer team.

Soccer moms for gun drug testing! It's only fair!

Of course, I vehemently oppose drug testing as insidious Orwellianism, and I sympathize with this guy. (And I am still sorry for the misunderstanding the other day. If only there were some way to drag the the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" cast to the local shooting range!)