by Scoobie Davis
Good Article but Wrong Conclusion
I enjoyed reading Hendrik Hertzberg's article in the New Yorker dealing with Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction. Hertzberg echoes my view of Limbaugh as a chickenhawk in the war on drugs.
However, the article is flawed by the conclusion: "Limbaugh may be a Chicken Hawk in the war on drugs," Hertzberg writes, "but that doesn’t mean he deserves to be cannon fodder." Why the hell not? If anyone should be fodder in the war on drugs, it shouldn't be some schlemiel caught with a bag of weed or a rock, it should be those who are involved in massive drug transactions. The fact that Limbaugh was a big voice for the war on drugs would make a prosecution all the more fitting.
On a practical level, few legal experts expect the hate radio jock will spend any time wearing an orange jumpsuit (Roy Black is Limbaugh's attorney). However, even though a conviction is unlikely, criminal charges against Limbaugh would be appropriate; it would support Alan Dershowitz's view that a civil libertarian is a conservative who is under investigation. Also, there is a preponderance of evidence that Limbaugh used his home and car in his drug transactions. Civil forfeiture laws should be used to seize both. Limbaugh could easily buy both back and it would pay for the investigation and more.