Willie Nelson Caught With The Wacky Tobaccy

Yeah, apparently the government wasn’t through with screwing up his life. :\

From Yahoo News:

Willie Nelson and four others were issued misdemeanor citations for possession of narcotic mushrooms and marijuana after a traffic stop Monday morning on a Louisiana highway, state police said.

……

“When the door was opened and the trooper began to speak to the driver, he smelled the strong odor of marijuana,” the news release said. A search of the bus produced 1 1/2 pounds of marijuana and 0.2 pounds of narcotic mushrooms, according to state police.

That’s really too bad… maybe he’ll write an album about his experiences and a new generation of cowboys can hear some oldschool country and western that doesn’t worship the flag.

posted Sep 23rd, 2006 by Stuart Richards

  • Pingback: Rasta Boys » Blog Archive » Willie Nelson Caught With The Wacky Tobaccy

  • Timothy West

    ya know, driving under the influence of ANYTHING is not something libertarians should support. If they were tokin up in the car or popping shrooms, they needed to be removed, not becuase of the drug possession itself, but becuase they were riding around in a car. The LP is widely viewed as advocating all drug use anytime, anywhere. How about we bring responsibility into the equation at some point?

    Don’t drive drunk, stoned, hi on meth, booze or anything! It’s a legit public safety hazard. But take the penalities OFF the drugs themselves and put them where they belong – penalizing (in some manner, not jail) the irresponsible use thereof. The ACTIONS taken by drug users are where the problems are. Get rid of any and all possession raps and focus on the actual behaivor of the persons.

  • http://UnCivilDefence.blogspot.com MRJarrell

    Given the evidence, Tim there was nothing other than simple possession in a home on wheels. If the driver of the bus were indulging he would have been arrested for DUI. The fact that he wasn’t points up the fact that the involved parties were acting responsibly. They had a designated driver and no-one was in any danger. Their behaviour was impecable.

  • John Doe

    His tour bus was pulled over, and they did a “routine inspection of a commercial vehicle” and smelled marijuana; seized the drugs and wrote everyone on the bus a citation for possession. Willie wasn’t the driver either.

  • Graham

    To those more familiar with quantities of marijuana, isn’t 1 1/2 pounds a LOT? I always hear about people dealing in fractions of ounces.

    Not that I’m complaining. I just figured that was not a small amount- could be wrong though since I’m not familiar with the stuff.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Well, it’s a whole tour – band, roadies, groupies, what have you – a pound and a half can go quickly….

  • Timothy West

    I wasnt referring to the exact circumstance of this story. Screw “possession” charges. I neither want an America where everyone is free to drive while drunk stoned high or an America where no one is free to simply have something on them someone else doesnt like.

  • http://www.lpnm.org Joseph Knight

    As I understand it, Willie wasn’t driving. He undoubtedly has a DRIVER and since the DRIVER wasn’t arrested, I would assume that the DRIVER wasn’t stoned (but I wasn’t there so can’t say).

    Between this and Willie’s trouble with the IRS you would think he’d be a candidate for recruitment – but he’s just too committed to those gov’t subsidies for farmers.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    I’d say Willie and company got a pretty good deal. In Virginia, they would have been arrested for two felonies.

    A mere citation for over a pound of weed and some shrooms sounds pretty lenient.

    I’m left wondering what the hell a “narcotic” mushroom is though. Is this some kind of new poppy-mushroom mutation?
    Psilocybin mushrooms are hallucingenic, not narcotic. And how did the cop know that the they were not ordinary mushrooms – did he eat some?

  • brian g

    Any law that stops people from taking responsibility for themselves is bad law on a slippery slope. let people drive under the influence if they want to – they aren’t hurting anyone. then let them take full responsibility for the outcome of their actions. having the gub’ment decide what is and isn’t too dangerous for us is a very bad idea. we end up with smoking bans, seat belt and helmet laws and who knows what other crap laws before it’s over? don’t get me wrong, i don’t support gov’t law at all, but in a perfect (read: reasonable) world only actions would prosecuted as criminal.

  • kcjerith

    brian g, i agree that seat belt and helmet laws are immoral and that people should take responability for their actions. However, would the LP support someone firing a loaded gun randomly in a public place, like a mall or in a park? hell no. Driving while fucked up (DWFU) is basically the same thing, maybe you won’t kill someone, maybe you will. It is clear that such behavior is reckless towards other people and should be banned.

    The examples you use arn’t the same, if someone goes into a smokey bar, they choose to be in such an estabislhment and take their chances. Using a helmet or seatbelt is a personel choice that effects just the person making the descesion. DFWU does not leave a choice for other people.

  • Matt

    This is a question I’ve often had about things like this: Sure, it’s fine to not wear a helmet/seatbelt or something like that, but should a parent be made to have their children so do? I’m not sure how I feel about this, and this is often a question that other people immediately raise.

    Should a parent still have to do this til, lets just say 14, and then the kid can do whatever?

  • http://www.lpnm.org Joseph Knight

    “I’m left wondering what the hell a “narcotic” mushroom is”

    Legislators get to re-write dictionaries. Pot is often defined legally as a “narcotic” also. If a cop is beating you and you raise your arm to shield against a blow, you have just committed “assault” on a “peace” officer.

    And toking up in the BACK OF THE BUS is not DRIVING while fucked up. Who was DRIVING? If Willie and everbody who got the cites were all DRIVING, I’d like to see that driver’s seat!

  • kcjerith

    I agree Matt, the one sticky issue (in my mind) is child rights, as a general rule these issues should be settled by the parents. Children are not property of the state. Having said that I am not sure how I would anwser your examples.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    However, would the LP support someone firing a loaded gun randomly in a public place, like a mall or in a park? hell no. Driving while fucked up (DWFU) is basically the same thing, maybe you won’t kill someone, maybe you will.

    It should be up to the owner of the mall, park or road – which should not be the government. If they choose to allow risky activities such as firing a gun in public or DWFU they would have to pay higher insurance rates which tends to encourage safety measures.

    On the other hand, they would have to weigh enforcement costs against insurance/damage losses and thus strike a sensible balance. A free market would allow for a variety of solutions, and where people would take their business would help determine where that balance would be. A better solution IMO than having bureaucrats and politicians make these decisions with OTHER people’s money and liberty.

  • brian g

    very well put, cannoli. therein lies the problem. there can never be good law while it is made by a single, monopolistic entity.
    i personally don’t care what the LP would support, because the more inportant question is what does libertarianISM allow? should people be able to fire a weapon randonly in a crowd? absolutely! as long as they are willing to take the responsibility for that action. which, in a well armed society would mean instant death. society works without government. government law is not required to maintain order, because order is a characteristic of human society. the absence of government doesn’t eliminate the relationship between cause and effect.

  • kcjerith

    I did mean to sound like the LP is the fionaly authority on a issue, however ideally they are in line with liberatain philosphy. So murder/killing (yes, i know, different words in a legal sense) is legal as long as you are willing to deal with conquences. “in a well armed society would mean instant death”. That would depend i can see cases were the killer could escape, not everyone armed, no one sure what the hell just happened etc.

    Brian g, i assume you are a anarchistic. If so I think this is one of the classic dividing lines between libertarian and anrachist. In an arnarchist society private enforcement angeices would spring up. The problem is how to settle disputes between agencies. See, Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Novak (who can explain this issue much better then I ever could)

    i agree that people would in most cases co-operate, not in all however. Their also the intersting problem is that people would creat govenments on thier own so anarchy can never exisit for but (cont)

  • kcjerith

    (cont) a short period of time, and by defintion anarchy can’t prevent or enforce (without violence) the formation of governments

  • kcjerith

    I do agree that it would be up to owner of a mall, however that is the problem. Private ownership is required. yes if roads are private then the owner has the rights to choose, however this is not the case. Until we privataze the roads what do we do? Not a smart ass question, a real one.

    Drivers would not nessarly have high insurance premimuns for driving drunk. Why. Who would report to the insurance agency, this assumes their was no accident and that they where just drunk. The driver wouldn’t, I guess the cops could, but then don’t they become agents of a private business

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    i agree that people would in most cases co-operate, not in all however.

    So what, they always co-operate or follow the law now? There is no utopia, whether in an anarchist society or a statist one. Anarchy just comes closer.

    That would depend i can see cases were the killer could escape, not everyone armed, no one sure what the hell just happened etc.

    And the police always catch criminals, or the courts convict the right people? We have to compare anarchy against the actual alternative, not some impossible standard of perfection.

    If so I think this is one of the classic dividing lines between libertarian and anrachist.

    Whoah, careful – there’s no such line. Many libertarians are anarchists, and many anarchists are libertarians.

    The problem is how to settle disputes between agencies.

    How do you resolve disputes between governments? Diplomacy when possible, war when nothing else works. But mostly diplomacy and mutual recognition.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    by defintion anarchy can’t prevent or enforce (without violence) the formation of governments

    Certainly, if someone was trying by force to demand protection ransom from all the businesses and residents of an area or to establish by force a monopoly on protection services, I have no problem with using force to stop them, regardless of whether they choose to call themselves a mafia or a government.

    Drivers would not nessarly have high insurance premimuns for driving drunk. Why. Who would report to the insurance agency, this assumes their was no accident and that they where just drunk.

    The owners of the road could be held liable for not providing safety on their road, which is what I was referring to – THEIR insurance. As for drivers, if they make a habit of driving drunk they will tend to get into fender-benders and thus raise their rates. If they can drive stoned safely, what’s the problem? I know some people who are safer drivers when stoned than when they’re sober.

  • kcjerith

    Ok, I grant maybe not a line, but maybe a sliding scale between libertairnism and arnarchy. This is one of those arguments where I don’t mnd being wriong, not just becasue i can learn something, but If i am wrong it means less government is the way to go (and that always makes me smile :))

    I just always wonder what a anarchist society would look like, our coutnry would divide up, forming little anarchies or states. I still don’t get how you can enforce anarhcies, states will arise out of anarchy.

    Anrachy would only work if all the world agreed?

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    It would work if enough people (not everyone) agreed that it is always wrong for mafia gangs to extort protection money from people and prevent any competition for protection services on their “turf” – even when those gangs call themselves governments.

    Certainly some such gangs would always try, just as there are mobsters today but the only difference is that some of the organized criminals get away with it now because people have been duped into believing we have to have a monopoly government – and under anarchy they would not be treated any differently than any other racketeer.

  • brian g

    technically, i don’t aknowledge a line between libertarians and (market) anarchists because they are one in the same. i am a market anarchist and a libertarian. the difference is between minarchists and market anarchists (both, degrees of libertarianism).
    because it is in the best interest of players in a market to coordinate activities. for some reason it is widely assumed that security production is somehow immune to the economic laws that govern all other aspects of voluntary exchange.
    i believe nozick’s (not novak) assumptions to simply be wrong. that’s the great thing about market economies. one just cannot predict how they will work when the creative force of society is unleashed. we can guess about how things might work out, but there is no absolute. would some create governments, sure, but if it’s voluntary, is it really government? if there are alternatives, then competition will win out.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    If I remember correctly, Nozick later in life accepted that anarchy is workable.

  • brian g

    good point, kcjerith. out of all the debate i’ve had with minarchists, i always enjoy it. if the arguement is between no government or very little, that’s the type of debate you can feel good about. i consider this fun and productive, so thanks !

  • kcjerith

    Thanks for the typo correction, i always mix up nozick with that douche bag comlunist

  • kcjerith

    when it comes to names, god knows you can’t confuse thier philosophy

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    Paulie: is it me, or have you advocated the murder of tax collectors and the execution without trial of those accused of crimes in the same thread?

    Anarchy is the antithesis of liberty: it is a state in which only the very strongest and the very wealthiest live with freedom of action and freedom from fear. Eventually it decays into tyranny and dictatorship- as is being borne out in Somalia and Iraq.

  • brian g

    that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but if you change one word, it does:

    “Government is the antithesis of liberty: it is a state in which only the very strongest and the very wealthiest live with freedom of action and freedom from fear. Eventually it decays into tyranny and dictatorship- as is being borne out in Somalia and Iraq.”

  • Timothy West

    order is a characteristic of human society.

    horseshit. The ABSENCE of order is far more in evidence where there are literally no constraints on human behaivor. Lack of control whatsoever encourages not order, but disorder.

    I looked up, best I could, for evidence of modern mutualist societies and found many (>20) , but I could not find one since 1690 that lasted more than a few years, in some cases 10 or so. All of them either fell apart or became states of some kind or in some cases simply got squished by others who decided they were ripe for picking. In no case could I find a lasting example of such a society. Maybe I havent looked hard enough. I also found none that would be larger than a typical small midwestern town of about 200 at their peak, with the exception of Solidarity in Poland.

    Does anyone have any more examples I dont know about of a modern anarchist society that survived longer than a few years or contained more than a handful of people?

  • brian g

    “Lack of control whatsoever encourages not order, but disorder.”

    i agree. there is a misconception among those not well educated in political theory that anarchy is the state of chaos and that those who advocate anarchy advocate chaos. that perspective is completely erroneous and ignorant. i advise that one read up on the theories associated with the many varieties of anarchism (the free-market variation, most importantly) before one hurts his credibility in a public forum by way of rash commentary.
    i don’t know of a perect anarchy that has ever existed. i don’t know that one ever will. none-the-less, it has been well reasoned (by molinari, rothbard, nock, etc.) that it is the only just arrangement possible. therefore, its advocation is justified.
    i stand by the statement, “order is a characteristic of human society.”

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    Webster’s Dictionary defines anarchy:

    “(From Greek anarchia, lack of ruler or government) 1. the complete absence of government and law. 2. political disorder and violence; lawlessness. 3. disorder in any sphere of activity. Synonyms: lawlessness, disorder, tumult, rebellion, riot, insubordination.”

    No laws; no rules; no enforcement, save that force the strong exert upon the weak.

    And no freedom except that you can hold for yourself, by the force of your own arms.

    And heaven help you if you’re unpopular.

  • kcjerith

    Not to say I disagree on your overall point about anarchy, need to do more reading to make up mind (and even then I might not), but the websters defintion sux. Usa a specfic type dictonary ie a poltical one. I wouldn’t use a websters for legal defintions either.

  • Julian

    In an anarchy society, if someone murders your family and you cannot extract violent revenge, does the murderer suffer no consequence for the murder? H

    How are sociopaths dealt with such as rapists, serial murderers, cannibals, and all other criminals? Does each person extract his/her own justice?

    If, as Paulie suggests, we have private security, what if a person is financially incapable of paying for the security?

    Paulie, your argument for anarchy is baseless. We would all live in total pandemonium and fear until someone or some group seized power and established its version of rule and order. You just continue to be your own worse enemy for anarchy the more you promote it.

    As for Willie Nelson and the drugs, I don’t care. I do care, however, if one is DWI or DUI as you are putting my safety at risk.

    Willie Nelson is no friend or libertarians. He is too pro-government handouts, especially to farmers and ranchers. I am for free market setting prices.

  • Timothy West

    that perspective is completely erroneous and ignorant.

    thats the perspective of almost anyone that hears the word. To the typical american voter, anarchists are the guys throwing rocks and firebombs at the IMF and the World Bank, you know, the protestors wering black masks and waving the black flags with a A on them. Go pick any person off the street and ask them what anarchism means. They will not answer with anything you like to hear.

    of course, you think if the LP could “educate” all of them, they would magically accept your starting premises without question and abandon their own.

    I think anyone who actually believes that is short of a full load. They may be smart, but their idiot-savant kind of smart. Simple observation of human behaivor and study of history tells me that it simply cant be a better system to ensure freedom than small limited self government can, which itself is only as good as the people living under it can keep it.

  • brian g

    i guess it’s safe to say that the laws of economy have been proven false here. compulsory monopoly IS the best, most effective way to provide goods and services, especially security. i have seen the light and have converted to statism!
    the fact is that anarchy is the ONLY environment that can allow for the development of effective security – through the competition in the free market of security entities. government CAN NOT, by decree of natural, economic law, effectively provide security. the most obvious example is by which funding is derived. if funding is derived by forceable means, then security has already been breached. how can one be protected from theft and physical danger if those are the tools of funding for that security? no to mention the fact that monopoly must degrade into higher prices for less security. a perfect example? our own u.s.a.!
    so libertarians have to make a choice – accept that anarchy is the only effective security solution or declare economic law invalid!

  • brian g

    here’s the complete, disingenuous entry from webster’s:

    Main Entry: an·ar·chy
    Pronunciation: ‘a-n&r-kE, -”när-
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at ARCH-
    1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
    2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER
    3 : ANARCHISM

  • brian g

    i meant “non-disingenuous”.

  • Timothy West

    Sure you did. :)

  • michelleshinghal
  • Brian Woodard

    What is relevant is the traffic stop would not have occurred if the bus contained a gospel quartet. Of course, I’m assuming that Mr. Nelson’s tour bus is labeled as such.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    have you advocated the murder of tax collectors and the execution without trial of those accused of crimes in the same thread?

    Not at all. Although I have no problem with shooting armed robbers (including tax collectors) in the act of robbery, in self-defense, and other violent criminals. The rest would, of course, have a trial. A regime is not necessary for that. The British had a private legal system in the 19th century, just to take one example, and civil cases in the US today go to private arbitration more often than to regime courts.

    Anarchy is the antithesis of liberty: it is a state in which only the very strongest and the very wealthiest live with freedom of action and freedom from fear.

    No, that would be our current system. Anarchy is the solution to this problem.

    Eventually it decays into tyranny and dictatorship- as is being borne out in Somalia and Iraq.

    Northern Somalia is peaceful and the fastest growing economy in Africa, and Iraq is occupied.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Does anyone have any more examples I dont know about of a modern anarchist society that survived longer than a few years or contained more than a handful of people?

    Not any fully anarchist society, but every element is widely practiced and present separately. This includes privates courts and private military.

    Webster’s definition is incorrect. Anarchy means “without rulers” in the sense of coercive rule, not lack of structure. See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

    for more info.

    For more about specifically libertarian variants of anarchy, see the numerous books and articles outlined here:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html

    You are using only one of the dictionary definitions (the incorrect one, referring to common popular misconceptions) on purpose.

    http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=anarchism

    provides a variety of dictionary definitions, many of which are perfectly compatible with 150 years plus of anarchist theory.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Another good resource, if you want to know (rather than be intentionally ignorant) is

    http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

    You’ve all been provided these resources before, so there is really no excuse for perpetuating the childishly silly “anarchy=chaos” bugaboo.

    The same people keep asking the same questions, as if they had not already been answered.

    How are sociopaths dealt with such as rapists, serial murderers, cannibals, and all other criminals? Does each person extract his/her own justice?

    Try reading the books and articles I’ve referenced. With many months to have done so, one suspects the inquisitor does not wish to know the answer.

    If, as Paulie suggests, we have private security, what if a person is financially incapable of paying for the security?

    This has been answered as well. People can pool their resources, they can self-protect, and they can voluntarily aid others – which is not at all uncommon.

  • Timothy West

    http://www.bartleby.com/65/so/Somalia.html

    no evidence there.

    Somaliland and Puntland are peaceful and both regions are being effectively run by a combination of government and traditional authorities. A priority for both regional governments is strengthening the security situation. The demobilization of ex-combatants continues and an emphasis is being placed on training and equipping the police forces. The resources, however, of both governments are small, being derived mainly from import and export duties. The 18-month Saudi Arabia ban on Somali livestock (which was officially lifted in May 1999), demonstrated the fragility of their fiscal base. It caused Somaliland, for example, to lose some 60% of its revenues during that period. It’s a credit to the people and governments in northern Somalia that cohesion has been maintained during a major economic crisis.

    http://www.somaliawatch.org/archive/990908601.htm

    thought you said it was anarchist. They make no mention.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Lots of articles and detailed discussion at

    http://www.somalianarchy.com/

  • Timothy West

    oh, and thats the last post for me here. I’m limiting my time spent discussing such things per thread. Boring, repetitive, and just of little use.

  • Timothy West

    except to say thats the fucking lamest excuse of a supporting web resource I’ve ever seen. :) Seriously, that’a a joke, right? Made me laugh.

    see ya next thread.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Well, unless one of the other limited regime (limited cancer) proponents wants to take up the banner, we can agree that Tim
    has no answer and move on. I can live with that.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli
  • vforvandyke

    Note: I’m not trying to be a dick, but I asked Lloyd not to spam the same Smither tract he’s been pasting ad nauseum in posts (it’s offtopic and IMO… rude). I deleted his comment and the disjointed ones that responded.

  • paulie cannoli

    Fair enough, but we finally got on a subject I’ve been trying to bring up….there was at least one person who agreed with me and I don’t know if anyone agreed or disagreed since. Perhaps you could restore them in a separate thread?

  • http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/mrconservative/ mr conservative

    We need to remove presonal issues out of politics. They are wedges to seperate the people. Learn what it means to truly be a conservative representative. What is a liberal really and what government programs are actually good!? Things will not and can not be changed overnight. We can start though.

    Arizona:
    Jon Kyl’s campaign ad with all the white redneck sherrifs dressed up like cowboys makes me shake my head in disgust.

    Ernie Hancock is running for Governor for the LP, we’ll see how that goes.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli