Willie Nelson sentenced to... sing.

[Alex Libman]

From Independent (UK) -- Sing us a song and we'll let you off, court tells Nelson --

A melodious end is in sight in the marijuana case that ensnared the country singer Willie Nelson when a search of his tour bus last November by keen-nosed West Texas troopers turned up a small stash of the prohibited weed: he will be let off on condition he sings for the judge and prosecutor in court.

The novel deal was cooked up by the attorney Kit Bramblett, who had been chosen to prosecute the case. "You bet your ass I ain't gonna be mean to Willie Nelson," he declared this week, revealing that he had even selected the song he wanted to hear, also a favourite of Judge Becky Dean Walker.

Thus the next time Nelson travels anywhere close to the tiny town of Sierra Blanca in western Texas, he will be required to show up in Judge Walker's courtroom and give his best rendition of his own classic number, "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain". There are no plans – as yet – to sell tickets.

It sounds like a sweet deal for the performer, who in theory faced as many as 150 days behind bars if convicted of the original charges for possession of six ounces of marijuana. Upon his arrest he was taken to a county jail and only released upon payment of $2,500 bail.

Mr Bramblett later concluded that there had not been as much weed on the bus as originally estimated. Exactly how that discrepancy arose is not clear, though Mr Bramblett offered one explanation to a local paper that presumably was not said entirely in earnest. "Between me and the sheriff, we threw out enough or smoked enough so that there's only three ounces," he told the Big Bend Sentinel.

"Willie Nelson is 77 years old and I'm 78," Mr Bramblett added. "He's been my favourite artist all my life. We all know he smokes a little pot."

Nelson, who has campaigned to legalise marijuana, will also have to pay $378 in fines and court fees.

It's still theft and enslavement, but the tide is definitely turning.  Even the enforcers can't wait for the system to change!  After the last of the pre-1960s generation, which tends to vote religiously, kicks the bucket, light drugs will be legalized (and taxed) - that's pretty much guaranteed.  This is why I think libertarians who campaign for pot legalization are wasting their time and reputation, and should focus on other issues instead.

[MTPorcupine3]

Gee whiz. I wonder if Judge Burke'll make me sing for him. If so, have I got a song for him!

Rich Angell performs his song "Still A Free Country" at PorcFest 2010

[Free libertarian]

Cannabis legalization isn't a waste of time if it raises the right of self ownership in conversation.  For some people, yes they get that Cannabis should be legal, but fail to recognize other aspects of government intrusion into people's lives as bad or being based upon force.

Using Cannabis as a "gateway" to more libertarian type conversations has been one of my talking points when I am around liberal pot using people many of them my friends.  I know many players in the mariJuana legalization efforts, some are pushing for "legal and taxed" .   That presents an opportunity to expand the conversation into the non-agression principle or some variant of it.  Some listen, some don't...I keep trying though.

Willie Nelson is an advocate for "legal and taxed".   Well he got the first part right, so in my opinion he's half way there already.   I'm not saying what Willie should do, but he may have had more impact if he had refused the plea and said "no put me in jail". 

As far as wasting "reputation",  I disagree with you, there should be no shame associated with promoting any aspect of peaceful self ownership.   If you are afraid of others stereotyping you by association that is another issue.

[littlehawk]

Special priviledges for some. Hmm.

Is this the same as singling like a canary? 

[Alex Libman]

Cannabis activism isn't a waste of time in absolute terms, but it is relative to all the other things an activist could be doing.  It's easy pickings - I always try to find the most substantive issue that I can, like tax resistance.

I think a rational society would ostracize drug users to some degree.  A libertarian society is one where people are more likely to "snitch" on you, because instead of an unfair and violent legal monopoly they'd be snitching to a decentralized system of reputation tracking wikis, human resources databases, etc.  A lot of people would be reluctant to have drug users move into their charter city, be employed by their company, etc.

[Russell Kanning]

let some people tackle the easy stuff then ti grows
we havent won on drugs yet
our friends r still in jail

[MaineShark]

I think a rational society would ostracize drug users to some degree.  A libertarian society is one where people are more likely to "snitch" on you, because instead of an unfair and violent legal monopoly they'd be snitching to a decentralized system of reputation tracking wikis, human resources databases, etc.  A lot of people would be reluctant to have drug users move into their charter city, be employed by their company, etc.

Yeah, especially Tylenol.  That stuff's just too dangerous to keep around.  I'm not sure if I'd want to hire someone who uses it...

Joe

[littlehawk]

I wished they would have let Russell K sing,  to avoid doing time. He's better than Ol Willie the weedster.

[KBCraig]

. . . . Ol Willie the weedster.

Willie Nelson - Toby Keith - Scott Emerick

[littlehawk]

haha! That was good.

I was waiting for Russell to step onstage with his pitchfork and straw hat.

[Alex Libman]

we havent won on drugs yet

I agree with you 100% in spirit... but if I listened only to my spirit then I wouldn't be Alex Libman.  All I'm saying is - lower the drugs angle from like 35% of the agenda (a horribly approximate collectivist generalization of course) to like 20% to balance things out.  And I'd also like to hear more Free Staters talking about the other side of the coin, which is responsibility.

History takes time to play out.  Right now it's almost like that cliche anime scene where the samurai swooshes his sword a few times, and everything pauses for a few seconds, and then the opponent -- symbolizing the war on drugs -- falls to pieces.  All the necessary swooshing has been done, the overwhelming majority of young people are convinced.  Now it's just a matter of time...

People will continue to be punished for drug use long after the last government goes the way of the ancient Roman bloodletting cults or the leguminophobic Pythagorean code, but it will be a matter of private contracts with neighborhood associations / charter cities, employers, universities, insurance companies, churches, charities, parents / guardians, etc.  Freedom of Contract means those punishments can be as severe as in Singapore, and those rules may become very popular in a free society if they constitute a competitive advantage.  Drug users may be reduced to living in rancid backward enclaves hardly much better than prisons.  C'est la vie.

The real battle is being won by people who fight for intergovernmental competition, setting governments up to collapse under their own weight.  As more countries / sub-national entities decriminalize / legalize pot, people who go to prison for being in a wrong jurisdiction will gradually slide down the scale from heroes toward eventually becoming violators of their neighbors' Property Rights.

Yeah, especially Tylenol.  That stuff's just too dangerous to keep around.  I'm not sure if I'd want to hire someone who uses it...

I avoid Tylenol as well, unless recommended by a doctor.  (And I generally avoided doctors for the past ~12 years, but I think that will soon change, as I am no longer a young man.)  It is your Right not to hire someone because of Tylenol, but a decision this irrational, if it became public, would cause many people who take practical medicines for rational non-recreational reasons to be quite upset, and you'd simply be "out-ostracized" by a huge margin.

Comparing pot to Tylenol just isn't accurate - it's more like 90% recreational / social / cultural and 10% medicinal.  People have a Right to smoke pot for whatever purpose they wish, and it does have some medical benefits, but it also has significant side-effects compared to the more refined modern drugs.  The scientific process of pharmacology can identify all the components that are beneficial and avoid the rest, and in a free society those processes would not be granted as a legal monopoly backed by government force.

[MaineShark]

I avoid Tylenol as well, unless recommended by a doctor.  (And I generally avoided doctors for the past ~12 years, but I think that will soon change, as I am no longer a young man.)  It is your Right not to hire someone because of Tylenol, but a decision this irrational, if it became public, would cause many people who take practical medicines for rational non-recreational reasons to be quite upset, and you'd simply be "out-ostracized" by a huge margin.

Given how dangerous Tylenol is, I don't feel that Tylenol users are very responsible, and I don't want to hire irresponsible employees.  That's quite rational.

Comparing pot to Tylenol just isn't accurate - it's more like 90% recreational / social / cultural and 10% medicinal.

I'm a libertarian.  Ergo, I don't give a hoot about someone's intent.  It matters what he does, not why.  If you take Tylenol to interfere with the way your brain operates, or if you take marijuana to interfere with the way your brain operates, what, precisely, is the difference?

People have a Right to smoke pot for whatever purpose they wish, and it does have some medical benefits, but it also has significant side-effects compared to the more refined modern drugs.  The scientific process of pharmacology can identify all the components that are beneficial and avoid the rest, and in a free society those processes would not be granted as a legal monopoly backed by government force.

Last I checked, no one has died in horrible agony over the course of a week or two, from a marijuana overdose.  Sounds like, even if abused, it's safer than Tylenol.

Joe

[KBCraig]

Last I checked, no one has died in horrible agony over the course of a week or two, from a marijuana overdose.  Sounds like, even if abused, it's safer than Tylenol.

When I was in the Army, I had the unpleasant experience of watching a doctor inform a couple that their 15 year old son had committed suicide -- while the son was sitting right there beside them, very much alive and not even displaying any signs of illness.

Yep, he had eaten an entire bottle of Tylenol. He wasn't dead yet, but it was just a matter of a couple of weeks' time.

[Alex Libman]

I'm a libertarian.  Ergo, I don't give a hoot about someone's intent.  It matters what he does, not why.  If you take Tylenol to interfere with the way your brain operates, or if you take marijuana to interfere with the way your brain operates, what, precisely, is the difference?

Intent might not matter from a legalistic point of view, but it does influence public opinion.  Are you just as (un)likely to ostracize a person giving a 12-year-old girl mouth-to-mouth to save her life, vs for his sexual gratification (with her / her parents' "consent")?  Both would be legal in a free society, but the latter is a lot more likely to get a person seriously ostracized.

Last I checked, no one has died in horrible agony over the course of a week or two, from a marijuana overdose.  Sounds like, even if abused, it's safer than Tylenol.

Anything, when taken in extreme amounts, can kill you, even water.  Tylenol's active ingredients are more concentrated, but that doesn't mean Tylenol is a more dangerous drug.  Tylenol could be mixed with more fillers so you can't OD without swallowing ten pounds of pills, just as the active ingredients in pot could be condensed into one tiny pill that is 100% lethal.

[littlehawk]

I wonder if Willie uses Tylenol.