Fiona Apple busted in Texas for possession of hashish

Discuss

87 Responses to “Fiona Apple busted in Texas for possession of hashish”

  1. John Hickey says:

    Drugs are the least of her problems, anyone who he seen her lately can tell you she has a very very obvious eating disorder. 

    • octochicken says:

      She’s had eating disorder issues for years. She hasn’t made a secret of it, nor has she sought the public’s attention or sympathy for it. She is apparently just trying to live the life she has.

      • John Hickey says:

        Have you seen her lately.  I know she has been open about her disorder, but it’s pretty clear unless she gets help soon she is not long for this world.  

        • octochicken says:

          Yes, I have seen her.  I’m not sure what it is about your statement that you think I don’t understand.

        • marilove says:

          I saw her live on Tuesday in Mesa, AZ.  5th or 6th row, right in the middle.

          She looked exactly as she’s never looked:  Very thin, and very wiry.  But she didn’t look sick or ill.  She glowed!  And she was ON.  Totally, 100% on.

          She moved and danced and jumped around the stage.  She belted and growled and sang softly.  At one point she told off her record label, which was hilarious.  She was focused and in total control and clearly having a BLAST.  It was a really great show.  Her backing band was nothing short of brilliant, as well.

          Whatever illicit drugs she is or isn’t taking, it clearly has not hindered her talent, ability, or enthusiasm.  It was a fan-fucking-tastic show and worth every bit of the $60 I paid.

          You’re making some weird judgements, assumptions, and claims about someone you’ve never even met. And by “seen” — are you talking about pictures? She’s very angular, which doesn’t always photograph well. She was gorgeous on stage!

    • LinkMan says:

      We saw her at a music festival this summer and she looked like hell.  I’m kind of surprised that hash is all they found, as she looked like my idea of what a heroin addict looks like.  Although maybe it was just a combination of booze/hash and malnourishment.

    • EH says:

      I’m guessing the munchies are irrelevant to the judgement you’re trying to make.

  2. townandgownie says:

    I’m sorry but if you’re traveling in a known red-neck area famous for busting celebrities for drug possession and you can’t control your habit for a day or so then I have no sympathy for you drug laws not withstanding.

    • Ito Kagehisa says:

      Sympathy is such a small thing.  Does it enrich you to withhold it?

    • RedShirt77 says:

       I feel the same way about the people of Iran.  They are dumb enough to live there after all.

    • Cowicide says:

      can’t control your habit

      Unlike alcohol, not many people find pot addictive.  So calling it a “habit” sounds a bit ignorant to me. But, nonetheless, I have sympathy for your ignorance on this matter.

    • C W says:

      Yeah! Let’s cheer on arresting people for consensual crimes like some sort of creep!

    • Mantissa128 says:

      It’s not about controlling your habit. She was transporting it on a bus, not riding on top freebasing, for heaven’s sake.

      Yay law-enforcement gimmicks.

      Edit: it was a total of four grams of hash. A gram weighs as much as a paper clip. Unbelievable.

    • ocker3 says:

       I was wondering why her bus driver/company chose that route, considering how many other singers/celebrities have had the same problem. It’s probably the only good crossing in that area, for them to be willing to take that chance.

  3. semiotix says:

    Okay, I’m going to trust that others will handle the “bullshit war on drugs” rant, and use my time here to rant at celebrities.

    YO, CELEBRITIES: TELL YOUR PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO TELL THE BUS DRIVER NOT TO GO HERE.

    I will say this for the Sierra Blanca PD, they’ve got great taste. Fiona Apple, Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson… if you don’t like at least one of those, you just don’t like music. Maybe they just couldn’t think of a better way to get some autographs?

    • Navin_Johnson says:

       Unfortunately that is on a pretty unavoidable stretch of highway between El Paso and just about everywhere else in Texas.  But indeed, probably not wise to be holding at all in this part of Texas.

      Having said that, I hear Texas is chock full of right wing “small government” conservatives, so she should have thousands of them coming to protest her arrest, you know, in keeping with their principles…….

      • Kimmo says:

        Where are all those guys when you need them, eh?

        Church or the pub, I guess…

      • donovan acree says:

        only if you take the 10 out of CA. If you take 40 you get a better drive, better towns to stop in, and best of all – no Sierra Blanca (btw that is the town that holds all the sewage from NYC – true story)

        • Navin_Johnson says:

          Interesting about the sewage.

          Unfortunately a touring band itinerary is likely going to rule out taking the long way. I remember having to do the same trip myself on tour:

          SoCal>Phoenix>Tucson>El Paso>San Antonio..then Austin, Houston and so on.

          (or vice versa)

          Just a horrible, looooong drive too. Like one of those you think about when you think about horrible long drives…

          • Gasbandit says:

             Spoken like a man who has never had to drive through kansas.

            Next time, skip El Paso (it’s a hole, anyway, a gravel pit between a mountain pass), and go through Albuquerque instead.  Take 40 east to Amarillo, then 287 down to Dallas.  Much nicer drive, and no towns famous for busting drug-addled celebrities.

  4. Rossi says:

    The Sierra Blanca PD really knows how to get at the low hanging fruit.

  5. WhyBother says:

    Incidentally, this is also where a number of ordinary people got picked up for possession on their way to ACL fest.

    Seriously people, there’s weed in Austin. It’s probably also cheaper than where you’re from. You can wait a few hours.

    • knoxblox says:

       Yes, one could wait a few hours, and yeah, there’s weed in Austin. However, you’re not likely to find Paul Ruud selling it down at the local farmer’s market.

      You gotta have some cojones to sell to a “stranger from out of town”, even if they say they’re Fiona Apple’s assistant. Austin may be a lax city (I know from experience), but Austin PD’s still working on busting dealers and buyers.

      • ChicagoD says:

        You booked the gig with someone. I bet they know someone. Not that hard.

      • WhyBother says:

         The last time I was on 6th in a “Chicago” T-shirt — hey, I liked shitty airport T-shirts — I got three different “want to buy some weed” propositions from complete strangers. At 5 in the afternoon. On a Tuesday. If you look like a tourist, they will meet you half way.

        We’re also a college town. Just park on campus, and ask the first college kid you see (as I myself was asked), “hey, where can I get some weed?” Believe me, it is not hard.

        Alternatively, telling the Hudspeth County shiriff, “no, you do not have permission to search our tour bus,” is also a pretty good move.

        • bzishi says:

          It appears that it was a US Border Patrol interior checkpoint. I don’t think that this type of search is voluntary, especially when a drug dog makes a signal.

          But you are correct that you should never voluntarily consent to a search and you should always ask if you are being detained.

          Edit: I did a little research and found this in Wikipedia

          The United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.[4] The Court further held that Border Patrol agents “have wide discretion” to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.

          The constitutional threshold for searching a vehicle … must be supported by either consent or probable cause

          So when the dogs signaled at the first checkpoint, the border patrol had the ability to perform a non-voluntary search since drug dogs are still considered probable cause.

  6. delfinclutch says:

    This explains so much about her album titles.

  7. Dave Lloyd says:

    Love the casual acceptance of police fascism here!

    How come inspection didn’t require probable cause or a warrant?

    • Kimmo says:

      She’s a musician, that’s probable cause, innit?

    • ChicagoD says:

      Your ignorance of the law and how probable cause interacts with automobiles is not the same as police fascism.

      • aikimoe says:

        I know condescending is easy, but if you understand “how probable cause interacts with automobiles,” why not just answer the question?

        • ChicagoD says:

          Short answer: because this person doesn’t actually care about the answer.

          Longer answer: I feel like someone with a computer and keyboard could accomplish the task if they actually cared. It would take fewer than five minutes to find the answer, somewhat longer to read it. In fact, this person’s point seemed to be being able to type “police fascism” not inquiring about the state of the law. I see no reason to chase down the links if they see no reason to chase down the links.

          • aikimoe says:

            First, you can’t really know if someone actually cares based on a brief, overly emotional sentence.

            Second, I bet you could have written in just as many words some encouragement to look up the laws on probable intent, with your opinion that this is more complicated than merely “police fascism.”

            (I guess I’m just remembering when I was young and impulsively blurted simplistic notions, while still being open to larger, more complicated truths.)

            I think this is more complicated than “police fascism” or authoritarianism (though not much more), but it is true that fascism is usually maintained under the color of the law.  Just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean it isn’t fascist or authoritarian in nature.

          • ChicagoD says:

            Sadly, if Dave wants a mentor to encourage him, he found the wrong interlocutor. 

          • C W says:

            “Longer answer: I feel like someone with a computer and keyboard could accomplish the task if they actually cared.”

            If you don’t know, you could just cop to it. We’re all friends here.

      • Dave Lloyd says:

        Wow! Thanks for the support guys but I’d better answer Mr Chicago.

        First I’m British, not American so *the* law is no such thing – English law is quite different in this area.
        Secondly I’m very aware that in the USA *the* law is also not invariant wrt location. So Texan law is not the same as Californian law. Hell, OneHorseTown law is not the same is BigCity law in the same state/county.
        Finally the whole point of fascism is that you have a heavy set of laws designed to criminalise citizens for anything you don’t approve of and then you back them with ruthless enforcement by your prefects/guards/policemen/troopers typically chosen for their keenness to bully and get one up on other citizens.
        Congratulations, you’ve just rebuilt Rome.

    • semiotix says:

      The short answer is that any traffic stop like this falls under the general category known as the “Terry stop” (named for the Supreme Court case that validated it). The Googles will help you if you’re actually interested in the use, abuse, and case law on these stops, and the extent to which they are affected by the 4th and 5th Amendment.

      The shorter answer is “oh, burn, you’re right, we all love fascism. You got us.”

  8. huskerdont says:

    Just one more reason to avoid Texas.

    (Even Austin, if they’re going to be this despotic about it.)

  9. lknope says:

    Hmmm, I wonder if I should use my time here to blame the victims of a senseless and terrible law or just point out that we should end prohibition already?  I think I’ll go with the latter.

  10. Guest says:

    So okay… Sierra Blanca is a place where musicians get stopped and searched / arrested for possession a little more than expected.  Maybe just MAYBE one of the reasons is because maybe some of these people didn’t actually HAVE the drugs in their possession, but were possibly planted there?  Okay that might be thought of as libellous, so to clarify I am NOT saying that police officers in Sierra Blanca are planting drugs, but the more times people get caught there, it could be construed as such. Let’s face it, you have a moderately large entourage travelling through your smaller district, and you might have some financial gaps that need patching, wouldn’t it be interesting if you could get some headlines for being tough on crime when you can get your name in not just the local news outlets but NATIONALLY, might mean you get a few extra bucks thrown your way, unless say some of these larger entourages offer a better deal? Not saying anything like this is happening but wouldn’t be implausible either.

    • ChicagoD says:

      A better strategy would be to either steal the drugs and resell them or shake the entourages down. Hoping revenue increases because of publicity strikes me as a bad strategy for local police.

    • WhyBother says:

      Planted weed…. on Willie Nelson, Snoop Dogg, and Fiona Apple…to make it look like drugs are a problem in west Texas…. to get that federal drug money that’s usually withheld from counties near Mexican border….

      This is literally, the worst thought-out conspiracy theory I have ever read. Even more so than the theory that Hurricane Katrina was a government’s job involving sabotaged levies and a secret weather-control machine. Because at least in that conspiracy theory, something unusual had occurred.

  11. James Penrose says:

    Basic law of smarts;  If you are traveling someplace where they are hard on drug possession and you are carrying drugs:  You are an idiot!  Period.

    Secondary rule;  if you can’t go a few days without a “hit”, you are an addict.  Also period.

    Goodness or badness of the law or how it is enforced is irrelevant at that particular moment when you are busted since you could have avoided either the bust or the place since it is a known problem area.

    While I do favor repealing drug use laws, it’s as a form of Social Darwinism since drug users are more generally stupid and making drugs available will burn them out while the rest of us get on with things., those of you who are still smart enough to think should know better than to take stuff someplace where it is both illegal and the local police may be corrupt or extremely intolerant.

    • dr_awkward says:

      Oh, so you mean America?

      -just another stupid drug user.

    • timquinn says:

      you’ve never actually smoked pot, have you?

    • “Secondary rule;  if you can’t go a few days without a ‘hit’, you are an addict.”  Yeah, you nailed it.  Those crazy weed junkies causing trouble all over the place with their addictions. People like Willie Nelson and Fiona Apple are obviously out of control and dangerous. What century are you from?  Do you know any musicians or creative people? 

      If you’re on tour and have good hash you’re not just going to throw it out the window because you’re driving through a dick state. That shit isn’t easy to come by everywhere.  Tours are stressful and relaxing with a couple ‘hits’ is no different than having a couple of beers – actually, less harmful (health-wise). Some of us (naively?) assume that we have 4th amendment rights and shouldn’t be subject to random drug raids just for going down the road in America. It’s really fucking sad that you can still go to ACTUAL JAIL for simple possession of cannabis anywhere in this country, this day and age.  Sick, actually.

       I guess maybe just hide it better?  Like secret compartments and shit?

      Anyway, have fun with your Neo-Temperance Movement or whatever trip you’re on.

    • nowimnothing says:

      “Secondary rule;  if you can’t go a few days without a “hit”, you are an addict.  Also period.” 
      Wrong, isn’t it at least possible that these musicians traveling for months at a time would stock their bus much like their home? Just because you have some hash does not mean you are smoking every day. Just like having a stocked bar at home does not make you an alcoholic.
      And to your last point:
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs 

      • ChicagoD says:

        Stocking a vehicle as they would a house is just a much more dangerous (legally) undertaking.

        The thing is, aren’t there people on tours who take care of logistics? Isn’t “making sure we have what we need when we need it” part of that? I feel like the focus on Apple is misplaced. There should be people for this.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

       Secondary rule;  if you can’t go a few days without a “hit”, you are an addict.  Also period.

      Ok church lady, you realize hash is not crack or heroin right?

    • aikimoe says:

      Which drug users are “more generally stupid?”  Alcohol users?  Caffeine users?  Zoloft users?

      Can you provide some data that people who smoke pot are “more generally stupid” than people who don’t?  

      How smart is it, really, to make unsubstantiated generalizations based on the arbitrary legal status of certain mind-altering substances?

      • ChicagoD says:

        “Can you provide some data that people who smoke pot are “more generally stupid” than people who don’t? ”

        Apparently you’ve never seen the drug documentary about that high school in California. That kid Spicoli is a complete pothead and an idiot.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Does this rule apply to women driving in Saudi Arabia?  Or being gay in Uganda? “The law is the law” kind of went out the window in the aftermath of WWII.

      • ChicagoD says:

        Hey, we have a Godwin winner!

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          It remains the best example of why law without ethics is a terrifically bad idea.

        • edkedz says:

           In a way, the whole Godwin’s thing is bullshit, and it’s kind of funny the way everyone has just come to blindly accept that its invocation can be used to just end the discussion, whether or not any comparison to fascism/Nazism/Hitler/whatever might in fact have actually been valid.
          Sometimes the shoe just fucking fits.

          • ChicagoD says:

            Sometimes the shoe would fucking fit, but an arrest for possession of hash has dick all to do with the Holocaust. It’s called perspective, and very very very little fits in the comparison with the Nazis.

          • bzishi says:

            Laws should have some basis in ethics instead of a blind belief in the “rule of law”. Citing the German and Italian laws against Jews and other undesirables is a valid way to make this point. Shutting this comment down with a Godwin’s Law reference misses the point. Yes, the German and Italian laws were monstrous examples of unjust laws and a comparison with trivial examples is absurd. However, the War on Drugs is not a trivial example since millions of lives have been damaged due to its unjust policies. It is not at the same order of magnitude as the Nuremberg Laws, but the War on Drugs can never be considered trivial.

          • marilove says:

            Dude.  Don’t be that guy.

            Also, you do realize that the War on Drugs is it’s own kind of war and hell, right? Fatal, even! Quite often, very fatal.

          • edkedz says:

            I actually wasn’t neccessarily saying the shoe fit perfectly here, just more “fuck Godwin’s” in general, maybe it needs to be retired.
            Especially as an automatic conversation-ending go-to which is invoked as soon as things even start leaning in the direction of mentioning anything even slightly related (the comment you replied to didn’t actually say “Hitler” “Nazi” or even “Germany” but just mentioned the end of WWII…).

    • Thorzdad says:

       “Secondary rule;  if you can’t go a few days without a “hit”, you are an addict. ”

      LOL. That’s just so cute. Did you get that lingo from the Chick tract that your youth pastor handed out. Or maybe Officer Friendly?

    • marilove says:

      WTF, man.  So many claims, yet not one little ounce of evidence to back them up.
      Yes, you’re self-righteous and clearly sitting high up on your privileged little perch above everyone else.  YAWN.

    • Hannah B says:

      You’re incorrect. It’s been shown that intelligent people are more likely to abuse drugs including alcohol. Besides the general knowledge of how some of the world’s brightest authors, artists, musicians and etc tend to abuse drugs, there’s research into the field as well that provides evidence against your opinion. A simple Google search can provide you with more information, but here’s a start:

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs 

      http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/15/why-kids-with-high-iq-are-more-likely-to-take-drugs/ 

    • wysinwyg says:

      Sounds like someone needs to shut up and hit the bong…

  12. krisk1 says:

    Yep, they pretty much stop EVERYONE there and question them. Its almost like a border crossing.

    Definitely better to take 40 into Texas. The time diff is negligible.

    • Cowicide says:

      Yep, they pretty much stop EVERYONE there and question them. Its almost like a border crossing.

      Yet I bet a bunch of these same twinkies that infringe on our freedom throughly supported the for-profit war in Iraq to “protect” our “freedoms”. Sigh…

  13. Scotty Vegas says:

    For those not familiar with road travel through the border areas in the US, they’re full of these things called “border inspection checkpoints.”  They’re on every road going out of an area within 200 miles of the border.  El Paso is just that.  The checkpoint In Sierra Blanca is incredibly busy.  There’s no way to avoid it without making hundreds of miles in detours by going through through New Mexico and then back South.  If she were going to Oklahoma first, sure.  But Austin is straight down I10, so the checkpoint is unavoidable.  They have drug dogs working the line alerting on vehicles.  I’ve been searched twice.  Why this isn’t communicated bty the media, I have no flipping clue.  It’s not small town cops, it’s federal border agents.  

  14. LinkMan says:

    If she listened to more String Cheese Incident, she’d know that you should bring mushrooms (not hash) when driving through Texas.  Because they can’t bust you if they don’t know what they found.

  15. knoxblox says:

    Saw TMZ’s image of the mugshot. A laughably childish scrawl of a height chart they have there in Sierra Blanca.

  16. tré says:

     Didn’t it used to be that the brown pot smokers were the ones victimizing white women?

  17. Marc Montoya says:

    shoulda waited till she got in Austin. the stuff is pretty good here and probably less likely tainted by smuggling human-exploters.

  18. teapot says:

    It’s simple: Don’t go to a backwards place like Texas.

    @Anti : Word. Pretty shameful crap coming out of her and her government lately. Don’t look at me though… I’m the guy ‘wasting’ my vote on the non-major parties (but I’m sure you knew that already).

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Your country isn’t setting a very good example for forwards thinking this week.  I can’t believe that Julia Gillard is the leader of your less assholish party.

  19. stuck411 says:

    The real question here is, “What would Walt & Jesse do?” Once that’s figured out all of the pieces will fall into place.

  20. marilove says:

    I saw her on Tuesday, in Mesa, and she was AMAZING.  As was her backing band.  It was a great show.  Clearly her talent has not been effected by some silly hash.

  21. Fred Legault says:

    Wow! Finding hash is next to impossible where I live.  Must be nice to be famous and have access to the nice stuff.

Leave a Reply