Our King County Sheriff is outspoken in his support for legalization.

The sky has not fallen because we have legalized marijuana in Washington. Is it going to work long-term? I don’t know; we’ll have to wait and see. But clearly, what we were doing before—the War on Drugs—did not work, so it was time to try something new. The citizens suggested legalizing marijuana—and I support it.”

It’s a reasonable-enough statement, but somewhat surprising in that it comes from our own King County Sheriff, John Urquhart. “I still think it was a good decision for the citizens of Washington,” Urquhart told me in an interview last week. “The initiative [I-502] passed statewide with 56 percent supporting it, and 63 percent in King County, so that’s clearly what the citizens wanted.”

Urquhart’s outspoken support of legalization isn’t being taken all that well by some members of law enforcement. Urquhart did a TV ad last year on behalf of the (successful) Oregon Measure 91, and members of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association took him to task. “How dare he use his position as a sheriff to spoon-feed Oregonians blatantly false information about Washington state,” said Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin, “right before an Oregon election.”

Jefferson County Sheriff Jim Adkins not only didn’t like Urquhart’s ad, he went NIMBY gun-slinger with a zinger. “You don’t see any Oregon sheriffs going up to Washington to weigh in,” Adkins blasted in a statement. “He needs to get his nose out of our state and show some respect. The issues we face are different.” Like neck beards and living on a swamp-river, I presume.

Members of the Oregon Sheriffs Association claimed Urquhart’s statements were misleading, citing state patrol reports that showed stoned driving arrests had increased. In the ad, Urquhart rightly claims tax revenue is up, wasteful arrests have been eliminated, and DUIs in our state are down, implying that legal weed may have something to do with all these results.

While it’s true DUIs are down overall (DUIs have dropped 25 percent since 2009), arrests involving pot and driving are up. The most current stats from the Washington State Patrol show that cannabis-related DUIs since December 2012 (when we legalized it, man) have gone up, from 988 in 2011 to 1,362 in 2013. A Washington Traffic Safety commission report last week showed the frequency of drivers in fatal crashes who tested positive with THC in their systems (alone, or in combo with booze or other drugs) was highest in 2014 (75) as compared to the previous four-year average (36).

“There have been more arrests for driving with marijuana in their system,” Urquhart admitted, “but, overall, fatality crashes have not gone up. There haven’t been any studies in Washington where there’s a direct causation from legalizing marijuana [to road fatalities]. There might be a correlation, but we’ll need more research on that.”

And the reason for more stoned drivers? “Well, for one, we’re looking for stoned drivers. Because of all the publicity around it. And now we have a per se standard. So we’re watching for that—and obviously there will be more arrests. As they test more blood—they’re gonna find more people with THC. The question then will be, how long has it been in their system? Did it affect their ability to drive? And what other drugs might be in their system?—including alcohol.”

But surely, since ganja has gone legal, officers in the field have constantly had to tackle out-of-control stoners at sex-crazed parties, right?

“No. Not at all. From what I’m hearing from my deputies, it’s a big yawner. No change for them whatsoever. What I have told them, if people are smoking marijuana in public, use your discretion like you would with drinking in public, or like speeding. Don’t be afraid to write a citation. So they’re doing that. But I haven’t heard any pushback.”

I asked the Sheriff if it was strange to be a voice for legalization. “To be honest, it’s very, very weird. I have been a cop for 40 years, I spent a good amount of that time doing drug investigations, and was a street-level narcotics investigator. And now, in some quarters, I’m the face of all this. Most police chiefs and sheriffs don’t want to speak out on this, regardless of their what their personal feelings are. And of course, the police chief has to kowtow to who the mayor is. A sheriff has more freedom. I just don’t care, to tell you the truth.” (FYI, the Washington State Sheriffs’ Association wrote a letter to the Oregon sheriffs during the campaign, clearly stating that Urquhart’s views were not endorsed by the organization.)

Urquhart isn’t a Lone Ranger (Lone Reefer?) on legalization. Founded in 2002, LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) is a group of over 5,000 current and retired cops, judges, and prosecutors committed to ending decades of failed drug policies. Like Urquhart, they don’t like the trillion dollars spent on the failed War on Drugs or the $80 billion spent on incarceration in the U.S. each year—which could instead go to rehabilitation, job training, and education.

At a press conference last month, executive director Major Neill Franklin explained LEAP’s position: “As our nation’s top police and prosecutors reflect back on their careers, we have come to understand that many of the so-called tough-on-crime principles to which many of us gave our lives are flat-out wrong,” said Franklin. “We can reduce crime and incarceration at the same time, but to do that we need alternatives to arrest, balance in our laws, and continued improvement in community relations.”

Every 45 seconds a person gets busted for marijuana. This adds up to more than 700,000 pot-related arrests in 2014 alone. Of 1,561,231 total drug arrests last year, weed made up 45 percent of ’em. Of the 1,700 daily cannabis busts, 88.4 percent were solely for possession. Still, Urquhart understands that not all law enforcement will agree with his stand on legalization, and he’s fine with that—so long as they have ideas of their own on failed policy.

“The only thing that gets me pissed off is when police chiefs criticize the decision that the citizens of Washington made, for legalizing marijuana, but offer no alternative to that. They all know the War on Drugs doesn’t work. What are we going to do differently? Marijuana is one small step. Let’s see if it works. It’s a grand social experiment. And it appears to be taking hold.”

Evidence, textual and physical, about the Bard’s indulgence.

Wanna know how William Shakespeare was so far ahead of his time in regard to wondrous wordplay and wildly imaginative scenes and sonnets? Well, it could be that the loquacious Bard was hitting the bong! According to a recent report in The Independent, forensic analysis of 400-year-old fragments found cannabis residue on pipes and stems scattered on Shakespeare’s property.

A team from the Institute of Evolutionary Studies in South Africa conducted a chemical analysis of the 17th-century artifacts, excavated in 2001, from Stratford-on-Avon, and found marijuana on eight of 24 clay samples on the grounds, including four pot-positive pipes from his own garden.

Lead researcher Professor Francis Thackeray (University of Witwatersrand) thinks weed may have helped inspire history’s greatest playwright, pointing out a line from Sonnet 76.

“In Sonnet 76 he writes about ‘invention in a noted weed.’ This can be interpreted to mean that Shakespeare was willing to use ‘weed’ (cannabis) for creative writing (‘invention’),” Thackeray went out on a limb to explain. “In the same sonnet it appears that he would prefer not to be associated with ‘compounds strange,’ which can be interpreted, at least potentially, to mean ‘strange drugs’ (possibly cocaine). Sonnet 76 may relate to complex wordplay relating in part to drugs, and in part to a style of writing associated with clothing (‘weeds’) or literary compounds.”

Two additional pipes from the excavation area did indeed test positive for cocaine—or coca leaves—said to have been brought back from Peru in the late 1500s by Sir Francis “Vacuum-Cleaner” Drake. While these coca-contraptions were near Shakespeare’s domicile, they weren’t actually on his property, so it’s doubtful Bill was hitting the crack pipe.

Plenty of stuffy scholars are scoffing at the notion Shakespeare used cannabis (while probably themselves scraping dusty ancient snuffboxes for residue). “I suppose it’s remotely possible that Shakespeare and his family were getting a buzz from what they were smoking,” harrumphed Harvard professor Stephen Greenblatt, “but I very much doubt that it played any meaningful role in his life.” Not willing to give up his own afternoon hot toddys, the English prof continued, saying, “Alcohol is a much more likely stimulant for Shakespeare’s imagination, and even that is probably unimportant.” Uh, FYI, Prof, #MarijuanaIsSafer.

Given his place and time, you couldn’t really blame the brilliant Bard for craving a little pick-me-up during his famous 18-hour writing binges. Tea, coffee, espresso, and RedBull were unavailable then, and everyone, including the Sweet Swan of Avon, has a vice. In fact, Brits had been hitting the pipe for centuries, as well as using hemp for paper. (Pope Innocent VIII put a damper on open use when he singled out cannabis as an unholy sacrament of the Satanic mass. #ReeferMadness) In fact, in 1563 Queen Elizabeth I issued a formal decree forcing land owners of 60 acres or more to grow cannabis or be smacked with her cane (and a £5 fine).

It is of course possible that this is much ado about nothing, and that someone else was smoking ganja out of the Bard’s bud-pipes. Nevertheless, I have decided to throw some scientific evidence of my own (read cockamamy hearsay) into the marijuana mix, proving once and for all that Shakes was a sacred stoner: It’s said that Shakespeare coined over 2,000 words in his lifetime, including eyeball, gossip, gnarled (gnarly, dude!), unreal (Bro!), dwindle, puking, laughable, rant, hobnob, buzzer, besmirch, beached, bedazzled, cold-blooded, zany, addiction, arch-villain, new-fangled, swagger, and drugged! Heigh-ho and Great Tilly-Valley, that’s buzzed brainstorming at its best!

And more obvious evidence—his inspired insults! No poet could come up with linguistic gymnastics such as beslubbering, clapper-clawed, beef-witted, loggerheaded, flap-mouthed, bum-bailey, unmuzzled, onion-eyed, and miscreant without being high as a pox-marked pignut!

To inhale or not inhale, that is the question. A report from Psychology Today notes that cannabis can evoke psychotomimetic symptoms, or what’s known as “peak consciousness,” allowing users to break free from pedestrian associations and connect seemingly unrelated concepts—a key element in creative thinking. Whether or not Shakespeare smoked salvia or imbibed indica, I bid you adieu with wondrous and trippy words from The Tempest, Act III, Scene 2—evidence he’s high on life, or weed, or the wings of angels.

At thy request, monster, I will do reason, any reason.—

Come on, Trinculo, let us sing.

(sings) Flout ’em and scout ’em,

And scout ’em and flout ’em.

Thought is free.

Anytime I go to a dive bar or pool hall or rock-’n’-roll show, in the back of my mind it feels like there’s something missing. It’s not the booze or long-lost jukeboxes, it’s not the condom vending machines, filthy bathrooms, or obnoxious, aging, bandana-wearing Axl Rose doppelgängers. So what exactly is it? Smoke! I’m missing the damn cigarette smoke that for so long provided a hazy backdrop of second-hand nostalgia.

I’ve never actually smoked—tobacco, anyway. But in certain places it seems par for the course. Nevertheless, society banned the practice of cigar and cigarette smoking—and it’s a done deal. Hell, once the Italians banned smoking in restaurants and bars, it was clear there was no turning back.

Recently, in addition to the indoor smoking ban and a ban on smoking in public spaces, our mayor and the parks department have proposed fully eliminating smoking in each and every Seattle city park. What’s next?! Banning adults using the swing sets, or not letting you piss in the kiddie pool? (Wait.)

Look, we all want our parks to be beautiful. Which is why it’s illegal to litter there (including leaving cigarette butts, fast-food wrappers, or RedBulls strewn on the grass). And no one wants to have smoke blown into their children’s faces while picnicking at Gas Works or playing catch at Lincoln Park. Which is why the Seattle parks department banned smoking, chewing, and any tobacco use within 25 feet of other peeps at all beaches, parks, and playgrounds. (Not one citation has been issued by park rangers for this order since it went into effect in 2010, by the way.)

The Board of Park Commissioners will make a final recommendation to the superintendent on the proposed blanket smoking ban in Seattle parks on May 28. (In case you’re wondering, the proposed rule doesn’t specifically apply to vape pens—or electronic cigarettes—so regardless of how the wind blows, I’m in a win/win scenario here! The increasingly common smell of wafting ganja in parks is far more enjoyable than tobacco smoke anyway.) Smoking is already banned in all public spaces and workplaces (enacted in 2005). While the argument for reducing second-hand smoke (and lung cancer) and increasing healthy environments does hold some water, this total park ban seems a spot overly intrusive, and may actually be a smoke screen over messing with the homeless.

“Is this ban really about public health, or is it about discriminating against homeless people?” posed Sharon Jones, a Real Change vendor, at a recent public hearing on the matter. “Being homeless is hard enough—a smoking ban will give the police a reason to harass the poor . . . Homelessness is not a crime.”

The ACLU agrees. “What we think would happen in practice is this would get disproportionately enforced against people who are vulnerable populations,” noted spokesman Doug Honig, “and potentially they can be banned from parks—which are an important place for them to spend time—or even arrested.”

Almost 1,000 cities, including the Big Apple and San Fran, have total or partial bans on firing up in parks, rather than the 25-foot rule we’ve adopted. (So does Portland, but they’re just trying to stay relevant in any way possible.) The complete bans are obviously more straight-forward and easier to enforce and communicate to the public. But why stop there?

Wanna ban some stuff in our city parks? How about frisbees? It’s extremely hard to relax when discs are zooming nearby—one wrong ring-toss away from destroying my latte. And how about forbidding all big-ass boom boxes—as well as super-loud people? I’d also like to eliminate wide-legged manspreaders on park benches, public nail-clippers, and studs in really good shape who take their shirts off! (Not to mention slovenly slackers who should not be taking their shirts off under any circumstances.)

Ban Boot Camp fitness classes on public land, Tai Chi types, and yoginis too! And nix non-sharing birthday-cake partiers! I also loathe those skateboard punks, who you know are violating the smoking ban when no one’s looking! Hell, if I was calling the shots, we’d ban screaming KIDS from all city parks—talk about a buzz-kill! And while we’re at it, let’s forbid digital devices: I’m sick of seeing people more engaged with their iPhones than with the incredible views smack-dab in front of them. Maybe a giant waft of stinky smoke is just what the doctor ordered to get them to look up from their screens and into the bright light of day!

Put that in your park and smoke it.