Smart Bombs: Blunt talk on marijuana

The views of many pot prohibitionists haven’t advanced past “Dragnet,” an ancient TV melodrama in which Sgt. Joe Friday lectured caricatures of hippies over the use of drugs. Here’s an excerpt from a 1968 episode:

“Marijuana is the fuse, heroin the flame and LSD the bomb. So don’t you try to equate liquor with marijuana with me, mister. You may sell that jazz to another pothead, but not to somebody who spends most of their time holding some sick kid’s head while he vomits and retches sitting on a curbstone at four o’clock in the morning.” He finishes with, “I’m the expert here!”

Two years after that episode, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, which led to marijuana being lumped with heroin in the most restrictive category. This remains the law of the land and a major hindrance to legalizing pot. It precludes banks from taking money from pot sales, even in states where it’s legal. And it spooks state legislatures that might otherwise legalize weed.

Jack Webb, who created and played Sgt. Friday, died of a heart attack that was partly attributed to his smoking and drinking. His “just the facts” soliloquies – sometimes punctuated with a drag from a cigarette – excluded these socially acceptable killers.

So here’s the truth, according to scientists who research the effects: Marijuana is comparatively tame.

A study published recently in Scientific Reports concludes that liquor is 114 times more dangerous than pot, according to a calculation that measured toxicity with the typical amount used. The rankings of the substances studied, from riskiest to safest, are: alcohol, heroin, cocaine, tobacco, Ecstasy, meth and marijuana.

So, in a sense, Sgt. Friday was right. We shouldn’t equate marijuana with liquor, because the latter is far more dangerous.

And that’s a fact, mister.

Bluetoothless. From the U.S. Traffic Safety Administration website’s FAQ:

Is it safe to use hands-free (headset, speakerphone, or other device) cell phones while driving?

The available research indicates that cell phone use while driving, whether it is a hands-free or hand-held device, degrades a driver’s performance. The driver is more likely to miss key visual and audio cues needed to avoid a crash. Hand-held devices may be slightly worse, but hands-free devices are not risk-free.

I mention this because I was reading a Facebook discussion about cellphones and driving, and a woman responded that she was “blessed” to have the technology to converse without holding her phone.

Then again, it’s difficult to blame someone for not knowing the danger, because cellphone laws focus on having the phone in hand. So, the usual order of prohibition is to ban texting and then ban talking on the phone while holding it. No state has taken the next step, which is to ban hands-free use, even though research shows it significantly slows reaction times.

But that’s because it would be difficult to enforce. Cops can’t discern whether a driver is holding a phone conversation or merely singing “On the Road Again.” And there is no breath test.

The Washington Legislature is in the midst of updating its 2007 cellphone law (SB 5656), because it specifies texting and holding the phone to your ear. Since then, smartphones have proliferated, so there’s a massive loophole where a driver may read Facebook, play “Candy Crush” and check the ball scores (guilty) without violating the law.

If the law is changed – and it should be – you won’t be able to hold your phone for any reason, even while the car is at a red light. However, you can still legally gab hands-free.

Just know that this “blessing” could instantly turn into a curse.