Pubdate: Wed, 02 Nov 2005
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.uniontrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386
Note: Does not print LTEs from outside it's circulation area.
Author: Leslie Wolf Branscomb, Staff Writer
Cited: Americans for Safe Access ( www.safeaccessnow.org )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)

COUNTY IS BALKING ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Supervisors Refuse to Implement ID Plan

Flouting state law, county supervisors yesterday refused to implement
a program providing identification cards that would help medical
marijuana users avoid arrest.

County attorneys warned supervisors that their vote will almost
certainly plunge the county into costly and unwinnable litigation.

Their response: Bring it on.

"After spending thousands and thousands of community enhancement
dollars to go after gangs and drug dealers, I think it would be
tremendous hypocrisy to vote for this," Supervisor Bill Horn said. "I
look forward to the lawsuit when it happens."

Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Pam Slater-Price voted with
him.

At issue was a staff recommendation to implement a state mandate
requiring counties to issue identification cards and keep a registry
of medical marijuana users.

Only six counties have implemented the program but San Diego is the
first to refuse to participate, state officials said.

"Even though I do understand it's going to cost money, I do believe
leadership means doing the right thing," Slater-Price said before voting.

The vote came less than five months after a county grand jury report
took supervisors to task for ignoring the wishes of voters who in 1996
approved an initiative allowing for the use of medical marijuana.

Supervisors Greg Cox and Ron Roberts said they voted in favor of
establishing the registry only because of the potentially expensive
litigation.

"What is before us today is something that I detest," Cox said. "But
we do have a legal obligation to move forward with the identification
cards."

County Counsel John Sansone said the county probably would be sued
soon. He said that likely would result in a court order requiring the
county to follow the law.

"If your board asks that we challenge it, we would do that," Sansone
told the supervisors. "However, it would be a very, very major uphill
struggle."

Sansone said later that he will discuss the legal ramifications of the
supervisors' vote with them in closed session Tuesday.

Local medical marijuana advocates reacted with anger.

"That's really outrageous," said Barbara MacKenzie, who formerly ran a
medical marijuana resource center in San Diego. "They need to
implement because they are required to. It is the law."

Kris Hermes, legal campaign director for Americans for Safe Access,
agreed.

"They're still obligated under state law to implement the ID card
program," Hermes said.

The Oakland-based nonprofit group, which promotes legal access to
marijuana for medicinal purposes, successfully sued the California
Highway Patrol to keep its officers from confiscating marijuana from
medical users. It also is suing several cities that have passed
ordinances banning marijuana dispensaries.

Hermes said he doubts his organization will lead the legal charge
against the local decision. He said he believes the state's
requirement for an identification registry is flawed because federal
authorities can access the names of users, who could then be
prosecuted under federal drug laws.

"We will consider legal action in the future once the privacy clause
is taken care of," he said.

One patient from Escondido who uses medical marijuana said the flaw
cited by Hermes is one reason many people have no interest in applying
for an identification card.

"They say they don't want to go after patients, but you can't trust
the government," said the 49-year-old, who did not want his name
published because he fears being arrested for growing marijuana in his
back yard.

"So long as they're going to look at it as something that's not
medicine, who wants to identify themselves as a patient?"

In July, the state Department of Health Services conceded the
potential for federal drug enforcement agents to obtain the registry.
The identification-card program was temporarily suspended.

Eleven days later the program was reinstated, with a caveat that
counties should include warnings on the cards telling users they still
could be prosecuted under federal laws.

Four counties -- Amador, Del Norte, Mendocino and Trinity --
participated in a pilot project from May to July, testing the
procedures for issuance of the cards.

In August, the state sent a handbook to each county health department,
outlining policies and procedures that were developed based on the
pilot project.

Marin and Shasta counties have since begun processing applications.
Sutter County supervisors opted for the state to implement the program
for the county.

The city of San Francisco has been issuing cards to medical marijuana
users for several years, but it doesn't keep information that would
identify applicants. The county was set to implement the state's
policy Monday, but supervisors there voted last night to delay it,
because of concerns about preserving the anonymity of patients.

Fifty-six percent of California voters approved Proposition 215 nine
years ago. It allows doctors to recommend marijuana to patients to
alleviate pain from certain medical conditions. It also allows
patients to cultivate and transport the drug.

In 2003, the state Legislature clarified the proposition with another
law, Senate Bill 420. It requires counties to issue identification
cards to medical marijuana users and maintain a database of them.
Counties may recover the expense of the program by charging fees to
patients who register.

The cards do not give people permission to use marijuana, but they
could serve to protect them from arrest and punishment by state law
enforcement, Sansone said.

Federal authorities have indicated repeatedly that they will continue
to enforce federal marijuana laws. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld the federal government's power to do so.

Sansone and the supervisors noted the contradiction between federal
and state statutes.

"If the state is so convinced of the merits of this program, it should
not be forcing counties to do its dirty work," Jacob said.

After the meeting, Horn issued a statement lambasting the Senate
measure and equating supervisors' actions with those of the late civil
rights leader Rosa Parks.

"Rosa Parks is lying in state and being honored for opposing a bad
law," said the statement.

"SB 420 is a bad law. Leadership demands that we oppose it," Horn
said.

This isn't the first time supervisors have been criticized for their
stand on medical marijuana. The county grand jury took them to task in
June.

"The San Diego County Board of Supervisors has been blinded by its
prejudices against medical marijuana use and has failed to implement
the will of California voters," the report said.

The county's response at the time was that it had no authority over
how state and federal laws are enacted.

The same report commended the cities of San Diego and Escondido for
developing guidelines for police to evaluate the legitimacy of medical
marijuana claims, and praised a San Diego municipal task force for its
commitment to implementing the initiative.

San Diego formed a Cannabis Task Force in 2001 to recommend guidelines
for patients under Proposition 215, and the council later voted to
allow individuals to grow up to 24 plants -- four times as much as the
state allows for medical marijuana.

The city was also planning to issue identification cards but didn't do
so because Senate Bill 420 required counties to do it. In April 2004,
the task force called on the county to immediately implement the
identification card program.

There is no deadline for issuance of the cards, said Norma Arceo, a
spokeswoman for the state Department of Health Services. "Counties
will come on board as they get ready," she said. "At this point we
have not had any county voting to refuse."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake