Pubdate: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 Source: Bakersfield Californian, The (CA) Copyright: 2005 The Bakersfield Californian Contact: http://www.bakersfield.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/36 Author: Gretchen Wenner Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) Note: The Bakersfield Californian hosts a weblog entitled, "If marijuana was legal." BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ID VOTE ON HOLD Pot cards are on hold, for now. County supervisors Tuesday unanimously decided to postpone for two weeks a vote on ID cards for medical marijuana users. In the meantime, they told staff lawyers to study a lawsuit filed by San Diego County, which chose last month to sue the state rather than implement the identification card program. The program is required under California law. But federal marijuana laws clash with state rules, a conundrum that adds legal confusion to a morally loaded issue. On one side are marijuana advocates such as Doug McAfee and Victor Love, who both spoke at Tuesday's hearing. They're frustrated they're still feeling harassed nine years after California voters approved a ballot measure that allows legal use of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. "D.A.s across the state (have been) figuring out ways not to implement the will of the people," said McAfee, referring to Proposition 215, which passed in 1996. McAfee is president of the Bakersfield chapter of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law. Love told the board: "We're not criminals." The original measure legalized medical marijuana use for qualified patients. Follow-up legislation created the voluntary ID card program up for vote Tuesday. The cards will theoretically make it easier for medical pot users to identify themselves to law enforcement officials. In Kern, qualified patients would pay $100 for the cards to cover costs of the program. They would also be warned that information they provide could be used against them in a federal prosecution. Marijuana use remains illegal under federal law. So far, 11 of California's 58 counties have approved the program, according to Kern's public health director, Dr. B.A. Jinadu. Kern is supposed to have its program running by Jan. 9, he added. Supervisors asked Jinadu to find out whether the deadline can be extended. On the other side of the controversial issue are some law officers and elected officials. Ed Jagels, Kern's district attorney, told supervisors he's concerned about legal implications. Would a peace officer be committing a federal crime, he wondered, if he returned seized pot to a qualified medical marijuana user? Jagels and Ventura County's district attorney, Gregory Totten, sent a letter to the state attorney general asking for an opinion on that and two other items. Supervisors, too -- especially in conservative Kern County -- appeared less than thrilled about the prospect of signing off on the program, even if state law requires it. Both Jinadu and the county's No. 2 lawyer, Steve Schuett, told the board they basically had no wiggle room. But board members seemed determined to find a toehold. Supervisor Michael Rubio suggested studying the San Diego case and asking the state for an extended deadline "before we just give up hope." His request was readily embraced by the board. Supervisor Don Maben said controlled substances are overseen by the federal government, "not the people of the state." A measure to ban federal taxes in California, Maben said by way of comparison, "would pass unanimously, of course," but wouldn't be valid. After the vote, McAfee said he was outraged. "I thought it would be approved without much discussion," he said. Love was less surprised. "I expected no less from Kern County," he said. The item is slated to return for a vote Dec. 20. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman