COUNTY ERRS IN IGNORING MEDICAL MARIJUANA ID LAW

Sacramento County's Board of Supervisors is openly defying state law
and doing so at the expense of the sick and suffering in our county.
Worse, the board is doing it under false pretenses.

At issue is the medical marijuana ID card program, mandated by a
state law passed in 2003. This program is good for everyone involved:
patients, law enforcement and the larger community.

An ID card has no effect on a patient's legal status that is
determined by whether they meet the requirements of Proposition 215,
passed by voters in 1996. All it does is allow police and others to
quickly and easily identify patients. This saves police the wasted
time and effort involved in arresting and processing patients who
have a legal right to possess medical marijuana based on their
physician's recommendation. And it spares seriously ill patients the
trauma of a needless arrest and booking by state law enforcement agencies.

In other words, for Sacramento County to issue these ID cards to
patients is neither an endorsement of Proposition 215 nor a change in
a particular patient's legal status. It is simply a clear and helpful
way of documenting what is already a legal fact.

But you would never know that from the discussion at the March 18
Board of Supervisors meeting, at which the supervisors voted 3-2 not
to follow state law by issuing the cards.

Supervisors and law enforcement representatives made much of the
conflict between state and federal law. This argument took two main
forms, both bogus.

The first, suggested by Sheriff John McGinness and repeated by some
board members, is that issuing medical marijuana ID cards would
somehow endanger local law enforcement officers, who would be torn
between state and federal laws. But the courts have already answered
this question definitively. Recently, one of California's appellate
courts ruled, "It is not the job of the local police to enforce the
federal drug laws." Rejecting an appeal request, the California
Supreme Court decided to let the ruling stand.

In addition to this ruling, we have extensive real-world experience
from other counties. Thirty-eight are already issuing medical
marijuana ID cards, and some have been doing so for years. These
include large and small counties from all regions of the state,
including Los Angeles, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Orange and
Kern counties, among others.

During the hearing, McGinness told supervisors that Contra Costa
County refused to implement the program based on federal law. This is
false. According to that county's Web site, the ID card program was
made available in 2005. Additionally, the sheriff claimed that
Alameda County is only issuing the IDs under the proviso that the DEA
is notified of who has obtained a card wrong again. Alameda County is
following state law and is not notifying the DEA about participants
in the program.

The governments and law enforcement agencies in these counties have
suffered no adverse consequences or federal retaliation for issuing
ID cards and following state law. None. Zero.

The second bogus reason was voiced by Supervisor Susan Peters, who
said issuing the cards would give patients "a false sense of security
. putting Sacramento County residents in jeopardy of federal
prosecution," because cardholders would still be subject to federal
arrest. This assertion is false.

First, the ID card application clearly states that a card does not
provide immunity from federal arrest or prosecution. No one is being
told they have protection that isn't there.

Second, government statistics show that federal authorities make only
1 percent of all marijuana arrests, and 99 percent are made by local
police, acting under state laws. And the few remaining federal
arrests are almost all of large-scale marijuana producers and
distributors, not individual patients. Indeed, federal Drug
Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant has stated, "We have
never targeted the sick and dying."

The blunt truth is that our Board of Supervisors and some in law
enforcement just don't like Proposition 215 and would rather it went
away. But that does not give them the right to disregard a duly
enacted state law, and their actions could expose the county to
expensive and embarrassing litigation.

Ironically, this action comes as support for medical marijuana in the
medical community has snowballed. Just last month, the 124,000-member
American College of Physicians gave ringing support to legal
protection for medical marijuana patients.

It's not too late for our county supervisors to do the right thing.
Voters will be watching.