SUPERVISORS WRONG ON POT IDS

Sutter County Obligated to Implement Medical Marijuana State Law

High unemployment, a potential pension crisis -- and Sutter County
officials are picking a battle over medical marijuana. Which might
beg the question: What are they smoking?

Last week, in a 3-2 vote, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors
rejected a plan that would have put the county in compliance with
state law and issued identification cards for medical marijuana
users. Under the ordinance, county residents would have paid an
annual fee for a card identifying themselves to law enforcement as
legal marijuana users.

Specifically, supervisors Jim Whiteaker, Larry Munger and Larry
Montna voted against the proposal to provide ID to cannabis users --
in the face of overwhelming evidence justifying their issuance:

Proposition 215, passed by California voters in 1996, legalized
marijuana use for the sick despite a federal ban.

Senate Bill 420, authorized in 2003, directed California counties to
issue the ID cards to those using marijuana with a doctor's prescription.

Every other county in the state, with the exception of neighboring
Colusa County, is issuing the IDs, per state law (Yuba County's
program began in 2008). These include longtime holdouts San Diego and
Merced counties, who unsuccessfully challenged Prop. 215 in court.

While not endorsing the use of medical pot, Sutter County Sheriff
Paul Parker says the ID system would aid law enforcement in more
easily distinguishing legitimate medical marijuana patients from
abusers and traffickers.

To their credit, supervisors Stan Cleveland and James Gallagher voted
for the ID proposal. As Cleveland pointed out in advance of the vote:
"All the questions have been asked and answered, so now we can move
into it without conflicts, all the community angst this could
create." Gallagher was less enthusiastic about the ID program, but
acknowledged the county is legally obligated to implement it.

So what's bugging Whiteaker, Montna and Munger?

For Munger, it's apparently about the potential for abuse; he'd like
to see medical pot distributed through pharmacies rather than
dispensaries. Also, in casting his vote against the card program, he
called it a nonstarter in "the most conservative county in California."

Really? Conservatives don't use medical marijuana?

Montna apparently just doesn't get it. In voting to reject the IDs
program, he said there needs to be a universal law "upheld by
country, state, county and city. You can't choose what laws you do
and don't want to uphold." He also expressed concern about the feds
"busting whatever we have."

The argument that federal supremacy trumps contradictory state laws
has been tossed; San Diego failed in its bid to get the courts to so
rule in the medical marijuana fight. Therefore, it's the duty of
local officials such as Sutter County supervisors to enforce state
law. And last October the U.S. Justice Department announced it would
no longer prosecute medical pot patients in California and the 13
other states that allow the medicinal use of marijuana.

Montna is obviously contradicting himself by choosing to ignore
prevailing state law.

As for Whiteaker -- what happened? Several days before the board's
vote, Whiteaker told this newspaper he was leaning toward supporting
the ID proposal, acknowledging that supervisors have to enforce state laws.

Then came last week's meeting, when Whiteaker appeared to label
medical pot a gateway drug, and also flouted the California law.

"It's 2010 now, and the state hasn't done anything to us," Whiteaker said.

Apparently it's OK to violate a law as long as no punishment is expected.

Whiteaker also has a beef with Sutter County giving the state half of
the users' $128 fee for overseeing an ID program. So now it's a money
issue as well? Sutter County's for excuses not doing the right thing
regarding medical marijuana just keep piling up.

There may be a solution as far as limiting county workers'
involvement: Whiteaker and a lawyer for American for Safe Access see
eye to eye on the potential for a private entity to administer the program.

Regardless, the three opposition supervisors need to put aside their
personal views about medical marijuana and support the establishment
of an ID program. Doing so will benefit local law-abiding citizens
and law enforcement, and avoid a possible legal showdown and
potential state sanctions.

And it's the law.