BOS defies
voters, grand jury, pot laws
By Billie Jo Jannen and
Christy Scott
The Alpine Sun
SAN DIEGO — Medical marijuana
advocates rallied in front of the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors last week, urging the supervisors to drop their plans
for a lawsuit challenging the state law that allows marijuana use
with a doctor's approval.
The BOS decision to sue came on the heels
of a June 2005 grand jury report that recommended the supervisors
stop stalling on implementation of the 1996 voter-approved
initiative, stating in its findings that, "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.”
Further turning up the heat on the board,
the rally coincides with a recently released Marijuana Policy
Project survey of county residents, which shows that most county
voters support California's medical marijuana law and oppose the
supervisors' plan to sue to overturn it.
Most respondents also said that they would
vote to replace the supervisors over the issue and, Tuesday, MPP
upped the ante by announcing that it would file a citizens
initiative to impose term limits on supervisors.
Nearly 50 pro-marijuana activists held the
rally outside the supervisors’ first meeting of the year. Though
not on the agenda, a small group took the opportunity to speak
during the public comment section of the meeting, but supervisors
were not permitted to discuss or take any action on the item.
In November, the supervisors voted to sue
the state to challenge Senate Bill 420, the 2003 law requiring
counties to provide identification cards to medical marijuana users
to protect them from state prosecution. The supervisors have refused
to comply with the requirement.
California has had medical marijuana law on
the books for more than nine years. The "Compassionate
Use" law, Proposition 215, passed by voters in 1996, said,
"...seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use
marijuana for medical purposes" when recommended by a doctor.
In December, the board voted unanimously in
closed session to sue to overturn Prop 215 itself, on the basis that
it should be pre-empted by federal law.
"Why is Sacramento forcing us to allow
residents to break federal law? I don’t know what they’re
smoking up there," said District 2 Supervisor Dianne Jacob.
"I do know that this is bad law. It’s convoluted, it’s
hypocritical and it adds more mud to already muddy waters."
"The state has a gun to our heads,
forcing us to create a program for a drug that the federal
government says is illegal," she continued.
By a 4-0 vote, Supervisors Bill Horn, Pam
Slater-Price, Dianne Jacob and Greg Cox (Ron Roberts was absent)
ordered county lawyers to sue the state and ask the court to
overturn its medical marijuana laws.
Board counsel John Sansone said yesterday
that the lawsuit, likely to be filed in the coming week, will argue
that federal law supersedes state law when there is a conflict.
Under federal law, possession and use of marijuana is a crime.
"We're going to be asking the court to
declare the two state laws invalid," he said.
Sansone told the board in November that
failure to implement the state provisions would likely result in the
county being sued, adding that it would be a very hard suit to win.
Medical marijuana supporters argue that the
lawsuit is a waste of county money and resources, and that the
supervisors are out of touch with residents. A $15,000 telephone
survey, conducted by Evans/McDonough Company for the Marijuana
Policy Project, question.
The survey reported that 67 percent of
respondents supported Prop 215; 70 percent said the county should
create the identification card program; 78 percent of respondents
said supervisors "should not be wasting taxpayer money suing
the state to try to overturn California's medical marijuana
law;" and 62 percent said they’d vote to replace their
supervisors if they knew they supported overturning the medical
marijuana law.
According to analysts with the Evans
McDonough Company, the firm that conducted the survey, these results
are subject to a 4.38 percent margin of error, meaning the real
percentages could swing by that margin in either direction.
"The message is very clear,"
project spokesman Bruce Merkin said, "the voters don't want the
board of supervisors to pursue this. They're comfortable with
Proposition 215. And they feel that, rather than conducting a war on
patients, the board should be defending the patients there are in
the county."
County supervisors immediately suggested
the survey was politically motivated by a pro-marijuana
organization.
"What do they say? 'Figures lie and
liars figure?'" said Supervisor Pam Slater-Price, who served
the board's chairwoman for last year.
"This is a poll bought and paid for by
a special-interest group with a clear-cut agenda," Jacob said.
"The results aren't credible. More importantly, the county's
legal challenge isn't about popular opinion. It's about resolving a
clash of state and federal laws."
The San Diego County Grand Jury report,
however, is created by a body whose function is not only publicly
supported, but whose stated purpose is to investigate the
performance of public bodies and agencies. It’s assessment of the
supervisors’ past actions in refusing to carry out the provisions
of either the compassionate use law and those of SB 420 is both
harsh and clear:
“However, the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors has had almost nine years to honor the mandate of the
voters and has done absolutely nothing, choosing instead to rely on
its own prejudices against allowing the use of marijuana for
medicinal purpose,” the report states. “Even if the San Diego
County Board of Supervisors chose not to set up an identification
card system, they (sic) had ample time to formulate uniform
protocols and procedures for use by all law enforcement agencies.
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors has had almost nine years
to act since the voters spoke in 1996, and almost two years since SB
420 was signed into law. Its rationale for inaction at this
late date rings false.”
Senate Bill 420, which was signed into law
in October 2003 and took effect on Jan. 1, 2004, imposes statewide
guidelines outlining how much medical marijuana patients may grow
and possess. The legislation also mandates the California Department
of Health Services to establish a voluntary medical marijuana
patient registry and issue identification cards to qualified
patients and caregivers.
The grand jury produced a list of seven
recommendations that urge the board to comply with state law
“...to facilitate access to medical marijuana by patients
qualified under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and SB 420, to
issue a clear statement of uniform protocols and procedures to law
enforcement, physicians and patients, and to ac discourage local law
enforcement “from arresting or confiscating marijuana from anyone
who claims protection under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 until
after an investigation has been completed.”
The report also said supervisors should
discourage local law enforcement from cooperating with federal
agencies in cases where California law is not being violated.
Some local bodies and agencies have already
complied with the law, including the City of San Diego and 18
California counties, according to the report.
The report, entitled The Politics of
Medical Marijuana: A Question of Compassion, may be viewed at www.sdcounty.ca.gov/grandjury.
The MMP petition would hold supervisors
to only two terms and is publicly supported by registered nurse
Claudia Little.
"I am appalled that our board of
supervisors is defying the will of county voters, and doing it in
order to wage a war on the sick," Little said. "This
initiative is necessary because our supervisors are dangerously out
of control."
 E-mail
the Editor
|
|
