cannabisnews.com: SD Refuses To Administer Medical Marijuana Cards





SD Refuses To Administer Medical Marijuana Cards
Posted by CN Staff on November 17, 2005 at 20:06:08 PT
Fox News Story
Source: Fox News Network
Washington, D.C. -- San Diego County is just saying "no" to enforcing a California law passed last December that requires counties to give ID cards to registered patients who use medical marijuana so they won't get busted for having pot. "To use medical marijuana cards and at the same time go after gangs and what they're doing, it's absolute hypocrisy to me," said San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn.
In 1996, Californians were the first in the nation to pass an initiative legalizing marijuana for medical purposes."Patients ought to be able to have access to medical marijuana. Everyone agreed by vote that's what we want," said Jerry Meier, chairman of the county's Medical Marijuana/Cannabis Task Force.Thumbing their noses at Sacramento, earlier this month county supervisors voted three to two against issuing pot ID cards. The supervisors plan to sue the state, arguing that any marijuana use violates federal law.County attorneys have warned that litigation will be costly and likely lose in court. The supervisors' response  they're up for the challenge."We think the federal court has to make that decision. Who's right, who's wrong. I mean, you put us in the middle here," Horn said.Medical marijuana advocates say the voters have spoken and counties should listen. They add that they worry innocent patients will face prosecution."You could have someone coming down here from up north with their card, getting pulled over by a sheriff ... and it costs you in the county thousands of dollars in a lawsuit because they weren't enforcing the state card program," Meier said.For now the lawsuit shapes up as San Diego County versus the state of California, but legal experts say it's unlikely to remain within state borders and could wind up in federal court, another test of whether the central government or the states have the right to decide if medical marijuana is legal.Complete Title: San Diego Refuses To Administer Medical Marijuana CardsSource: Fox News Network (US)Published: Thursday, November 17, 2005Copyright: 2005 Fox News Network, LLC. Website: http://www.foxnews.com/Comments: foxnewsonline foxnews.comRelated Articles: County To Sue State Over Medical Marijuana Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21286.shtml IDs for Users of Marijuana Will Be Offeredhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21074.shtmlState Resumes Medical Marijuana ID Card Programhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20974.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by mayan on November 18, 2005 at 17:21:27 PT
Fire Them
County attorneys have warned that litigation will be costly and likely lose in court. The supervisors' response  they're up for the challenge.Using the taxpayer's money to nullify a law that the taxpayers passed? That's going to go over real well. These supervisors will soon be unemployed. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by JoeCitizen on November 18, 2005 at 08:44:27 PT
Sam, point the finger at Bill Lockyer
The Balkanized situation in California is due solely to Bill Lockyer, the California Attorney General. He has refused from the day Prop 215 passed (and became the Compassionate Usage Act) to set any standards for uniform enforcement, or to bring legal action against LEOs who refuse to obey or enforce the law.Here is the most relevant section of the California Constitution that Lockyer won't defend:CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIASEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:  (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;  (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;  (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations.Section C is pretty clear there. California law trumps Federal law until such time as an appellate court determines otherwise. The CUA (prop 215) has never been overturned in federal court, therefore the enforcement of it is not prohibited, and grand-standers like Bill Horn are derelict in their duty, and should be prosecuted and jailed for their intransigence. Bill Lockyer just needs to do his job.JC
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on November 18, 2005 at 07:07:46 PT
Govt intransigence
An interesting trend emerges when you look at Prop 215. When government officials (usually LEO, in this case small-time politicians) don't like a law, there really isn't much incentive for them to obey it.The worst case scenario is losing a lawsuit and paying millions in damages, which is immediately passed on to the taxpayers. Who, coincidentally, are the ones who ordered the government officials to act in the first place.Our electoral system is badly broken. And if we're going to be honest with ourselves, we have to recognize that the Number 1 reason is apathy. I guess the voters and taxpayers are getting exactly what they deserve. Most will blindly pay their taxes (including the bill from this lawsuit) and then not even bother voting in the election for these bozos.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by john wayne on November 18, 2005 at 01:08:09 PT
Sandy Eggo
Hey, San Diego. Where I first signed a petition to get 215 on the ballot. To overrule Pete Wilson's (remember him?) veto of the state legislature vote for medical cannabis. Everyone near me on the street signed as well.  Bill Horn, get yourself a bull horn and blow on about how medical cannabis and "gangs" are the same thing. I'm sure your constituents would like to hear your ideas loud and clear. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 17, 2005 at 20:11:32 PT
Video On The Fox News Article
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175968,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment