Today at the Board of Supervisors meeting, the supes debated something that should be fairly noncontroversial — developing a policy so that sick people who use medical marijuana can be issued ID cards. Really, in a supposedly free society, is it that much to ask that people who can benefit from a little medical pot can use it without getting arrested? I stopped by the meeting for a short time, enough to hear the end of DA Tony Rackauckas’ lame-brained argument for ignoring Prop. 215. I also heard members of the public argue forcefully for allowing tragically sick people to get a little relief. […]

[The OC Board of Supervisors] voted 3-2 against Norby’s [original] proposal (Moorlach and Norby were on the losing end), but that Bill Campbell offered a compromise and that measure passed 4-1. Only Janet Nguyen voted “no.” [on both measures.] This is not a good sign if one has hopes of Nguyen being a supporter of limited and sensible government.

Steven Greenhut is pissed. The super hardcore libertarian-minded OC Register editorialist lambastes Supervisor Janet Nguyen on Orange Punch for voting against even considering issuing medical marijuana ID cards at yesterday’s Board meeting.

So is Janet Nguyen not a “true conservative”? Is she not libertarian-minded? Does she hate sick, dying patients? Or does she just have something else in mind? Follow me after the flip for more on this sordid tale of political posturing, heated controversy, and gravely ill people in the balance…

So what’s up with Janet? Well, we know what Greenhut thinks about it. However, Jubal/Matt Cunningham offers another view at Red County/OC Blog:

I’d give Janet’s vote a much more political reading. Barring a court decision unseating, Janet Nguyen is up for re-election in little more than a year. She only got 24.1% of the vote in an incredibly close and divisive campaign. She needs to more than double her vote share in order to avoid a November run-off. The impact of the Vietnamese vote — which was nuclear in the special election — will be much diluted in the June 2008 primary. The registration is split between Republicans and Democrats — and the latter have high hopes for re-capturing the seat. The more vulnerable she appears, the more challengers she may attract.

Consequently, Janet is going to view every vote through the prism of re-election and how it will affect her chances of securing it.

I think that’s the case with this vote: Janet voted no so she won’t get hit with “soft on drugs” mailers next year. Former Supervisor Cynthia Coad, got hit hard with such mail in the 1998 primary because when she was a community college trustee she had signed her name to some voluminous study that included (if I recall correctly) a recommendation to study decriminalizing marijuana. Coad made it into the November run-off, but it was close. That may have been on Janet Nguyen’s mind when she cast her votes today.

So who’s correct here? I say BOTH OF THEM!

Greenhut has a good point about Janet’s ideology. She probably doesn’t have much of one. She’s a fairly pragmatic person who always tries to “do the right thing”… But did she do the right thing in denying medicine to sick patients? Well, perhaps she thinks she is doing the right thing… TO WIN REELECTION NEXT YEAR!

Yep, Matt’s probably right that any possible opponents could have used a “Yes” vote to paint Janet as “pro-drug-abuse” and “soft on crime”. She now has to maintain a tricky balance of being conservative enough to hold onto most Republicans, moderate enough to swing some Democrats her way, “Vietnamese enough” to build a strong base in the Vietnamese-American community, and “Latino-friendly enough” to undo the damage from this year’s special election and begin wooing Latino voters to her side. I can see why she’d be wary of something that could bite back and hurt her among ANY of these voters.

But wait! Are we all just over analyzing Janet’s vote? Maybe Janet voted that way just because Janet wanted to vote that way. Maybe she just voted that way because she thought that Norby’s measure wasn’t the right thing to do at this time. Or at least, this is how Orange Juice blogger Art Pedroza sees it:

Did you try asking Janet why she voted this way? I did. She said that, as well all know, the federal government has not been playing along with the will of the voters on this issue, to say the least. That would be your boy Bush and his inept AG Gonzalez.

She also told me that a court in San Diego is considering a case that will establish a precedent in this area. It is wise in this case to wait and see what that court decides.

I did advise her to vote for it by the way, but Janet is her own person and she does try very hard to be fair and prudent on every issue.

Well, I know that Janet is one of the few Republicans that Art still likes. And perhaps he is seeing something that the rest of us are not. Maybe Janet voted that way just because she thought it was the best thing to do in such a difficult situation. But still, I doubt that this was the only thing on her mind. She’s certainly no saint. And she’s not a doctrinaire conservative. And she’s not a libertarian. And she’s not ready to help some very sick patients in need of treatment…
But one thing’s for certain. She’s running for reelection next year.

Remember my facetious post excusing Californians for blaming Chevron for gas prices…well, I think I just meant for gas prices.  Because, while they might have some role in the manipulation of gas prices, it’s certainly not solely under their purview.  But, the fact that they destroy the environment of developing nations and then run away from it? Well, that is their fault.

Vanity Fair ran an article entitled “Jungle Law” concerning a lawyer who was suing Chevron for damage that Texaco (now part of Chevron) wreaked upon their environment:

In a forsaken little town in the Ecuadorean Amazon, an overgrown oil camp called Lago Agrio, the giant Chevron Corporation has been maneuvered into a makeshift courtroom and is being sued to answer for conditions in 1,700 square miles of rain forest said by environmentalists to be one of the world’s most contaminated industrial sites. The pollution consists of huge quantities of crude oil and associated wastes, mixed in with the toxic compounds used for drilling operations-a noxious soup that for decades was dumped into leaky pits, or directly into the Amazonian watershed.(Vanity Fair 5/07)

Follow me over the flip for a little Arnold connection…

What is that Arnold connection? C’mon seriously, you haven’t guessed yet? It’s money of course.  Since his entry into politics, Arnold has taken over half a million dollars from Chevron.  Yeah, um, that’s a lot of money.  Like a whole lot of money.  Hey Chevron, can I have some money? I’m going to run for governor any day now! 

Well, now decision time for the good Greenantor.  Are you really green? Well, how about some help for a lawyer who is trying to get clean drinking water for villages poisoned by the actions of Chevron (née Texaco) From today’s LA Times:

“I would like to invite you personally down to Ecuador to look at what Chevron has done to the rain forest here,” wrote Pablo Fajardo, the attorney. “I would plead with you to bring your friends who are executives at the company so they can explain to you what they have done here. And finally, I am asking for your public help in supporting the fight against this company.”

Fajardo added: “I have faith because I know you are a man of the environment.”

The attorney plans to visit California next week and wants to meet with the governor. A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said the governor has yet to receive the letter and would not comment.

So, Arnold, what are you going to do? You want to bring attention to the plight of thousands of people who have been harmed by one of your contributors?  I’m not holding my breath on this one…

(Insurance companies are a blight on the health care system. And Blue Cross makes cherry picking an art. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The coming health battle royale in California reminds us what we should have remembered from 1993: insurance corporations will kick, claw, and deceive to stop any healthcare reforms.  This time, it’s Blue Cross out to sink Arnold’s healthcare plan-they like that every single citizen is required to sign up for healthcare, but don’t like that their profits would be capped at 15%.  Why have a 15% profit margin, when you can have a 27%? 

Meanwhile, guaranteed healthcare, with “Medicare for All” or single-payer financing, gets re-introduced in the Golden State, a Brooklyn hospital is suing the insurance companies for conspiracy, the “employer mandate” to provide insurance is dead, and FINALLY the business press is starting to notice the economic catastrophe that is our healthcare sector.  That’s your updates from the fight for guaranteed healthcare-details below the fold…

Brought to you by the National Nurses Organizing Committee as we organize to make 2007 the Year of GUARANTEED Healthcare

The insurance companies sank Hillarycare-even though it carved out a continuing role for their profits-and they’re about to do the same thing to Schwarzencare.

When Blue Cross sells health insurance to someone who isn’t covered at work, the company typically makes a 27 percent profit. By the time salaries and other administrative costs are accounted for, only half the money the company collects in premiums from that person goes for medical care.
Those figures may help explain why Blue Cross – the insurance provider for roughly one in four people in the state who have health coverage, and with political heft in the Capitol to match – so far is the only major insurer opposing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s universal health care plan.
…. Schwarzenegger’s plan could sharply curtail Blue Cross’ industry-leading margins in a few key ways. Among the state’s largest insurers, it would have by far the hardest time complying with a requirement that 85 percent of premium dollars go toward medical care. Blue Cross devotes significantly less than that – from 51 percent to 79 percent, depending on the type of insurance plan – according to financial data filed with state regulators.

Don’t get me wrong-Schwarzencare is terrible; it requires everyone to sign up for junk insurance, and nurses hate it because the insurers are a blight on our industry.  Nonetheless, Blue Cross shows their true colors by turning down that bargain because a 15% profit margin isn’t enough for them.

Most tellingly, look at how Blue Cross is gearing up to fight the insurance reform planks that John Edwards among other have proposed:

The governor also wants to ban the practice of “cherry picking” young, healthy people least likely to go to the doctor, while denying coverage to others with even minor ailments.
That policy is legal – and not unique to Blue Cross – but the company’s success at limiting exposure to big medical bills has helped it rack up fatter profits than the state’s other top insurers.
“The idea that you have to sell health insurance to any comer is antithetical to their business model,” said Peter Harbage, a health care expert at the non-partisan New America Foundation who has advised the governor. “It’s not how they make money.”

If we’re going to get any kind of healthcare reform, we will have to take on the insurance companies that are corrupting the system.  It makes smart political sense to go after them head-on, rather than trying to protect them and give them the cover to continue blocking reform.  It won’t be easy though:

During the two-year legislative session ending in December, the company spent nearly $2.5 million to lobby lawmakers and regulators, records show – nearly $800,000 more than Kaiser Permanente, which ranked second among health insurers. The $1.4 million that Blue Cross spread around to lawmakers and political causes was also easily tops among insurers.
The company also donates generously to community organizations – $2.7 million last year – helping to foster good will in halls of power. 

• Meanwhile, there’s great news from California.  A plan for true guaranteed healthcare is up again.  Sen. Sheila Kuehl’s SB 840 is the only “single-payer” or “Medicare for All” plan ever to pass a legislature.  It works: everyone in, nobody, patients are guaranteed care, and the state saves hundreds of millions of dollars.  Arnold vetoed it before-will he have the guts to veto it again?

In the words of the heroic Sen. Kuehl:

“It’s amazing how much money you save by not wasting it on insurance companies,” she said.

You hear that Blue Cross?

Elsewhere in our national battle for Guaranteed Healthcare:

• A Brooklyn hospital is suing the insurance companies for conspiracy.  Finally.  One example:

In one example… says a woman admitted in October 2006 for a malignant brain tumor was denied coverage for eight days of treatment based on standards used for treating infectious disease. 

• States can no longer require employers to provide healthcare.  Our two remaining options for healthcare reform: mandating individuals purchase insurance, or  guaranteed healthcare with SinglePayer financing.

• The business media is starting to freak out over the damage healthcare is doing to our economy. Finally.

With all U.S. manufacturers fighting to maintain profit margins-and increasingly competing with companies from countries that don’t have an employer-paid health insurance model-is it time for significant change in this area?

• Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan is failing.

If you want to join the fight for guaranteed healthcare (with a “Medicare for All” or SinglePayer financing), sign up with GuaranteedHealthcare.org, a project of the National Nurses Organizing Committee.  You can help the fight by sharing your story about surviving the healthcare industry here.

LA Times:

A state appeals court today soundly renounced a law designed to give Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District. The ruling is the second — and perhaps final — blow to what was once the centerpiece of Villaraigosa’s education-reform plan.

Today’s unanimous decision, by a three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal, found the law, Assembly Bill 1381, unconstitutional — and it was not a close call, in the view of the justices. In its one-paragraph conclusion, the justices gave particular importance to the revised Los Angeles City Charter that was approved during the term of then-Mayor Richard Riordan. That charter revision reaffirmed the election of school-board members with authority to govern the school district, in the view of the court.

There’s almost no way that the State Supreme Court would choose to take a case when the appeals court voiced this strong a takedown.  The next step for Antonio is to have his candidates win the two outstanding school board runoffs next month.  After that, if he can’t hammer out a deal there, he may have to go to the ballot if he wants to get this done.  This is really a crushing defeat for the mayor, who staked a lot of political capital on this issue.

The decision on the flip…

“The citizens of Los Angeles have the constitutional right to decide whether their school board is to be appointed or elected,” the justices wrote. “If the citizens of Los Angeles choose to amend their charter to allow the mayor to appoint the members of the board, such amendment would indisputably be proper. What is not permissible is for the Legislature to ignore that constitutional right and to bypass the will of the citizens of Los Angeles and effectively transfer many of powers of the board to the mayor, based on its belief, hope, or assumption that he could do a better job.”

(Sorry about the technical difficulties yesterday… But here’s the final full account of what happened at the OC Board of Supervisors as they decided to take another 90 days to decide how to go forward in issuing medical marijuana ID cards. – promoted by atdleft)

After nearly four hours of heart-wrenching testimony, legal wrangling, political posturing, and attempts at compromise, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to direct staff to spend the next 90 days crafting a county policy on issuing ID cards to medical marijuana patients… Along with a study on how this would affect law enforcement AND a legal update on San Diego County’s lawsuit seeking to overturn Prop 215.

Follow me after the flip as I (FINALLY!!) fill you in with updates and reactions on today’s decision by the OC Board of Supes…

“Do the right thing, because it is the moral thing. It is the will of the voters.”
That was Catherine Smith, a medical doctor and self-described “fourth-generation Orange County resident and Republican” who testified in support of issuing medical marijuana ID cards.

“An ID card would definitely be useful…
I don’t know how the federal government can give me morphine, but take away my marijuana.”
That was Michael Gaughan, a military veteran diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma who has been treating his cancer with marijuana. The Fountain Valley police recently confiscated his medicine when they found him with it.

“I’ve never seen that. They were turned down. They ask for ID and a doctor’s recommendation.”
That was Thomas Pimintel, a disabled military veteran who was diagnosed as hypoglycemic, on how District Attorney Tony Rackauckas doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says that it’s so easy to get “medical marijuana”.

“They don’t just hand out marijuana by the bucketful… It’s not going to just be a wild free-for-all.”
That was James Kapko, a multiple sclerosis patient and medical doctor who testified from his wheelchair about the many safeguards in the state’s medical marijuana laws.

So what happened after all these folks gave their impassioned testimonies of their personal hardships, and how cannabis has aided in the treatment of their debilitating diseases? Politics got in the way. Once public testimony ended, the political wrangling began.

Chris Norby made the motion to vote on his measure, but he had a difficult time finding support for it. Bill Campbell worried about the possible conflict between federal and state law. Janet Nguyen, on the other hand, felt that there was no conflict… Prop 215 is only meant to provide a defense against criminal charges, and NOT a directive for counties to facilitate the use of marijuana. John Moorlach, meanwhile, had more and more questions about how this policy would affect everything. And Pat Bates just wanted the county to propose studies to examine how this policy would affect everything. The original motion directing the county to set a policy on issuing medical marijuana ID cards failed on a 2-3 vote, with Norby and Moorlach voting in favor while Bates, Campbell, and Nguyen voted against it.

However after the initial vote failed, Campbell then proposed a “compromise measure”. He proposed that the Board vote again on directing county staff to develop a policy for issuing medical marijuana ID cards within 90 days to be further examined and possibly implemented in the near future… Except that this time, the measure would also have county staff study everything that Bates wanted further examination on, including how this would affect law enforcement and how this would affect cities which have banned marijuana dispensaries. And oh yes, this measure also proposed that county counsel provide the Board with a legal update on San Diego County’s lawsuit seeking to overturn Prop 215. And after more questions, more wrangling, and more waiting, the OC Board of Supes FINALLY agreed to this compromise measure on a 4-1 vote. Only Janet Nguyen voted “Nay” this time.

So how did all the medical marijuana patients and advocates who showed up to the meeting feel about the final outcome? Alexander Valentine, the Fullerton man who started it all, was fairly disappointed by the “Maybe” response from the Board. “They still didn’t do their job,” he said as he described to me how he was hoping that the county would just begin to comply with state law NOW.

However Bruce Cohen, of the OC Libertarian Party, felt differently. “First they said no, but now they’re open to it. It’s a victory,” he said as he reassured me and others that he and Norby’s crew will be spending the next 90 days convincing the other Supes that issuing ID cards is the best way to go. Norby himself said that he did not expect the Court of Appeals to overturn the San Diego Superior Court’s earlier ruling for the state and against San Diego County, and he also used this as another reason for his fellow Supes to join him in taking action on this.

So will the Orange County Board of Supervisors finally take action and begin issuing medical marijuana ID cards? I guess we’ll have to wait 90 days for that answer.