Judge Upholds Vote of Californians on Prop 36 Drug Courts Against Schwarzenegger Demanded Legislative Changes

And this is the man who says he'll ease the overcrowding in our prisons?
To alleviate the outrageous circumstance of California's prison system operating at twice its planned capacity was among the reasons for the establishment of the drug courts in the first place.
If properly implemented, funded and utilized, the alternatives provided by Prop.36 will do just that, apart from offering a real chance for addicts to reclaim their lives.
In attempting to alter the legislative intent of this law, Arnie is acting against not just the WILL of the voters but against the better interests of the State.

Your commentary criticizing the administration’s position on Proposition 36 failed to adequately address the thinking that went into the development of public safety reforms for Proposition 36.

While participants who complete treatment under Proposition 36 find jobs and are more likely to remain drug free, a significant percentage never enter treatment and a small group of offenders are responsible for a disproportionate share of the program’s criminal justice costs. Californians deserve better.

The public safety reforms in SB1137 were approved by a bipartisan vote of the legislature and came about through a collaboration of treatment providers, judges and law enforcement. The reforms will improve accountability by giving judges and treatment providers’ access to tools that improve outcomes.

The Governor’s budget reauthorized $120 million in funding for Proposition 36 and an additional $25 million for counties to implement program improvements aimed at improving entry and completion rates. In the meantime, the Administration will defend the legislation to ensure that more non-violent drug offenders enter and complete treatment under Proposition 36.

I appreciate your comments on the policy issues and whether the changes should be made. My point in this article is that when a ballot measure is passed by a vote of the people, it takes another vote of the people to change it--unless the change made by the legislature is in furtherance of it. This, in my mind and that of the judge is a change and therefore not proper. That is what the Legislative Counsel's opinion was. The vote was taken under duress with threats of the Govenor not to fund the drug courts unless he got his way. That also is improper in my opinion.

I think that if the voters opinion's are obsolete and they do not count then this state is in deep trouble, I have addressed Arnold on my concerns as to why this proposition basically says unless you are a drug offender then there is no efforts in treating your illness. Alcoholics have a disease that I feel is just as detrimental to the safety of others, yet there is no treatment being addressed for alcohol abuse. The recidivism rate for DUI in California is out of control, and no one seems to care that their just lock em up a little longer strategy is failing miserably, but I guess one addiction out weighs another in this state. There was a time you were proud to be a Californian, now it's just hopeless and depressing.

Post a comment