Vote 2000 Home | Ballot Pamphlet Home | Campaign Finance | Secretary of State Home
32  | 33  | 34  | 35  | 36  | 37  | 38  | 39
PROPOSITION 2000 General
36 DRUGS. PROBATION AND TREATMENT PROGRAM.
Rebuttal to Argument Against
Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 36

Opponents think the war on drugs is working. They want to spend even more money on this failed policy. So they’re distorting Proposition 36.

They claim it “decriminalizes” drugs. Not true. Possession of illegal drugs remains a felony, but for the first two convictions, the punishment is treatment, not prison.

Opponents claim Proposition 36 hurts drug courts. Not true. California’s drug courts will continue, but they serve less than 5% of drug offenders.

Opponents claim drug offenders with loaded firearms will only get treatment. Not true. Carrying concealed weapons is a separate crime for which one can be jailed.

They claim offenders in treatment won’t be drug tested. Not true. Judges can order testing and require offenders to pay for it and their treatment.

Opponents claim treatment programs will be “fly-by-night.” Not true. Proposition 36 requires all programs to be licensed. They try to scare you by saying sex offenders with “date rape” drugs benefit from this initiative. Not true. Only drug possession “for personal use” qualifies; using drugs to enable rape is not “personal use.”

Opponents argue that drug users must be kept on the job, including airline pilots and bus drivers. Ridiculous. Nothing in Proposition 36 prevents anyone from being fired for a drug offense, or from being fired for failing a drug test.

Opponents say the initiative has “hidden costs,” but the impartial Legislative Analyst says the initiative will generate huge savings, after treatment programs are paid for. You decide who’s right.

Vote YES on Proposition 36.

MAXINE WATERS
Member of U.S. Congress
PETER BANYS, President
California Society of Addiction Medicine
TIM SINNOTT, President
California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Counselors
 


  Analysis by the Legislative Analyst
  Argument in Favor of Proposition 36
  Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 36
  Argument Against Proposition 36
  Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 36
 

Vote 2000 Home | Ballot Pamphlet Home | Campaign Finance | Secretary of State Home