In November of 2000, over 60 percent of California voters approved the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, a statute designed to aid non-violent drug offenders (“California Proposition 36”). Under Proposition 36, individuals convicted of non-violent drug offenses are offered probation and community-based treatment programs, in lieu of incarceration (“California Proposition 36”). The concept behind the proposition is commendable, but also very controversial. In terms of eligibility and qualification requirements for Proposition 36, the authors of the statue were quite clear. For example, Proposition 36 specifically defines a non-violent drug offense as one involving being under the influence of or possessing or transporting any of the
…show more content…
With the help of these men, the pro Proposition 36 campaign was able to significantly outraise their opponents. Supporting organizations of the campaign included the California Nurses Association, California Psychiatric Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union (Bustillo). These organizations supported Proposition 36 because they view drug addiction as a disease that requires professional attention, not punishment (Bustillo). Opponents of Proposition 36 had a much different reason for their aversion towards the statue. Many members of California’s criminal justice system opposed Proposition 36 because of how it took away some of the day-to-day decisions of their jobs (Jet, 323). For example, drug court judges would be put in all-or-nothing situations where certain circumstances would require that they either impose jail time or sanctions. Thus, chief organizations such as the California District Attorneys Association and the California Association of Drug Court Professionals sternly opposed the measure …show more content…
It is the vehicle to which the average citizen can have a hand in the legislative process and hold the ultimate form of political self-regulation.***However, in a state as diverse and large as California, direct democracy does not always function in this way. In reality, it is reserved for wealthy individuals and established interest groups. No ordinary citizen has the money or the political prowess and knowledge to combat these groups. Thus, direct democracy is currently being fueled by the very individuals it was intended to circumvent. And with California’s active use initiatives, the people have in many cases barred professional politicians from doing their jobs. Sometimes California voters want to pass laws on issues that they know little about or on those that do not serve their best interest. Instead of allowing for , California should rely on the officials that they elected. At the least, California should look into reforming their policies concerning direct democracy so that the state and the people can work more effectively
With the help of these men, the pro Proposition 36 campaign was able to significantly outraise their opponents. Supporting organizations of the campaign included the California Nurses Association, California Psychiatric Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union (Bustillo). These organizations supported Proposition 36 because they view drug addiction as a disease that requires professional attention, not punishment (Bustillo). Opponents of Proposition 36 had a much different reason for their aversion towards the statue. Many members of California’s criminal justice system opposed Proposition 36 because of how it took away some of the day-to-day decisions of their jobs (Jet, 323). For example, drug court judges would be put in all-or-nothing situations where certain circumstances would require that they either impose jail time or sanctions. Thus, chief organizations such as the California District Attorneys Association and the California Association of Drug Court Professionals sternly opposed the measure …show more content…
It is the vehicle to which the average citizen can have a hand in the legislative process and hold the ultimate form of political self-regulation.***However, in a state as diverse and large as California, direct democracy does not always function in this way. In reality, it is reserved for wealthy individuals and established interest groups. No ordinary citizen has the money or the political prowess and knowledge to combat these groups. Thus, direct democracy is currently being fueled by the very individuals it was intended to circumvent. And with California’s active use initiatives, the people have in many cases barred professional politicians from doing their jobs. Sometimes California voters want to pass laws on issues that they know little about or on those that do not serve their best interest. Instead of allowing for , California should rely on the officials that they elected. At the least, California should look into reforming their policies concerning direct democracy so that the state and the people can work more effectively