Does your state lean blue or lean red? Check out our new report, highlighting partisan control of state government from 1992-2013.
California Proposition 36, Probation and Treatment for Drug-Related Offenses (2000)
| Voting on Marijuana | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| Ballot Measures | |||
| By state | |||
| By year | |||
| Not on ballot | |||
|
Contents |
Proposition 36 requires that people cconvicted of the possession, use or transportation of "controlled substances and similar parole violations, except sale or manufacture" receive probation and drug treatment, rather than incarceration.
Under the terms of Proposition 36, charges can be dismissed after completion of a drug treatment program.
Election results
| Proposition 36 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 6,233,422 | 60.9% | ||
| No | 4,009,508 | 39.1% | ||
Text of measure
Title
The ballot title was:
Summary
The summary of the ballot measure prepared by the California Attorney General read:
- Requires probation and drug treatment program, not incarceration, for conviction of possession, use, transportation for personal use or being under influence of controlled substances and similar parole violations, not including sale or manufacture.
- Permits additional probation conditions except incarceration.
- Authorizes dismissal of charges when treatment completed, but requires disclosure of arrest and conviction to law enforcement and for candidates, peace officers, licensure, lottery contractors, jury service; prohibits using conviction to deny employment, benefits, or license.
- Appropriates treatment funds through 2005-2006; prohibits use of these funds to supplant existing programs or for drug testing.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 36. That estimate was:
- Net savings to the state of between $100 million and $150 million annually, within several years of implementation.
- Potential one-time avoidance of capital outlay costs to the state of between $450 million and $550 million in the long term.
- Net savings to local government of about $40 million annually, within several years of implementation.
Campaign spending
$4,368,195 was spent in favor of the measure. $444,082 was spent opposing the measure. Individual donors to the measure included:
- Peter Lewis, who gave $1,193,006.
- George Soros, who gave $1,193,005.
- John Sperling, who gave $1,193,005.
- Richard Wolfe, who gave $200,000.
Opposition
Actor Martin Sheen was a leading opponent of Proposition 36.[1]
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
Progressive Campaigns, Inc. was paid $1,143,328 to qualify the measure for the ballot.[2]
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide summary to Proposition 36
- Official ballot title of Proposition 36
- Official declaration of the November 7, 2000 vote
- Full text of Proposition 36
- Smart Voter on Proposition 36
- Cal Voter on Prop 36
- Washington Post, "Targeting the Drug War: Drug War Is in Fight of Its Life; Wealthy Trio Takes Aim With California Initiative to End Penalties for Users", October 29, 2000
- Top Ten contributors
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
