New editions of the State Legislative Tracker and The Policy Tracker available now!

California Proposition 36, Probation and Treatment for Drug-Related Offenses (2000)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Marijuana
Marijuana Leaf-smaller.gif
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
California Proposition 36, also known as the Drugs, Probation and Treatment Act of 2000, was on the November 7, 2000 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was approved.

Proposition 36 requires that people convicted 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
Approveda Yes 6,233,422 60.9%

Text of measure


Proposition 36 2000.PNG

The ballot title was:

Drugs. Probation and Treatment Program. Initiative Statute.


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:


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