I think in this forum, this would be a landslide. Please vote yes on this measure to get more humane treatment than prison for non-violent drug offenders. http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/5/ Shall $460,000,000 be allocated annually to improve and expand treatment programs? Summary Prepared by the State Attorney General: Allocates $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses. Limits court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole. Substantially shortens parole for certain drug offenses; increases parole for serious and violent felonies. Divides Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation authority between two Secretaries, one with six year fixed term and one serving at pleasure of Governor. Provides five year fixed terms for deputy secretaries. Creates 19 member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy. Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst: Increased state costs potentially exceeding $1 billion annually primarily for expansion of offender treatment programs. State savings potentially exceeding $1 billion annually on corrections operations. Net one-time state prison capital outlay savings potentially exceeding $2.5 billion. Unknown net fiscal effect on county operations and capital outlay. Meaning of Voting Yes/No A YES vote on this measure means: Drug treatment diversion programs available primarily for persons charged or convicted for a nonviolent drug possession crime would be expanded. Some parole violators would be diverted from state prison and parole terms would be reduced for others. New rehabilitation programs would be expanded for offenders before and after they leave prison. Some inmates might receive additional credits to reduce the time they stay in state prison. Possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana would have a lesser penalty than under current law. A NO vote on this measure means: State and local governments would determine whether to expand existing drug treatment diversion programs in the future. State correctional officials would continue to have the discretion to return various categories of parole violators to state prison, and parole terms would remain at three years for most parolees. The state would not be obligated to further expand rehabilitation programs for inmates, parolees, and other offenders. The current rules for awarding credits to inmates to reduce their time in prison would continue. The penalty for possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana would remain unchanged.
Check out this heated debate between the Attorney General and Nadelman from the DPA. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/3/california_attorney_general_vs_drug_policy
Home from the polls, walking distance total 8.15 miles (4 miles and change each way), time was 2 hrs 30 mins. I got there in a full sweat, and about to crap my pants, so the election workers let me use the bathroom, which I promptly filled with my own 'natural gas'. That's my alternative energy plan. Supply your own locomotion, within a 4 mile radius of your home, if you can. Bicycles and feet are my conveyance of choice, weather permitting. I'd love a horse though. (And I'm not even Amish, or a cowboy!) I did not see anyone else walking to the polls. I guess its not a very popular energy plan. Walking has been my pleasure since I figured out how good I was at it, the day I walked away from the jailhouse. Its been awhile since that day, but you never forget how good that feels. Enjoy this day, for we are as free as we can be. Californians, it is fucking beautiful outside, take my advice and do a little marching to the polls if you are able. But however you get there, don't forget to exercise your right to vote, this is a very important reform measure. We can set a new national standard for prison reform.
You can learn a lot about the merits of a proposal by taking a good, hard look at who’s lobbying against it. Take California’s Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, which would require the diversion of certain non-violent offenders to drug treatment and increase funding for state-sponsored rehabilitation programs. The measure seeks to expand upon the alternative sentencing programs initially enacted by Proposition 36, which is estimated to have saved taxpayers some $1.7 billion dollars and reduced the number of people incarcerated for simple drug possession by one-third. So who would oppose this proposal? If you guessed: the folks who make their living arresting non-violent drug offenders, you’d be right! According to the ‘No on 5′ website, the California State Sheriff’s Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the Police Chiefs of California, and the California District Attorneys Association all oppose Prop. 5. However, even more disturbing is who’s bankrolling the ‘No on 5′ campaign. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, California’s powerful prison guards union has spent close to $2 million dollars to lobby against the passage of Prop. 5. After all, overcrowded prisons — In 2007, California declared a ’state of emergency’ in the prison system because of the lack of bed space — and more prison construction (in lieu of building additional public high schools and state colleges) are a financial windfall for prison guards, even if they spell disaster for everyone else. In addition to expanding drug treatment in California, Prop. 5 would also reduce minor marijuana possession penalties from a misdemeanor (punishable by a $100 criminal fine with a criminal record) to a non-criminal infraction (punishable by a $100 civil fine with no criminal record). Now who would be against that? If you answered: the folks who make their living by possessing a monopoly on the sale of legal intoxicants, you’d be correct! According to the DPA, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors have donated $100,000 to the ‘No on 5′ campaign. Could it be that the alcohol lobby is fearful of the day when they will have to legally compete with a natural product that is remarkably safe, non-toxic, and won’t leave you with a hangover? Do we even have to ask? So now that you know who’s against Prop. 5, why not examine who is lobbying for it. That list would include the California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California League of Women Voters, and the California Academy of Family Physicians. In short, those who have dedicated their lives to helping others in need are backing Prop. 5, while those who have dedicated their careers to destroying people’s lives (or who promote a product that does) vehemently oppose it. You do the math.
ya prop 5 turns marijuana possesion under an ounce from a misdemeanor to infraction. no worse than a parking ticket. definitely voted yes cant wait to see if it passed!
I've been really pulling for this Prop even though I don't live in California. Its a huge step towards more sensible drug policy. Its not looking too good tho. Yes: 1,657,631\t38.3% No: 2,666,279 61.7% 36% of precincts in.
If you ask me - they did a terrible job advertising this Prop here in Cali. I had never even heard about the change in Marijuana policy until reading this today. I obviously voted yes just because or prison are so overcrowded. But I bet if I ask ten people - no one was even aware about the MJ part. Seems like they really dropped the ball on this one. Why not make a separate decriminalization prop anyway? Why was it hidden in this prison system prop? Seesm kinda shady - be straight up about it. Look at what happend in Mass!
The prison reform was the main objective, and the savings of 2.5 billion dollars was a bonus, but apparently the people wish to continue with the same broken thinking for awhile longer. Don't want to be soft on crime, even victimless crimes, right?