California Prop 5

[Domenic182]

I'm really on the fence about this one. From the summaries it looks good, but it's so damn long who knows what they hell they slipped in there. I think I'm leaning on No just to be safe.

[patpratt]

care to sum it up for me?

[Domenic182]

Of course, sorry.

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.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/5/ will show you how long it is.

[Domenic182]

As far as I know it reduces jailtime for non-violent drug offenders, but there's a whole bunch of other shit it says that I'm skeptical about.

[apoemtothedead]

As far as I know it reduces jailtime for non-violent drug offenders, but there's a whole bunch of other shit it says that I'm skeptical about.
That's about it.

[patpratt]

Interesting...

[apoemtothedead]

I'm pretty sure I voted yes. Can't imagine me voting no on this.

[Domenic182]

That's about it.
You voted yes on it?

edit: hmmm. You are always right.

[apoemtothedead]

You voted yes on it?

edit: hmmm. You are always right.
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=25581022#post25581 022

[Domenic182]

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=25581022#post25581 022
Doesn't it have something to do with drunk drivers though? Or is that just a false scare tactic I heard from the no side...

[makeasound]

While I am in favor of creating drug treatment programs and rehab, my voter info packet mentions a loophole in the Pros & Cons arguments that makes me nervous:

"Loophole allows defendants accused of child abuse, domestic violence, vehicular manslaughter, and other crimes to effectively escape prosecution."

[NickLopez]

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=25581022#post25581 022
hahahaha big lol mark.

[FOBcareemo]

I'm voting yes mainly because I see it as a step in the right direction as far as less prison and more rehab.

[Domenic182]

While I am in favor of creating drug treatment programs and rehab, my voter info packet mentions a loophole in the Pros & Cons arguments that makes me nervous:

"Loophole allows defendants accused of child abuse, domestic violence, vehicular manslaughter, and other crimes to effectively escape prosecution."
Yeah, the vehicular manslaughter is a no no for me

[thesteve9x]

I'm voting yes. It reduces the fine on possession of marijuana, and it also puts drug dealers into rehab programs instead of jail. This is much smarter than throwing them into jail without rehab, causes repeat offenders.

[saysmydoctor]

This a big time yes, along with 11.

[wtfmates]

Bubble in the yes/si.

[makeasound]

Another issue I have with prop. 5 is that it reduces the probation period for meth dealers from 3 years to 6 months and reduces the sentence for parole violations, along with the major loophole I mentioned above.

The major kicker for me is the child abuse thing. As much as I want more rehabilitation programs I can't let that slide, so I'm a No.

[banditandrew]

i voted yes for this

[Domenic182]

This a big time yes, along with 11.
11 isn't drug related?