| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Gaming | VB Image Host | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Hot Products! | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 |
| Jr. Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,554
Grams: 62,410.79 Thanks: 0
Thanked 37 Times in 36 Posts
| Thanks to aÂ*preliminary injunction entered by an Alameda County Superior Court judge, changes to Proposition 36, California's treatment-instead-of-incarceration law, will be put on hold while the court evaluates their constitutionality. The injunction blocks changes contained in SB 1137, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in July 2006. SB 1137 would permit the jailing of Prop 36 participants engaged in substance abuse treatment. After Schwarzenegger signed SB 1137 into law, DPA and the California Society of Addiction MedicineÂ*filed a complaint arguing the changes violate the intent of Prop 36 and should be struck down. Following a hearing Thursday, the court found that, if implemented, SB 1137 would create "a probability of harm to the public, both in terms of expenditures that Proposition 36 apparently meant to prevent, and in terms of potential incarceration of persons that Proposition 36 apparently meant to avoid incarceration." California voters approved Prop 36 in 2000 as a treatment initiative with no incarceration component. Daniel Abrahamson, DPA's director of legal affairs, said, "In enjoining SB 1137, the court has fully affirmed our position that Prop 36 is about treatment instead of incarceration, not treatment with incarceration." Changing the intent of a voter-approved initiative without consulting the voters is a violation of the state constitution. The court acknowledged this in noting that the will of the voters "appears to have been ignored by the Legislature in contravention of the Constitutional restrictions on amendment of legislation enacted pursuant to voter initiatives." The preliminary injunction marks a second victory for Prop 36 proponents in this lawsuit--the court granted a temporary restraining order earlier this year to block implementation of SB 1137 until this week's preliminary injunction hearing. The next steps in the case, which are briefing, oral argument and a decision by the court on the constitutionality of SB 1137, will likely take place later this year. http://www.nooked.com/news/itemtrack...0db37ec34f11f4 More... |
| | |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |||
| | |||
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
| | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| IL: Research indicates possible benefits of marijuana, possible penalty | newgrowerNY | The Drug War Headline News | 1 | 03-27-2007 07:52 PM |
| [Online Library] Clare Regan 1927-2006 | 420 | DPA News & Action Alerts | 0 | 12-27-2006 09:20 PM |
| Dark Age of Camelot | 0rgasmatron | Games and Sports | 5 | 08-13-2003 06:10 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |