Talk:2004 California Proposition 63

unsourced claim removed
I removed the following: "Proposition 63 garnered much of its opposition from Scientologists." Such a claim needs to be backed up by a reliable source before being reinstated. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging?
Do we really need a "California Mental Health Services Act" and a "California Proposition 63 (2004)" article? No one is keeping either page up to date. The most recent reference from either article is from 2011. This is an ongoing California program receiving/spending multiple billions yearly. The resulting commission responsible has multiple meeting per month. The way it is now, timely information would have to be posted in two places. To avoid duplication, at minimum, the “California Proposition 63 (2004)” article should only give brief mentions (with links) to underlying law and its resulting organizations.

In addition, both pages read like brochures for the California MHSA law. This law has become controversial after receiving over $15 billion since 2004. As I already mention on one Talk page, both articles list all the positives with little of the criticisms or controversies, such as an negative investigation by the California State Auditor, extremely critical Little Hoover Commission report, or statements by Rose King who helped author the original bill (who isn’t even mentioned in either article). These are only a few of the controversies. --Beck8888 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)