Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, to forging a prescription in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11368. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred when it denied him treatment pursuant to Proposition 36. The appellate court here rejected his argument and affirmed. Section 11368 does not meet the statutory definition of a “nonviolent drug possession offense” as required for treatment under Proposition 36. Section 11368 does not facially meet the definition because there is no requirement that the forgery be for the purpose of personal use. It is not pertinent that in this particular case, the forgery was committed to obtain Vicodin for personal use. Further, the legislative intent of the statute was to provide treatment for those who are convicted of simple drug possession and use cases. A violation of section 11368 implicates far more than just an offender’s use of drugs.