If we declare the statute unconstitutional, the original version of the statute would control. Our supreme court concluded that this second version was unconstitutional because the act which amended the statute violated the single-subject rule. This is the present version of the psychotropic drug statute and is the version challenged by defendant in this appeal. We review constitutionality issues on a de novo basis. Although defendant failed to raise the constitutionality argument at the trial court level, he is not precluded from raising it for the first time on appeal.
Statutes carry a very strong presumption that they are constitutional as written.
Ill. Const. 1970, art. However, as the third district correctly points out, that heading was created by a publisher. 312 Ill. App. In reviewing the 19 sections of Public Act 89-689, we agree that the title of the act is quite broad. However, the breadth of an act's title alone does not render it unconstitutional.