Does a District Attorney's argument that the use of specific language in the definition of a crime in a statute after its use in an initiative or similar initiative?

The District Attorney's argument is without merit. First, it would forever limit the use of specific language in any statute after its use in an initiative, in contravention of existing California law. ( People v. Cooper, supra , 27 Cal.4th at p. 44, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 37 P.3d 403 [" "[T]here is a cognate rule, recognized as applicable to many cases, to the effect that where the reference is general instead of specific, such as a reference to a system or body of laws or to the general law relating to the subject in hand, the referring statute takes the law or laws referred to not only in their contemporary form, but also as they may be changed from time to time, and ... as they may be subjected to elimination altogether by repeal." "].) Second, as addressed fully ante , the definition of a crime and the punishment for a crime are separate and distinct matters.