This is not the whole truth. A law could be found unconstitutional which would then be amended by the courts or judicial branch and the state house can change a voter initiative so long as they have over a two thirds majority infavor. They just changed something pretty recently and have changed other things in the past like the k-12 education funding which was completely gutted.
There are a few things that become possible *after* the law actually affects someone, and they successfully (good luck with this) use the unconstitutionality of the CHAA exclusion as a defense against their prosecution for cultivation. Since no person (and certainly not Bill H) has actually been granted a cultivation license and then had it withdrawn due to the 25-mile rule, *nobody* has any standing to bring any lawsuit and there is certainly no criminal defense possible.
So what is your path to having the law "found unconstitutional?" There would have to be a judicial process for that, which cannot even begin until *after* the damage is done.
irieie I hope you don't shoot the messenger here. I really don't want the 25-mile rule to take away my rights, but I am quite convinced that it is going to. I'm especially disappointed that the participants in this forum -- the ONLY people I've found who even seem to understand what's happening -- don't comprehend the magnitude of the problem. You seem pretty convinced about this 2/3 majority thing. There might be some possibilities there, setting aside the fact that not even one single member of the state Legislature could be expected to come down in favor of marijuana cultivation under any circumstances whatsoever, AMMA or no AMMA.
