Actually I'm not sure that we do disagree. As a matter of policy, I'm all for as much local control as possible. My point was that since the proponents of A20 chose to make MMJ a constitutional issue, rather than a statutory one as it is in every other state that has legalized MMJ, any impact on a patients rights resulting from 1284 and 109 would not have to be "significant" in order for those laws to be thrown out. Even a minor impairment may be enough. That will be for some court to decide. The Constitution trumps a statute. And since when did Amendment twenty provide a geographic limit to its own operation as the gambling amendment does? How specifically am I wrong again? Forgive me , I'm a little slow.