For example, he noted, it would prohibit a judge handling a child custody fight from considering whether one parent uses marijuana. There also are new restrictions on the ability of employers to fire workers simply for using the drug off premises.

And while the law prohibits driving while impaired by marijuana, it sets no legal presumptive standard of how much psychoactive substance someone would have to have in his or her blood to be found guilty.

Gentry said even if the challengers had standing to sue, that argument would fail.

She said that, pretty much by definition, a summary is just that.

More to the point, the judge noted that Arizona law limits a summary to 100 words. Yet Gentry noted that it took her 106 words just to list all the things challengers say need to be added to what already was a 96-word description.

Yet she said Johnson never told her what was in the original summary that could come out to keep the summary at the legally limited 100 words.

"Plaintiffs' position is in essence that the summary should have more fully described what the initiative would do but do not explain how they could do it better,'' Gentry wrote.

And there's something else.