Perhaps I've been persuaded by the de facto status quo. But if the defendant in this case isn't entitled to present (as he did at his first trial) a defense under the Medical Marijuana Program Act, I don't know who is.
The jury at his first trial split evenly as to whether to convict him. The judge at his second trial didn't allow the MMPA defense, and the jury convicted him on one count but hung on another. Clearly the availability of the MMPA defense made a big difference.
The Court of Appeal reverses his conviction. He should have been allowed to present his defense.