Probation conditions that regulate conduct not itself criminal must reasonably relate to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality. (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481.) Here, in addition to other offenses, appellant was convicted of possession of PCP and granted probation. The factual basis revealed that appellant had been stopped for suspected driving under the influence and found to be in possession of a marijuana cigarette laced with PCP. Following a violation of probation, the court imposed a condition of probation that prohibited use, etc. of marijuana, even if prescribed, but allowed appellant to use prescribed medicine containing THC. Appellant was subsequently found to have violated the marijuana condition and sentenced to prison. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a condition of probation prohibiting the use of marijuana. The condition was related to the offense of which appellant was convicted and conceivably would deter future illegal use of PCP by prohibiting the marijuana appellant had used as a vehicle for PCPthereby, fostering rehabilitation and protecting public safety. People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433, permitting the use of the Compassionate Use Act as a defense to a probation violation, was inapplicable here as it’s holding was expressly limited to cases that did not claim that the conditions of probation violated concerned the rehabilitative purposes of the probation law or that the defendants use and possession of marijuana endangered other or was diverted for nonmedical purposes.