Appellant was convicted of marijuana cultivation after the trial court refused to extend the immunity afforded by Proposition 215 to cover his cultivation of marijuana for medical use by a cannabis buyers’ cooperative, and disallowed his common law defense of medical necessity. The appellate court here affirmed the conviction. Judicial recognition of a broader immunity afforded by a medical necessity defense would excuse crimes beyond cultivation or possession of marijuana, and would go far beyond what the voters intended by the passage of Proposition 215, which is a narrow exception. Further, the statute expressly gives immunity to patients and their caregivers. Neither the statute nor the ballot materials suggest that the immunity extends to those who do not qualify under it but supply marijuana to those who do.