dedicated CA MMJ rental space?

[inflorescence]

I remember a lawyer friend of mine saying that if a landlord doesn't have you sign a relaease saying you won't do 215, then they can't legally evict you for it.

When you sign a lease it usually says you agree to not do anything illegal.
While I would like this to only mean illegal under CA law I have the suspicion that it means illegal under fed law also since the feds seem so intent on making fed law SUPERCEED state law.
It's the landlords property and it's property which is seized in asset forfeture so the landlord has way more to lose than the grower. At most the grower is going to prison while the landlord could lose the whole building, which I'm sure the landlord considers worse than prison.

 

[clowntown]

I figure this type of stuff would be interpreted in as many different ways as the number of parties interpreting it. Always best to assume and prepare for the worst, IMO.

 

[clowntown]

The feds usually only get involved if you're growing over 99 plants or doing interstate commerce. Both of these instances make it a felony and get them involved. I've personally had a tour given to me of some 1000sq ft medical grows in humboldt here by people who had OK letters from the dea saying it was fine. THey want to make sure you are doing only 6 plants per patient and no more than like 1,000 plants/house.

I'm not so sure that I agree. I think you're taking uncomfortable amount of federal risk any time you have more than 99 plants, whether it's for 1 patient or for 100 patients.

I could be completely off on this, but I recall reading of a few situations that would indicate otherwise. Even in California.

Anyone else have more info on this topic, or relevant experiences to share? That is, >99 plants in one physical space, regardless of # of patients...

Edit: But to be sure, there are people on this forum (irie-i for one) who I think has >99 plants in one building, a medical grow for multiple patients. I'll have to read more on this...