Pubdate: Sun, 09 Aug 2015
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2015 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v15/n432/a01.html
Author: Larry Vollintine

POT FARMS A HUGE DRAIN

Thank you for publishing "Pot's hit on our water supply" (Insight, 
Aug. 2). However, the obvious conclusion that must be reached from 
the editorial is still hidden. If "regulation" of pot means issuing 
growers permits for water extraction for a fee, the creeks will stay dry.

Proper regulation and enforcement of water extraction in the creeks 
really means denial of permits and stopping the water extractions 
because of the need to protect fish and wildlife, which means no pot 
can be grown. The pot grows still drain the creeks dry during the 
summer even in normal rainfall years. So let's not kid ourselves: 
Regulation of pot grows up north really means "no pot." I'm in favor 
of that, but will the growers who supposedly want to go legal really agree?

Larry Vollintine, Oakland
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom