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