There's been a lot of media hand-wringing recently about ecological damage caused by illegal cannabis grows. I'm not exactly sure why, as it's not relevant to any policy debates.
Marijuana can and should be grown organically and sustainably, there's nothing about the plant which complicates that beyond perhaps the need to prevent pollination.
If policy is about harm reduction then harms done under current policy are absolutely relevant.
This is illegal in the US, which includes California.
How much water in the US is used to grow almonds? How much water would be needed to grow weed for every man, woman, and child in the US?
Additionally: why are those numbers relevant? Just for context?
A single almond takes 1.1 gallons of water (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...) to produce.
Any argument for limiting marijuana growing based on "it takes lots of water!" has to address why we already permit stuff like almonds to be grown in drought-prone areas.
See this is why I’m not super stoked about that original comment. Instead of making a clear point, I just get thrown some random hints and a “you go figure it out”. It’s like I’m supposed to make ones argument for them, and it might turn out to be completely irrelevant (maybe almonds are orders of magnitude more [e:less!] thirsty!) and then I can’t even reply because the actual argument was never made!
Just give me the numbers. Do your own homework :) (well, not you, but op)
(Edit: as someone else mentioned, this is assuming op was being rhetorical. If it’s a genuine q: I completely second it)
I do not really want to do the math, but if you are worried about the water usage of weed, I do implore you to first look up the water usage of almonds.
[e: I’m not saying this to be petty, my point is this is not a strong argument. It’s a common occurrence, and a pet peeve of mine. I can imagine it feels right—in fact I also believe you are probably right! But were I of the opposite inclination, this wouldn’t convince me.]
This is something that has already been written about a fair amount; is it really fair to expect him to "do his homework" for the counter to your claim when it's based on what is, to some, common knowledge? Moreover, the poster that you had already replied to above included two links to articles about the cost (in water) of growing various things. If you feel the need to "check the numbers", I think the burden might be on you to go find them.
One can argue that both almonds and cannabis take a harmful share of water in drought-prone areas and that both will be controlled.
> each plant gets about four 5-gallon buckets of water every four or five days
Nitpicking aside, the plant that article describes and pictures is very, very large (i.e., an artifact of the 6 plants per farmer limit imposed by that particular state law).
I don't believe those plants are typical for farmers who do not have to follow six-plants-per-person laws. It seems misleading to suggest that the typical plant requires 20L/day based only on the data point of these huge plants.
But the original point, that marijuana is hugely wasteful of water, is pretty ridiculous when you compare it to other crops. Everything uses a lot of water. And saying that indoor is better because it uses less water ignores the extreme amount of waste created by using (and climate controlling for) indoor lights.
Therefore, an outdoor grow operation could probably done with minimal irrigation and no real impact on drinking water supplies.