Letters to the Editor

Water, pot, helmets, homeless, health care, etc.

A sign encouraging people to save water is displayed at a news conference in Los Angeles. A letter writer says water districts that recycle should get conservation credit for doing so.
A sign encouraging people to save water is displayed at a news conference in Los Angeles. A letter writer says water districts that recycle should get conservation credit for doing so. The Associated Press

Give credit for recycled water

Re “Drought rules hit area even harder” (Page A1, April 19): In the discussions about water usage among districts, there’s virtually no mention about or credit given to districts that recycle. The Carmichael Water District draws much of its water from the American River near Ancil Hoffman Park, but its wastewater is discharged back into the river a few miles downstream. In effect, much of the water that’s used by Carmichael residents for indoor use is put back in the river, and it again becomes part of the state’s freshwater supply. Los Angeles and Orange County do something similar when they reinject wastewater back into local aquifers.

Contrast this with water users in San Francisco. Their water is plucked from high in the Sierra, carried in pipes across the state, used in the city and then dumped into the ocean. None of it is recycled.

When the state sets cutback percentages, the fact that a big chunk of our use goes back into the system for reuse should be taken into account; we should be getting credit for the recycled volumes.

Mark A. Meier, Carmichael

Governor is wrong about pot

Re “Some burning questions to mull on 420 Day” (Editorials, April 20): Gov. Jerry Brown said that if marijuana is legalized, it would be bad for the state and the nation. The Bee’s editorial said he is right. He is wrong.

There are already many more marijuana users than people realize. The number will not increase significantly. The people who do not use it now do not want to use it. The majority of users are not high all the time, and probably use it only a few times a week or month. No more people will be going to work high on pot. Most pot users don’t even think about going to work high. Why would anyone want to? Most people who use alcohol are not drunk all the time.

So relax. There would be little change except for eliminating unnecessary prosecutions, the state would collect tax revenue, and growing of pot in national forests would cease.

Gabriel Lewin, Davis

Dead wrong about helmets

Re “Kill the helmet-study bill” (Letters, April 20): When letter writer James Schultz stated that one reason for a bicycle helmet bill would be “to protect adults from their own actions,” he could be dead wrong.

Such a bill protects adults from the actions of others. My son would testify to that fact. He is a careful bicycle rider. But he was cut off by a car in a downtown intersection, went into a skid and hit his head on the edge of a curb, cracking the helmet he was wearing. Luckily the helmet, even though damaged, protected him from serious injury or even death.

It’s not from our own actions that helmets protect us but the actions of ignorant drivers, inattentive drivers, impatient drivers, all of whom could do substantial injury to us in an instant. Let the study be done. Perhaps the results will solve the issue once and for all.

Eileen Glaholt, Sacramento

Missing opportunity

Re “Homeless aid gets pushback” (Our Region, Ryan Lillis, April 20): Kudos to Ryan Lillis for his column about Wind Youth Services. These youths are accused of being a general menace simply because of their presence on the street, when in reality they have nowhere else to go.

Perhaps the Midtown Business Association could spend more time partnering with Wind Youth Services to see how to make midtown a great space for all, not just those with money looking to purchase products, lovely meals and alcohol. Teenagers in sleeping bags on Sacramento sidewalks might be an inconvenience to some, but it is also a sign of the true nature of homelessness in our community. The youths are more vulnerable than the business community, after all.

We should be looking to help people, not just sweep them out of midtown.

Clanci Cochran, Sacramento

Why just Mexico?

Re “Bill the Mexican government” (Letters, April 17): Letter writer Katy Pridy’s suggestion on how to fund health care for a select group of immigrants is very interesting. I had to go back and read Alexei Koseff’s well-crafted article “Immigration bill advances” (Capitol & California, April 16) multiple times.

Not once are “Mexicans” or “Mexico” mentioned in The Bee’s excellent article covering Medi-Cal funding for “undocumented immigrants.” The upside to her concern is the relief that must come to a certain group of undocumented immigrants that blend in well and live within our midst without doing the dirty work.

Somehow, though, it seems awfully unfair to bill Mexico for undocumented Canadian immigrants that have assimilated here nicely.

Anthony Villanueva, Folsom

Energy drink a tasteless insult

The energy drink 51 Fifty has appeared at retailers all over California. Urging people to “live the madness,” 51 Fifty is a tasteless insult to many who live with the feelings of elation and risk-craving some mental illnesses inspire. The drink refers to Section 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. The code says when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer may take the person into custody.

The loss of freedom, employment and social standing a real 5150 often leads to isn’t funny, hip or cute. Neither is profiting off of it.

June Forbes, Davis


Find them at:



Online form (preferred):


Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,

Sacramento, CA 95852

150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.