Judging from the comments I have read and heard about Measure D there is a great deal of misunderstanding about it among the public, who in many cases believe that voting "no" on it means people won't be growing pot in their neighborhood, which isn't the case.

The Board of Supervisors has recently put together a committee to draft a pot cultivation ordinance that will be adopted if Measure D is voted down, and that not-yet-drafted document will undoubtedly be centered somewhere between the county's first ordinance and Measure D, meaning that small, personal use grows will have to be allowed in residential areas.

The presence of Measure D is responsible for the county now pledging to take a more pragmatic approach that includes the stakeholders in the process, something that was sadly lacking in the county's first attempt at regulating medical pot cultivation.

In the past three years the pot business here has changed radically with the number of plants seized plummeting, from an all-time high in 2009 of 506,506 to 374,958 in 2010, and 123,645 in 2011.

It is not a coincidence that during the same time period large scale commercial grows have popped up all over ag-zoned neighborhoods, the ideal setting for this sort of business as clearly when given the choice growers prefer to raise this crop as any other farmer would produce an ag product rather than to hide out in the forests risking arrest or theft.

Unfortunately, due to a complete lack of county regulations commercial grows have also appeared in increasing numbers in places they clearly don't belong, with the predictable and justifiable negative reaction from many of their neighbors.

What the Board of Supervisors and public now needs to understand is that since the passage of Measure D is unlikely and the BOS will be back in the driver's seat on pot cultivation again, it's important to remember that the pot business holds the trump card here, if the county drafts another unrealistic ordinance the growers can head right back into the forests and all the regulations will be rendered moot – again.

It is also worth mentioning that neither Measure D nor the county's future ordinance will have any effect on this year's crop, so even if the measure did pass it could be retooled and voted on again before the next growing season, meaning the world will not end if it did pass as some have suggested.

Measure D has served an important dual role here already, it has shown that democratic action can force our government to change its course,  and it will make for a better Board of Supervisors ordinance that more fairly balances the needs and rights of medical pot patients with those of their neighbors while making a clearer distinction between legal and illegal commercial grows.

So even if Measure D fails at the ballot box the people who took the time and trouble to put it on the ballot have moved this process forward, and they have reminded us that in the end the people are really in charge of our government if they care about it enough to get involved.

The main question that remains now is can the detractors of Measure D offer us a better alternative or will they repeat the past mistake of excessive regulation that encourages growers to go back to the forests.

Phil Murphy lives in Lakeport, Calif.