Grow your own poison

The question came up in another blog: Can you grow your own tobacco if you live in Ohio? Someone said no, but I think that is incorrect.

We’re in Growing Zone 6, according to Burpee’s. Here’s a guy who claims great success in Zone 6 and offering you 1000 seeds for $5.99 plus shipping. On eBay, look for HOMEGROWN IRANIAN SHERAZI TOBACCO SEED KIT, 1000+ SEEDS.

Another source for about 400 seeds and growing instructions is eBay Item Number 360144672415 titled TENNESSEE BURLEY TOBACCO SEEDS SEED GROW YOUR OWN.

Still, I don’t think you’d be able to grow a quality product here, or farmers would be doing it. But likely one could squeeze out enough leaves to keep a personal habit satisfied.

If anyone decides to try, I’d be interested in how it goes.

By the way, I haven’t smoked for decades, but I remember the grip that nicotine had and I sympathize with those who suffer from that. If I were still so gripped I would have been growing my own poison even if I had to set up a greenhouse for it. Also, I’d be spending a lot of time, effort and money in a real effort to get loose from the habit.

Want to know if that stuff you're eating was cloned?

That government wouldn't require accuracy in labeling food, particualy the types of food that are of concern to consumers is amazing. But it's amazing only to those who don't understand that food producers are among those who own our government.

Therefore, the only way we have of ensuring that our government nannies are indeed looking out for our interests above those of corporations is to insist on it.

Today's case in point: 89% of consumers say they want to know if the meat and milk they buy comes from cloned animals. According to Consumers Union, "This January, the FDA stated that it sees no problems with the safety of milk and meat from cloned cows -- despite 160,000 comments from consumers that they have concerns about the safety of cloned milk and meat and Congressional legislation asking FDA to hold back and do further study."

So unless there is an organized outcry, you're going to be eating God knows what.

Consumers Union has provided an easy way to get in on the outcry. Go to this web site to communicate your concerns to Congress.

In lieu of common sense

Consumers have a right to know how their food is produced and processed, obviously. It's not at all obvious, though, if you're a 1) a farmer who is concerned more about profits than public health, or 2) a government employee protecting welfare of farmers but not necessarily consumers.

The issue arises - again - because Ohio Agriculture deciders are in the process of deciding whether citizens should know whether they are drinking synthetic growth hormones in the milk they buy. It was reported by the Columbus Dispatch 11/17/07.

Farmers who don't use these hormones want to advertise that fact on milk labels. That they can't do this without the approval of Ohio bureaucracy demonstrates not only how far government has intruded into the "free marketplace" but the depths to which lobbyists (in this case the farmers who are using these hormones to stimulate milk production) are affecting - and likely endangering - public health.

The Ag Department has, according to the Dispatch article, "formed an advisory committee of 20 people, including dairy farmers, farm organizations, Ohio State professors and consumers, to help formulate a policy. The department also will hold a second public forum on the issue next month."

In lieu of common sense, that's one way to deal with it.

Deer are like rats

The Ohio Insurance Institute says deer collisions in 2005 cost nine human lives, 1,084 injuries and $71 million in damage, according to a news item on WCLT's web site yesterday.

But now deer herds are starting to bother people who live in Granville, and maybe because of that folks in Licking County have been pleasured with numerous public anti-deer statements this year.

I have said all along that deer are like rats, except they are not as ugly - and nobody ever made a Bambi-type movie about rats. Deer are a nuisance to landowners and hunters are even more of a nuisance.

This part of Ohio should no longer be considered a hunter's paradise, deer-wise or otherwise. There are too many people trying to live here. And anyway, what business is it of the state whether landowners protect their crops and peace of mind by using their own methods?

Government attention and control of such matters should be confined to government-owned land. For the rest of us, butt out.

Government grants: They are not free money

Tuesday, June 26, 2007, I wrote here about local recipients of crop and conservation subsidies. It occurs to me now that I stopped writing too soon.

I may have unintentionally made it seem that these folks were doing something wrong in their role as beneficiaries of government giveaways. They were not.

I need to mention that I have received a grant from the Newark Department of Community Development for lead abatement purposes a few years ago. And if I get a chance at another government grant, likely I'll take it. Because of that grant, a home in Newark has become safer, more comfortable and more attractive.

But I am against government grants as a matter of principle. Government should not take citizens' tax money and then "give" it to individuals or businesses.

Government makes its grants appear to be "free," but they are another tax-and-spend system, generally without the oversight or knowledge of the public.

Local farms cultivate cash crops

The Columbus Dispatch has published a data-base search form for crop and conservation subsidies from Oct. 1, 2002 through June 30, 2006. You can enter a name, an organization, a city, or a zip code and see who best cultivates public money.

Enter zip code 43055 and you'll get names of 124 recipients topped by Edward W. Hoskinson with $197,218. Glenn O. Redman is next with $83,383. But if you take all the Shipleys who may or may not be related (Janie, Timothy, Phillip, Donna, David, Melanie and Michael) you get a total of $479,124.

Howard Seigrist, Licking County extension agent, was 10th on the list of cash cultivators with $53,105.

"The information comes from a Dispatch analysis of the Farm Service Agency's new Section 1614 database, released in December 2006," says the Dispatch web site report. Also, "The agency cautions that the database is a snapshot in time, so it may not account for later adjustments in payments."