I was in a local farm supply store recently to purchase some bird seed. On the way out I noticed spring seed was in. Upon seeing the bags, I couldn’t help but wonder how many farmers who raise hay and grain for the standard-bred industry are brave enough to gamble that kind of money on such an industry that is now waiting for the final roll call from the state of Maine.

It costs a lot of money to reseed in the spring. Gambling that the state is going to back the voters who want to bring Biddeford Downs into reality is also not a sure bet. Are we going to see the last of Maine’s live animal industry go by the wayside?

In the ’50s we lost sheep and wool, the ’60s brought the loss of poultry, in the ’70s Maine beef farmers were dropped, and it did not stop there.

The ’80s saw the last of Maine’s hog farmers, and, sadly, the last two decades have seen dairy farms at such an all-time low that milk had to be brought in from out of state to meet our needs. This leaves only the standard-bred industry to sell hay and grain to. Together, this represents thousands and thousands of acres of various crops and varieties of hay and grain or pastures for the many breeding and racing stables that represent our agricultural heritage.

We are all paying taxes to the state and federal government — sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes — and trying to hang on to our farms while doing so.

Could this be the last year for our horse farms and crop growers? Is this it for the last of our farms?

If I were a crop farmer, would I buy huge amounts of seed this spring and plant into the darkness of the unknown? I just don’t know. Would you?

By the way, has anyone from Augusta taken a recent look at the Maine state seal? Shouldn’t that tell it all?

Biddeford Downs? I wish you well!

Ernest S. Lowell

Saco

More prison time won’t aid effort to fight drug abuse

Although I commend U.S. Attorney Thomas Delahanty’s willingness to involve limited federal resources to the frightening prescription drug problem in Maine (“Agencies team up to fight prescription drug problem,” Jan. 25), I feel that federal law enforcement is only a small part of the solution.

I have two perspectives regarding the problem of prescription opiates in this state.

One comes from representing insurance companies in workers’ compensation cases where opiate addition is an issue; the second from being a court-appointed counsel in many criminal matters that involve opiate addiction.

As an insurance attorney, I have cross-examined many physicians who prescribe powerful opiates such as oxycontin and hydrocodone to patients for extended periods. Some of these patients have little in the way of objective diagnoses and are diagnosed with generic problems such as “chronic pain syndrome.”

My sense is that some providers do not appreciate the side effects that these opiates have on certain patients. The simple fact is that opiates make some patients feel euphoric, and they easily become addicted.

As a criminal attorney, I see clients whose entire world revolves around the next dose of an opiate, whether it be a tab of oxycontin they buy off the street, a dose of methodone that they get at the local clinic or a heroin fix. They will do anything to get it.

The suggestion that a longer prison sentence or a less comfortable prison environment will act as a deterrent to an opiate addict is one that I have difficulty accepting.

One suggestion to address opiate addiction is for the FDA to publish strict mandatory guidelines for health providers restricting when certain opiates can be prescribed, and for how long.

Another suggestion would be the promulgation of strict monitoring for methadone clinics to make sure that patients are being tapered and that their treatment is not indefinite. My observations leads me to believe that such monitoring may not be in place.

Lawrence Goodglass

Cape Elizabeth

Welfare ‘reforms’ should not just target recipients

Much has been made lately of welfare reform. Targeted hearsay and scandalous dehumanizing disrespect has been heaped upon those among us who are in need of assistance, all in the name of “saving tax dollars.”

Not so much targeting and scandal has been leveled at the private-sector agencies who feed at the Department of Health and Human Services trough for contracts to oversee case management and who bill the state to actually procure or provide needed care and promised benefits.

The state contracts out these services because the state believes private-sector services will better serve their constituents within their communities.

State jobs were outsourced to the private sector precisely in order to save tax dollars, specifically to reduce state payroll, rein in state benefits and downsize the Maine DHHS, and yet we continually hear of private-sector providers being audited for fraud. It isn’t always the deserving end-use client gaming the system.

Top to bottom transparency is indeed necessary to understand the complete money trail.

Sue Burnham

Bethel

Increasing cigarette taxes best way to help teen users

Thank you for your recent editorial in favor of raising the price of cigarettes to reduce youth smoking (“Cigarette tax a proven way to cut teen smoking,” Jan. 22).

In 1997, Maine had the nation’s highest youth smoking rate at nearly 40 percent. It was so bad that the Maine Development Foundation cited the high rate as a negative factor in making the state attractive to businesses.

After 10 years of smart investment of tobacco settlement funds in smoking prevention, combined with pushing up the price of cigarettes by increasing the excise tax, we dropped the youth smoking rate to 14 percent. But in 2009 that rate stopped its decline and rose to 18 percent, a 25 percent increase.

We have stalled in our effort to keep the price of cigarettes high. Ignoring the increase in youth smoking is not an option. The most effective and rapid solution is to increase the price of cigarettes by raising the tax by $1.50 per pack as good health policy.

Increased smoking among our young work force will not make Maine attractive to businesses. And the preventable health care costs connected to increased smoking will be paid for by all of us.

Edward F. Miller

Senior Vice-President for Health Promotion and Public Policy

American Lung Association of New England

Augusta

Copy the Story Link