Remember when the anti-smoking charlatans first trotted out their bogus, lifestyle questionnaire-based studies on lung cancer and secondhand smoke - the rotten little maggots exultantly embraced them as the acme of pure science, and commenced their smear campaign against anyone who doubted them! A smear campaign that continues to this day.
Meanwhile, there have been more than 50 studies which have found the known-carcinogenic human papillomavirus in lung cancers - involving over ten times more cancers than the anti-smokers pretend are caused by secondhand smoke - and the anti-smoker filth and their media whores pretend that this evidence does not exist!
That's because
their phony claim that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer is a
deliberate, cold-blooded scientific fraud: They purposely use defective
studies to exploit the circumstance that passive smokers, like smokers,
are more likely to have been exposed to this virus. That's how they lie
that secondhand smoke is supposedly so "dangerous!" That's why they've
frozen their pseudo-science like a
prehistoric bug caught in amber, and pretend that the studies of HPV
and lung cancer do
not exist!
That's why the
anti-smokers' accomplices in the media deliberately keep
the public ignorant, and purposely stage phony "discussions," exactly
like
the kind staged in totalitarian dictatorships, in order to
systematically deceive the public!
Wisconsin Public Radio's
phony "discussions" are NOT designed "to
present all sides of the issue," as they falsely claim. Quite the
contrary! They're all cynically crafted to present only a superficial
appearance of discussion, with only anti-smoker-approved talking points
permitted. They are
one-sided propaganda performances on behalf of the anti-smokers only.
Only those who do not question the anti-smokers' scientific frauds are
ever given a forum. In fact, Wisconsin Public Radio hits the same
clichés so predictably that the supposed callers
may actually be paid mouthpieces, to avoid any accidental input from
the public. Informed dissent is never permitted
by this corrupt organization - and the concept that the public has a
RIGHT to know that the government lies is nonexistent. And every single
one of the media follow exactly the same script. This is how the
anti-smokers shove their corrupt laws down the public's throat!
Good morning, I'm Joy Cardin, with you on the Ideas Network of
Wisconsin Public. It's coming up on ten minutes past six o'clock
on this Friday, November the second. And what appeared to be a sure
thing, just a few months ago, a statewide smoking ban, in all
workplaces, including bars and restaurants, doesn't appear to be a sure
thing any more. We''ll talk about why this hour, and wonder if you are
pleased or displeased that the legislation appears stalled in the State
Senate, following a change in majority leaders last week. The new
majority leader, Russ Decker,
says he won't schedule any action on the proposal until some sort of
compromise is reached by the author of the ban, State Senator Fred Risser of Madison, who wants
it to cover everything, including bars, and those who don't want bars
to be included, or who want some sort of long phase-in period for bars,
like Senator Roger Breske of
Eland.
[Look at this cynical travesty! This isn't a "for versus against" situation; it's merely a petty squabble between anti-smokers over whether to take everything all at once or in two greedy bites. Meanwhile, the Tavern League, their pretended opponents, refuses to raise the issue of FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD that is screaming to be addressed! They know perfectly well that it makes their task much harder if the public believes that there is no scientific dissent against the anti-smokers' lie that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Yet they refuse to question it! This proves that those dirty traitors are merely putting on an act of pretending to fight the anti-smokers. And the tavern owners and other supposed opponents are so dimwitted they can't see that they're being sold out!]
Governor Doyle told Wispolitics dot com this week that he wants the ban to be statewide, especially since neighboring states will be implementing their own bans in January. [Doyle] "Uh, I don't know how Wisconsin can sit here between Minnesota and Illinois uh, and not, not get this done and get it done quickly. You know, the point I make when I talk to legislators, and to everybody is we all know we're going to have a ban. I mean, its - everybody can see what direction history is going in here, it isn't like, uh I mean uh, this is what's happening all across the country, across the world, and it's just me. We ought to get there sooner rather than later."
[This bastard deserves
nothing but pure, unadulterated hatred
for his smug, arrogant expectation that once they ram their smoking ban
down our throats, we'll all meekly submit to their long, dark, eternal
night of lies, ignorance and tyranny! "Surrender, surrender, tyranny is
inevitable," he brays - that piece of puke! He thinks we'll all just
pussy out and flop on our bellies and grovel at the feet of the empty
conqueror's suit, just like in "The
Fall of the City!" He thinks we'll
all just shrivel up and blow
away, and never raise the inconvenient truth that human
papillomaviruses cause lung cancer, and the anti-smokers' studies are
pure fraud, and we'll let these vermin get away
with censoring science for ever and ever! Plus, Doyle is such an
unbelievable liar he won't even admit
the obvious fact that Wisconsin tavern owners are making a mint off of
unhappy smokers from those other states! He acts as if Wisconsin is
losing money or something by "sitting there!" Maybe he means that HIS
corporate financiers are displeased!]
So do you want to get there sooner rather than later?
1-800-642-1234; 1-800-642-1234; in Madison, 263-1890, or send an email
to talk@wpr.org. Do you side with State Senator Roger Breske, a key
opponent of the ban, if it includes taverns, or do you side with
someone like the author of the bill, State Senator Fred Risser, who
wants taverns included? We will talk about the politics of the proposed
statewide smoking ban this hour and wonder if - what you think about
this new development, this possible delay, anyway, with Ed Miller,
Professor of Political Science at UW - Stevens Point. He joins us by
telephone. Good morning.
[What an empty choice - Roger
Breske, nicotine patch
peddlar and lead shill for Doyle's "Healthy Wisconsin," versus (to use
the term in a ludicrous context), Arch-Anti-Smoker Fred Risser!]
[Miller] Good morning, Joy.
[Cardin] So does it look like this is dead for now?
[Miller] At least for the moment. I think that eventually there will
be a statewide ban. We begin to see some bans that are now enacted in
some cities. Madison certainly has a ban, and Appleton not only has a
ban but the citizens actually voted to support the ban.
[It was a fraudulent,
communist-style referendum where people only heard one side of the
issue. They were not allowed to know about the anti-smokers' scientific
fraud of using only defective studies which falsely blame smoking for
diseases caused by infection, or the corruption of the "EPA" report on secondhand smoke. See how this
so-called professor puts has stamp of approval on this totalitarian
fraud!]
[Cardin] Yeah. I was in your neck of the woods, or kinda sorta your
neck of the woods, just this past weekend. I was in Iola, where a good
friend recently moved. And we went to this, a bar-restaurant on a
Friday night, a local favorite place for fish fries and the like. And
people were smoking away, and that's not something that I'm used to in
Madison, where smoking isn't allowed any more. But apparently that is
the kind of place that Roger Breske of Eland feels he needs to protect.
[Miller] Right. Yeah. There's a variety of issues, you know, and one
is
the interest group position and certainly the Tavern League, which
Breske has received lots of campaign contributions from, but the Tavern
League has opposed the ban. However, and there's a problem there,
because the Tavern League also does not want spotty bans, and so they
don't want bans in certain cities and not others. And so they have
indicated that they would support, actually, a statewide ban because
that would be competition between communities. Similarly, restaurants
you know, want a total ban, because, you know, they're arguing that
well,
if it's banned
in restaurants but not in taverns, then they're gonna lose some
business to the taverns. So there's various different groups, and you
know, various
interest groups applying here, and it's all in this context of you
know, a
general
health issue and that was one of the reasons certainly for the ban,
certainly the
concept of secondhand smoke not only affecting the other patrons of
the,
of the facility but also the workers. And that's one of the arguments
made
that
even if somebody - if a facility doesn't have a ban, then people don't
have to go there and eat, but on the other hand, the fact is that
people eat- have to work there and they would be exposed to
the secondhand smoke.
[See how the neatly the scum can refute this flimsy anti-smoker-approved argument against the ban! This is why its so essential for the anti-smokers to keep the public ignorant about the 50-plus studies implicating human papillomavirus in lung cancer! If it's widely known that the supposed risk from secondhand smoke is phony, then they lose their crucial "public health" scam!]
[Cardin] And this, I guess, change of fortune for this bill, at
least for now, came about because Russ Decker is now the majority
leader, and he apparently sympathizes with those who want to give bars
a break on this.
[Russ Decker is the same
anti-smoker who helped try to foist the previous
attempt at a statewide smoking ban on us, which was intended to protect
anti-smoker business owners from Madison and Appleton from the
financial consequences of their ban, under the pretext of a "level
playing
field."]
[Miller] I think he does and I think that, you know, people, that he
sort of sympathizes with Breske, as you mention, although I don't think
he totally, you know, disagrees with the ban. I think he may go along
with
it, he's not as strong as, as some, some of the others, but they, you
know,
it's
not only - you know, it's an interest group issue, but the other thing
is you can find in communities is also this kind of a government
ideological issue, besides just being a dollar and cents issue and, you
know, some
people you know, favor, you know, more of a government regulation for -
I don't
think too many people would not recognize that there's some public
health issue, but the question is to what extent should government get
involved. And so some people believe, such as Fred Risser in
Madison, that as a public health issue it's important that government
get
involved and tell restaurants, bars and other public facilities that
they cannot
have smoking in their establishments. On the other hand, some people
are much more libertarian, and the idea is that - and I think you'll
find that in some smaller communities especially, where people are
saying that - well, it may be a public health issue, but nobody should
tell me
what to do. And I think that is an issue you may find in places such
as Iola, as you mentioned.
[Cardin] We're talking with Ed Miller, Professor of Political
Science at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point about the
politics of the smoking ban, and the development this week that makes
it look as though this statewide smoking ban, which would include
taverns, appears to be stalled right now in the State Senate, and we
wonder if you like that or not. 1-800-642-1234, in Madison 263-1890.
I'm Joy Cardin, this is the Ideas Network of Wisconsin Public Radio.
It's coming up on eighteen minutes past six o'clock on this Friday,
November
the second. I'm Joy Cardin. Happy to have you with us. Hope you stay
tuned. Coming up this afternoon, John Munson in for Ben Merens. And,
after five o'clock, this weekend, we fall back an hour, or at least our
clocks
do, and John Munson and his guest will discuss the politics of daylight
saving time, coming up after five o'clock this afternoon. We're talking
about
the politics of the proposed smoking ban, and wondering if that smoking
ban has been snuffed out in Wisconsin. The statewide smoking ban
legislation that would ban smoking in all workplaces, including
taverns, appears to be stalled for now in the State Senate. It's one of
several bills that faces a different fate with the change of leadership
in the State Senate. Senate Democrats last week ousted former majority
leader Judy Robson, who
fully supported the ban, and replaced her with Senator Russ Decker of
Scofield, who doesn't necessarily fully support the ban. He asked a key
opponent of the bill, Senator Roger Breske of Eland, to come up with a
compromise with the author of the legislation, Senator Fred Risser of
Madison, before the Senate takes any
action on this. But at least for now, a compromise, one that would
exclude taverns from the bill, appears unlikely. We're talking with Ed
Miller, Professor of Political Science at UW - Stevens Point, about
this new development, and about the politics. Professor
Miller believes that eventually a statewide ban, including taverns,
will be implemented in Wisconsin. But when? 1-800-642-1234, in Madison
263-1890. We welcome your thoughts and questions about this. Mike in
Twin Lakes joins us first. Hi, Mike, you're on the air.
[Mike] Thank you very much. Good morning and thank you for taking my
call. I'm just so tired of the government inserting itself into our
public lives. And I'll tell you what, now, I'm a nonsmoker, but I've
found most people are pretty darn considerate if you ask them to
move. And most of your places, you know, are not that bad. But instead
of - We've
already punished smokers enough with taxes and multi-taxes and how bad
they
are. We make them stand out in the cold to enjoy a cigarette. Like,
being a nonsmoker I can't really totally relate but I feel for them. If
the government feels they just have to insert themselves into our
public and personal lives, this is a health hazard I know, but how
about
instead, looking into laws or whatever for quality of air. I mean, most
of these places have
smoke-eaters and fans and instead, they've got inspectors
that go around to all the bars and restaurants and check and have that
owner, if he wants to allow smoking in there, have him - a certain
quality of air and smoke-eaters. Thank you very much.
[This is the kind of feeble opposition Wisconsin Public Radio permits: It's an anti-smoker-approved talking point, because it presents no threat to anti-smoker lies and scientific fraud! It's from someone who doesn't have a clue that the media have censored their information, and that they are only being used to help create a phony facade of public discussion!]
[Miller] What Mike is about, is certainly that
libertarian strain. The idea is that
government shouldn't
interfere and that, you know, even though it's pretty much recognized
that smoking is bad, as well as
even secondhand smoke, although there's some queasiness of the
statistics to the extent of that. But the, but the idea here is that
smoking is bad, but people should be able to do whatever they want, and
so there's that notion. The other side of that idea is
that, that government is essentially paying for a number of smokers, so
some
people could say well yeah, people shouild be able to do what they
want,
but we shouldn't pay for it. And, and so through for example
Medicaid and that program, you're paying for the ills of smokers. And
so
some people take it from that tack in terms of saying why smoking
should be, should be regulated.
[This Big Lie about smoking costs is based upon the deliberate frauds of pretending that costs paid by smokers were paid by non-smokers, that illnesses caused by infection were caused by tobacco, and that non-smokers' costs do not exist at all. And Wisconsin Public Radio, and the rest of the anti-smoker-controlled media, prevent anyone from exposing this criminal fraud, and conceal the fact that smokers are actually subsidizing nonsmokers! The anti-smoker filth do not permit anyone to express the concept that THE GOVERNMENT LIES!]
[Cardin] Do you know, Professor Miller, if installing some sort of smoke eaters or whatever would take some of that health risk away?
[Miller] Well it, it does improve the situation, I mean depending on
how much they're willing to spend. But I'm aware that a number of
places, you know,
especially some restaurants had this at
one time and people did smoke in certain areas but it it's
certainly not 100%
effective, you know, it's variable effective.
And then smokers, you know,
somewhat question that they have to be put in a little area, you know,
which uses this - this, you know these devices.
[Cardin] Thank you very much, Mike, for calling in. Kathy in
Manitowoc, hi, you're on the air.
[Kathy] Good morning. I wanted to, to just ask a question about an
underlying
assumption that I hear when this is being discussed, and the assumption
is that a smoking ban in restaurants and bars will hurt
business, and yet from what I understand and what I've read that
actually has not, has not occurred and certainly did not occur
in
Madison, and I believe statistics are recently released from Appleton
saying that actually business, you know, based on tax receipts, that
business
actually improved
in bars and restaurants
when they went tobacco or smoke free. So how did that get started that,
that we're gonna give them a break so that they don't have to have a
ban,
we're gonna give them, you know, it's like it's going to hurt them to
do this? Can you address-
[Look at the insufferable arrogance
of the
anti-smokers, pretending that business owners are too stupid to know
their own business, and that those owners are out of line for
complaining, and that they should just shut up and let "real experts"
(who lie through their teeth) tell them what to think, which is that
they must be FORCED to have a smoking ban, for their own financial
good! (And furthermore, the smoking bans are such a glorious financial
boon that the anti-smokers aggressively strive to eradicate every
vestige of an exemption!) Anti-smokers are Hitler-magnitude Big Liars -
the bigger the whopper it is, the better these lying pieces of filth
like it!]
[Miller] Right that's the economic issue. And the
question of whether bars and restaurants lose business, I think, is
related to a couple of things. And one, clearly, is how complete the
ban is.
And so if the ban is not a complete ban or whether it's different
facilities or restaurants versus bars in a community, or different
communities where people can go, to another community, then
I think there could be some economic harm to businesses. But if it's a
complete ban, it's probably much, much less because there's no place
else
that you could just go.
[Cardin] Yeah, there were some Madison bar owners who are near, you
know a
border with a a
neighboring community who say that their business is way way way down.
[Miller] Right. Right. If you're near- if you're near another
community and, and, and you
know people, people who, who want to smoke in a bar will go into the
other
community and they will lose business.
[Cardin] There, there's a a a lawmaker representing the Appleton
area,
is it, it's Steve
Wieckert, I believe, who is in support of the statewide smoking
ban, in
part because some of his Appleton bars wanted to be in a level playing
field because no smoking allowed in an Appleton bar but somebody
can just cross the street and be in Kimberly and be able to smoke.
[Miller] Exactly. And that- that is an issue. And even if there's a
statewide
ban, my guess is there would be uneven enforcement of it, so you
will have some bars in, in especially as I mentioned in
smaller communities, that simply doesn't abide by the statewide ban
and enforcement will be pretty spotty, and so individuals will know
about this and go to theirs. So there will be some business reshuffling.
[Cardin] So there's no, though, so there's no evidence that Senator
Breske has said or at least his chief of staff is quoted as
saying that Senator Breske needs to keep protecting the businesses in
his district that would potentially be closed with a ban on smoking
completely.
[Miller] No, I don't think there's any evidence of that, you know,
you know, as long as
people are not going to other, you know, places. Obviously people can
go to other
places but if they have no other places to go, I don't think that
people are going to stop going out simply because there's a ban on, you
know, on smoking. You know there, there may be a small amount of it
where people
stay home and smoke and have friends over or something like that
instead of going out out to a
restaurant or bar but I think that's pretty small and I don't think
evidence from other states shows that to be the case.
[Cardin] Brian in La Crosse is with us. Hi, Brian.
[Brian] How are you doing. Basically I got a couple of things. One
with the cigarette companies, they've
lied to us for years saying that smoking is ok and its not that big a
deal. But it is a very addictive drug and I do smoke and I've
tried to quit for
years. Bars and restaurants, on the other hand, is kind of an oasis for
smokers being able to go ahead and sit down and enjoy conversations
with other people in an
environment where we can you know can stay dry, or warm, and the thing
I
have is, if they go ahead and ban
it along with this
extra dollar a pack tax, you know, not only are they taxing us an extra
dollar in Wisconsin per pack, but they're also going
ahead and telling us we can't smoke anywhere. So personally I'm
thinking, you know we're getting really stepped
on, and unfortunately it is an
addictive drug so therefore, you know what can we do?
[Another stereotypical,
anti-smoker-approved fake opponent: The cringing, groveling, completely
brainwashed bootlicker of a smoker, who unquestioningly parrots all our
enemies' hate propaganda, and smears their excrement in all of our
faces! The most despicable piece of crap on the face of the planet
earth! The intellectual equivalent of a fatted goose, who lacks the
initiative to do anything but sit there, allowing himself to be
force-fed with lies by the mass media! And then he obediently
regurgitates
their swill to ingratiate himself with them! This is a perfect of how,
instead of an informed citizen exposing the government's lies,
Wisconsin Public Radio gives us a stupid piece of crap, who doesn't
know his ass from a hole in the ground, to lie to us that the tobacco
companies supposedly lied, when in fact they have gone along with the
anti-smokers' lies every step of the way. (See their failure to refute
the anti-smokers in the federal tobacco lawsuit,
despite the abundant evidence abailable.) And most of all, ALL of the
impositions that this worthless pussy is whining about, are the direct
consequence of all the worthless pussies just like himself, who have
swallowed the anti-smokers' lies! Worthless pussies like him are always
welcome, because they set up the anti-smokers with an opportunity to
spew their rubbish!]
[Cardin] Well, you can smoke in your house.
[Brian] No, you can't, no you can't.You gotta be respectful - you
gotta respectful of the kids and the
family and everything else. They say secondhand smoke is, you know,
very dangerous.
[See how easy this sniveling little
bootlicker makes it for them!]
[Cardin] You can smoke on your porch.
[Brian] Right, well, I've had 24 years in the service and comparing
that to what they
state for defenses for marijuana or whatever like that, they say
basically that you'd have to be in a phone booth with three other
people in order to get enough residue to come up positive on a
urinalysis and then, at the same time
they're saying that secondhand smoke in a bar is going to go ahead and
cause other
people to have cancer. I don't know the statistics on that, I don't
know the science behind it. I'm telling you, we're getting kicked
around pretty bad.
[The anti-smokers' whole line is
red herring, because they're lying by pretending that carcinogenic
viruses do not cause the lung cancers they blame on smoking. And stupid
here doesn't have a clue! And they got away with all things thanks to
feeble-minded doormats like him! And he and all his worthless kind seem
to have a compulsion to call in and let the anti-smokers kick them in
the teeth, again and again!]
[Cardin] Yeah, are we as a society picking on smokers, Professor
Miller?
[Why
don't YOU ever take calls from smokers who can stand up for themselves? You purposely select the stupid ones so
you can stomp on them!]
[Miller] Well, we are. I mean, smoking does create health hazards.
The issue of secondhand smoke- The issue
of individual smoking was certainly a question for lots of
years because even though there was evidence that individuals who smoke
had a variety of diseases, for many years there was not
a causative agent found. In other words, they did not have
experimental studies to connect smoking with specifically the diseases
because they simply didn't have the knowledge in that area
although epidemiological, in other words, looking at populations, they
saw people
who were smokers had far many more diseases than people who were not
smokers and it wasn't until in the 1960s that some of that evidence
actually come up and then eventually, we got those if you
remember, when cigarettes the first time we we got those health
warnings and that, and that was done in the 1960s after the Surgeon
General issued, issued
the report. With secondhand smoke the same thing occurred. There were
multiple studies that basically did
not show a great difference in health between those who were exposed to
secondhand smoke
and those who, who weren't.
[This is nothing but a
confabulation created by arranging a few rudimentary historical facts
to fit his preconceived notions of "scientific progress." In fact,
anti-smoker science has stagnated at the level of Nazi Germany of six
decades ago. They pass out lifestyle questionnaires and proclaim that
every disease that is more common among smokers than among non-smokers
is due to smoking. After doing a number of these defective studies,
they proclaim that the "consistency" of the evidence proves a causal
relationship. Then they garnish their rubbish by claiming that "tobacco
carcinogens" and/or chemicals must be the cause. Except that they are
ignoring, to varying degrees of completeness (100% ignoring in the case
of lung cancer) the evidence that the diseases they blame on smoking
are caused by
bacteria and/or viruses. They have
gotten away with committing this fraud for decades, because their media
accomplices keep the public ignorant and shield them from exposure.]
[Likewise with their studies on
secondhand smoke. The media lie to the public that the
various reports are "independent," when they are really all the product
of a little clique of politically-connected charlatans ring-led by Jonathan M. Samet. Furthermore, the supposed "EPA report" wasn't even written by the real EPA
scientists, who were against calling secondhand smoke a human
carcinogen. But they were rudely shoved aside, and the key chapters of
the report were by handpicked anti-smoker authors of that clique, using
illegal pass-through contracts to conceal their role. And on the board
of directors of that crooked EPA contracting firm was a close crony of
George W. Bush named Fred Malek, as
well as a big shot of the Democratic Party. All of which has been
deliberately concealed by the media, in order to force their smoking
bans on the public! This is the dirty sham that
those dupes who believe that "secondhand smoke is, you know,
very dangerous" are kowtowing to!]
[Cardin] I have to jump in and we'll talk more about this after we
check news from National Public Radio and Wisconsin Public Radio.
Talking about the statewide smoking ban in trouble in the State
Legislature right now, and we'll continue after the news. You're
listening to the Ideas Network of Wisconsin Public Radio. I'm Joy
Cardin. It's 6:36 on this Friday, November the Second. We're talking
this hour about the proposed statewide smoking ban. And the news this
week that the proposed legislation appears to be stalled right now in
the State Senate. We're talking about why that is and wondering what it
means to you. 1-800-642-1234, in Madison 263-1890. Essentially, it
comes down to a new Senate Majority Leader, Senator Russ Decker of
Schofield, who says that he says he won't schedule any action on this
bill, that would ban smoking in all workplaces in Wisconsin, including
taverns, until a compromise is reached between opponents and supporters
of the statewide ban. He has directed Senator Roger Breske of
Eland to come up with a compromise with the author of the
legislation, Senator Fred Risser of Madison before any action is taken.
Senator Breske, apparently, would like to see taverns exempted or
somehow um, treated differently in this bill. Senator Risser, who is
the author of the legislation, doesn't want to exempt taverns from
this. So, we're at a stalemate, and it may not pass the legislature
this session. We are talking about this with Ed Miller, Professor of
Political Science at UW- Stevens Point and our next caller is Barbara
in Madison. Hi, Barbara.
[Barbara] Hi, well, good morning. I got my morning voice so I wasn't
going to call in but I'm so filled with anger at their inability
to see that this is something that just needs to be done. I thought it
was awfully stupid that they couldn't get the budget done, but this
just raises my anger to a new level. I salute Senator Risser for
carrying on in his courageous manner and I just, I just think
that if we had campaign finance reform where a lot of these people
weren't lining their pocket with money from the Tavern League, that
maybe this just wouldn't be so difficult for them. And, when I see that
my children's grandfather was taken from them when they were little
because of smoking and all we know now about smoking and secondhand
smoke if you will, it's- it just fills me with anger that this
just isn't a slam dunk.
[See this - see what the media have
done with their lies - making scapegoats of us smokers so that this
self-pitying piece of crap can masturbate her ego with self-righteous
indignation, at our expense! You spoiled, spoiled brat, it's not enough
for you that your side has been funded for decades with billions and
billions of taxpayer dollars, and that your side has had the exclusive
monopoly of the mass media, that's not enough, you want to eradicate
every last trace of expression of disagreement with your ignorant
views! You don't even specify what disease that grandfather died from;
like most of your kind, you probably blame anything and everything on
smoking, and smugly count on the world to tenderly indulge your
incontinent blubbering. You've never been the target of organized
abuse, you're the abuser, you don't have to fight to express YOUR point
of view, you get the red carpet rolled out for you, time and time
again, meanwhile people with important truths, that the government
lies, are not allowed to speak!]
[Miller] right it isn't in Wisconsin Barbara, the- there's two
strains, it seems, in Wisconsin, and one is the health strain and
Wisconsin has been big on a number of health issues and the like, and
the other area is there's a cultural issue in Wisconsin, and if you
take a look at drinking, for example, where there has been lots of
surveys showing that Wisconsin is among the top states in the country
in terms of the amount of drinking, University students in Wisconsin
unfortunately always lead the pack on topping drinking and so the idea
of drinking and to some extent smoking coming along with drinking,
particularly in the bars, is also a cultural issue in Wisconsin. And so
here we have the health strain in Wisconsin, we're a healthy state and
have a lot of health resources and so forth, ah, you know, a lot of
bike trails, and that kinda stuff. But on the other hand there's this
other cultural issue of drinking and conceivably smoking which then
conflicts in the Legislature and so it's not there for a slam dunk
[Cardin] Thank you, Barbara, for the call. Tom in Appleton is with
us now. Hi, Tom.
[Tom] Um (crackle)
[Cardin] Tom's on a cell phone, apparently. It's breaking up, Tom.
Tom's from Appleton and I know that he is gonna tell us that businesses
would be hurt by a ban, and I assume he means taverns. Well, Tom, maybe
you can call back. Do you want to talk any further about that, the
evidence for or against whether taverns would be hurt if smoking was
allowed-
[Miller] Yeah, they haven't been hurt very much, as I say, in a
community that has had a total ban. It's where there's not a total ban
and you can go to other communities community-wide determination
or where there's a border with another state and the other
state does not have a ban. Wisconsin of course, we're bordered with
states that do have bans.
[Cardin] And the other, yeah, they- we heard from Governor Doyle in
a clip in the first half hour. He's upset about this delay saying that,
was it Minnesota and Illinois in January are implementing their
statewide bans?
[Miller] Yes. And Minneapolis has had one - Minneapolis-Saint. Paul
- for quite some time.
[Cardin] Dennis in Winneconne, hi, you're on the air.
[Dennis] Thank you for taking my call, Joy. I guess- I'm a small
business owner and I'm a non-smoker and it would be wonderful if
everybody quit smoking. But smoking is legal and as long as it's legal,
I don't think it's the government's right, especially in a tavern. I
could see in a business area where a manufacturing plant where people
have to be there. But people do not have to be in a tavern; they don't
have to work in a tavern for the most part. And I just think it's wrong
that government should be able to come in and take a legal entity and
say that a small business cannot offer that. So I think it's really up
to the business owner to make that place a safe place for his
customers. And I think most taverns and small business owners will do
that or they're going to lose the business. But I think government has
just been way too intrusive, especially in this day and age. It's
difficult enough for small businesses to make a go with the laws and
regulations they have in place today and I don't think we need more
government regulation.
<>[Miller] Yeah, and that is the issue of government and the role of government. Should government do it? We know smoking causes all kinds of health problems but to what extent should government intervene? We're talking about smoking, which is significant health problems, but we also have in some places they're talking about trans fats, and do we ban trans fats, and should the government do that? You know, leading to heart disease and the like. So, this is the issue. But we do see, interestingly enough, in other countries that had been far lax- more lax than the United States in terms of regulating cigarettes and, and much more smoking are now beginning to take action in other countries including one that our cigarette companies have, have sold lots of cigarettes to, and that's China, in which there's a lot of smoking in China. But now we see the government of China recognizing the health problems, and they're cracking down even there, and trying to limit smoking.
[And he expects us to believe that
this
is really "the government of China
recognizing the health problems," rather than a manifestation of
financial manipulation such as blackmail and bribery by Wall Street
health fascists, and/or subversion by the C.I.A. and its University
Professor accomplices.]
[Cardin] What about that argument that no one has to work in a tavern?
[Miller] Well, I mean it's true, that nobody has to work in a
tavern, they need to work somewhere, and some people, you know it's a
job for them. But, but on the other hand, that we should protect you
know, workers, we do other kind of worker safety, say in an industrial
firm, nobody has to work in an industrial firm, but we have a variety
of laws to protect worker safety, and so in this area you could argue
that it's a worker safety kind of issue similar to that of machinery.
[Except that this is specious and
fraudulent, because of the simple fact - WHICH WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO
EXPRESS - THAT THE
GOVERNMENT LIES! And this is a perfect example of what these
two-legged vermin are trained to do, to oh so stealthily control the
conversation by allowing the petty and trivial while ensuring that the
most important points of their opponents are not permitted to be heard,
and then to pass off this deceptive and censored charade on the
gullible and childlike public as a "free and open discussion!" What about those 50 HPV studies, you lying
frauds! This is the definition of a tyranny, when you are not
allowed to say that the government lies!
[Cardin] Thank you, Dennis in Lancaster. Hi, you're on the air.
[Dennis] Good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I've got two
comments, and, first of all, I just want to say "WAAAAAAAH!"
[Cardin] What was that for?
[Dennis] Well, first of all, nobody put a gun to these peoples'
heads to make the choice to start smoking a addictive drug. And
it should not - I should not be affected nor should my family be
affected by this choice. I've been in non-smoking restaurants- or,
excuse me, in smoking and nonsmoking restaurants, and they put you in
the non-smoking section, and if you're close enough to that smoking
section, you can still smell it, and you can feel it on your hair, and
it just ruins your meal. And then my second comment is, I've been out
to California, and Washington and Oregon, where they have a no-smoking
ban in taverns and restaurants, and from what I've seen, these
businesses have not suffered.
[This spoiled-rotten brat actually
believes that he is entitled to subjugate smokers' rights at every
opportunity to what he imagines is his almighty right not to affected
by the slightest whiff of cigarette smoke. He considers that even the
burden of asking for a different table is too much of an imposition
upon his imperial majesty's fancied rights. He has absolutely no
respect for the rights of others, and we should reciprocate at every
opportunity. Also, he seems to expect us to believe that he looked at
the books of the restaurants that he visited out west; however, we know
that he didn't look at the books of the restaurants he didn't visit
because they went out of business!]
[Cardin] Yeah. It's- Professor Miller?
[Miller] Uh, right. And I think if the businesses haven't suffered
again, if there's a total ban there's not a lot of other places that
people can, people can go. You wouldn't normally find the um, that you
know, this is a problem but the, the interesting thing is that your-
you know, it is addictive, there's no question about that, but years
ago, people began smoking before there was nearly as much information
as, information about it and um and therefore they were
addicted understand that and its very difficult to get off
that. But the interesting question is, why do people begin smoking now,
when there's- you know, younger people, when there's lots of
information out there, and um, people are taking up smoking, which is
really strange.
[It's easy. Some people understand
that the government lies; and that this "addiction" smear was cynically
concocted as a tool of manipulation by the same rotten little nest of
politically-connected vermin, who have deliberately perpetrated
scientific fraud for six decades, to falsely blame smoking for diseases
caused by infection. It is not the product of impartial scientists but
of corrupt filth.]
[Cardin] We're talking with Ed Miller, Professor of Political
Science at UW - Stevens Point, about the proposed statewide smoking ban
for Wisconsin, the legislation that would ban smoking in all
workplaces, including restaurants and bars. It appeared to be a sure
thing, not so long ago, but it doesn't appear to be such a sure thing
right now. The legislation is stalled right now in the State Senate,
and we wonder what you think about that, and what questions that you
have. 1-800-642-1234, in Madison, 263-1890. I'm Joy Cardin, this is the
Ideas Network. You're listening to the Ideas Network, I'm Joy Cardin,
talking with our guest, Ed Miller, Professor of Political Science at UW
- Stevens Point about the new development relating to the proposed
statewide smoking ban. It might not be passing the State Senate this
session, as once earlier believed. It looks like there's some movement
to try to compromise or maybe try to exempt taverns, and supporters of
the ban won't go along with that, and opponents of the ban aren't going
to accept it otherwise, so we're wondering what's going to happen with
this and welcoming your thoughts and comments. Heather in Neenah, hi
you're on the air.
[Heather] Hi, thank you for taking my call. My comment kind of goes
off of what the last person called in about as well but I really don't
believe that businesses are going to be affected so much. In fact, I
think they might find that they're bringing on a new type of crowd. I
live in Neenah, but my friends and I choose to drive up to Appleton, to
go to bars there, because they do have a smoking ban and some of my
friends are even smokers but they still prefer going where there's no
smoking in the taverns, just because of the fact you don't come home
just smelling of smoke and smelling like you've been at a bar all
night. So, um, some people even make a drive just to go to places like
this and I think that, um, if and when it happens, we'll see that it
really doesn't affect the taverns all that much.
[This program has certainly been blessed with learned experts on the bar and restaurant business, who so generously enlighten us with their opinions. They're really engaging in group denial, rather than admit that they are harming other peoples' businesses. I wonder what story these people would come up with if the government started herding their neighbors into cattle cars - perhaps that they're all just going on a fun vacation. There are surely far more people making long drives to places where they can smoke; after all, there apparently weren't enough Heathers to keep an anti-smoking bar in business in Neenah. Oh and by the way, why does she blame cigarettes for "smelling like you've been in a bar all night," when alcohol is the defining characteristic of bar odors and furthermore, that is in fact where she's been in the first place? Those stupid people don't even think about how illogical they are. As for her smoker friends, well these are the kind of creatures that the aforementioned worthless pussies would hang out with.]
[Cardin] On the other hand, on the other hand I remember reading an
opponent in Madison, a bar owner who said oh sure, you know, I like it
when people come to my bar now and have their one Coke and leave, it's
not the same. Professor Miller?
[Miller] Well, right, I mean that's an argument but I don't know
that the as I say, the uh, the uh, actual revenue of these bars would
fall if there was a complete smoking ban. And there's other things to
attract people into bars for one drinking space that attracts people to
bars. But bars have other things, too, they have TVs, they have sports
kind of bars and things like that to attract people. It's not just,
it's just not uh smoking. But it's an interesting argument that
individuals who own like, a bars would say is that we recognize the
health effects, that it's going to be detrimental to our customers'
health, but we're worried about losing revenue. So it's an interesting
argument that seems to have caught some people.
[Cardin] Aaron in Manitowoc, hi, you're on the air.
[Aaron] Hi, thanks for taking my call. I, I have a question or a
comment about- I was out in New York a couple years ago before Appleton
had gotten its smoking ban and it was really nice because I had just
recently at that time quit smoking and it was really hard to go out to
the bars when everybody's smoking and you're drinking in that to not,
you know, have that urge to smoke. But once you get out to the bars and
everybody's smoking you have that urge, you know, and it makes you want
to go back to it and it's also nice going into Appleton and not getting
cigarette burns on your clothes and such like that, and I also feel
that people don't smoke as much because of the fact that they have to,
you know, go outside and if they're in a crowd and they're the only
ones that smoke they, they don't want to be singled out from the crowd
and stuff like that.
[Miller] And that's a real interesting point. Because if the public
health orientation was to reduce people from smoking, allowing it in
these places would one encourage it, I mean, people come in and even if
they don't smoke regularly, they may say, gee, you know, I'll have one
or two with a friend, because everybody else is smoking, and so it may
encourage that and people who have given up smoking, as you mentioned,
you know are really discouraged from going out to these bars, because
even though they're not smoking, uh you know, having people around them
smoke becomes a very very difficult situation, so they may simply avoid
these facilities, and that would reduce the revenue of uh, of the bars.
And we were supposed to take some of the tobacco settlement which uh
interestingly we sort of gave away for the deficit in Wisconsin, and
used portion of it for no-smoking kind of commercials and other kinds
of programs which uh, we have uh, pretty little of in Wisconsin in
comparison to other states.
[This is mere speculation which
disregards the facts, which are that smokefree bars have an extremely
hard time staying in business - unless they can use government coercion
to prevent bars which allow smoking to compete against them. And this
is what the phony "level playing field" is really about.]
[Cardin] Do you see it, Professor Miller, like the Governor for that
matter, that it's inevitable, that pretty soon, every state and for
that matter, the whole world will be smoke-free in public places like
this.
[Miller] Right, and I think that what the Governor says is correct.
I think Wisconsin, in this area, as with a number others, are going to
be the laggards but eventually you know Wisconsin is not
going to remain you know with smoking, with states all around it with
smoking bans I seriously doubt that that would currently be additional
pressure on Wisconsin.
[This is as utterly ridiculous as
pretending that Nevada couldn't possibly allow gambling if all the
states around it didn't! In fact, it's because the states around it and
most of those far distant don't allow gambling, that Nevada has this
particular gold mine! This cretin is saying is that Wisconsin has to do
it just because everyone else is!]
[Cardin] Scott in Menasha. Hi, you're on the air.
[Scott] Good morning. I am a smoker and come January is going to be
my best incentive to quit because that dollar a pack kinda irritates me
but I'm just wondering why do they keep whittling with places,
businesses taverns, why don't they, since it's so bad for you, bad for
your health and expensive, why don't they just ban smoking period and
get it over with, because it's going to come to that sooner or later
anyway.
[Here's another brainless fatted
goose, a passive receptacle for whatever swill the lying government
funnels into his disfunctional head, and an unresisting castrated
coward! Wisconsin Public Radio loves worthless pussies like this!]
[Cardin] Why don't they do that, Professor?
[Miller] There are a variety of reasons for it. One is it has been
legal, and it's very difficult to make something then illegal.
People are smoking so it's very difficult to say oh gee it's now going
to be illegal in that area. And the other thing is looking at some of
the other things that we banned, you know, when we had Prohibition, you
know, and our experience with that and drugs, you know, does not lead
to one thing we would be very successful with a smoking ban, I mean
with a completely illegal smoking. And that would- and so that
certainly moves people away from doing it. Again, just look at the
issues in Congress in terms of enacting various laws and putting, ah,
you know, notices on the pack origiinally from that and the various
progressions of that over the years. But it's been pretty slow in that,
in that area. So, some people are saying this is a- maybe it shouldn't
be handled legally, it should be handled by the public health
authorities. This has been recommended also with drugs, they were
saying a lot of the problem with uh, with uh illegal drugs is really a
crime problem. And, and we have a lot of crime. Well, why do we have a
lot of crime? And, one reason we have crime is cause it's illegal. And
so, maybe we shouldn't make it illegal but we should make it a public
health thing, where people who are on drugs would go to their doctor,
and the doctor would institute a program to get them off a drug, but
that you could actually, during the time period of tapering off, go to
the pharmacy, and actually get the drug, and certain countries, such as
England, have actually done that. So in other words you move it from
being illegal to something that's really more of a medical issue. And
so some people looking at that since there's been a lot of discussions
of that, they don't want to do just the opposite with cigarettes.
[Or here's a better idea: Why don't
you lying vermin get the hell out of our lives, or else we'll have a
bloody revolution over it? You vermin have already stepped far over the
line that we should tolerate. Don't
try to con us with this crap that our personal lives
are a problem which you are entitled to meddle in. Least of all, do we want to absorb
your manipulative, pseudo-benevolent neo-puritan
pretension of medicalizing everything. And get this straight, it's the
U.S.
Government, not the tobacco companies, which has been the fountainhead
of lies. The issue should boil
down to, "If the Government
Lies, Then the
Government Dies."]
[Cardin] All right, well here's another quick crystal ball question
for you: With the cigarette taxes, and people quitting over that, and
smoking bans, so maybe they're not smoking as much, and maybe more
stop-smoking programs, do you see a day when maybe just naturally,
cigarettes go out of business.
[Miller] Uh, no, I don't think so. I least not in the medium
future. And uh, I, I, doubt that that's going to happen. There are
certainly people that are going to stop smoking because it's going to
cost too much. And that's going to discourage some people from smoking.
Studies have shown that. However, smoking just seems to be so addictive
and so drawing that individuals do smoke and now, what we find here is
that, that because of the tax increases, it's a very regressive tax
because poorer people tend to smoke more than richer people. So when we
impose a tax, it's not only to try to stop people from smoking but it's
actually a regressive tax it falls greater on poorer people who are
much more likely to smoke than people who have more, more money.
[Cardin] Lyman in Marshfield, hi, you're on the air.
[Lyman] Good morning. I have a suggestion that, you know, taverns
that allow smoking should pay an additional tax to compensate the
public for the cost of treating the cancers that result from that.
[Except that this is a filthy,
Hitler-magnitude Big Lie that smokers are an
economic burden to the public. We smokers are the ones who should be
demanding compensation for the money that has been stolen from us. And
if you don't want to pay in money, we'll take it in blood.]
[Cardin] Well what about that, Professor?
[Miller] Well, that's a possibility. You know, if one, if one says
that we're not going to ban smoking, then we could, we could charge
them an additional tax, a so-called smoking tax, um, I don't know
whether that would be legal um um, it may be under- I was just
thinking, the Wisconsin Constitution, which requires equitable
taxation, um, but um, you know, it's an interesting idea.
[Cardin] Joanna, Johanna inWaukesha, hi.
[Johanna] Hi, good morning, thank you for taking my call. I'm
calling because we moved here from Georgia and the South is typically
not known as being very progressive, but we moved here from the Athens
area where we fought for a smoking ban for a number of years. And, once
it was enacted, although there was a lot of opposition from downtown
taverns, Athens being this university town, it was my understanding,
from things published in our newspaper and from the general opinion in
the community, that business actually increased because, as an earlier
caller said, there was a new consumer group tapped into. Families who
typically would not dine in restaurants that had attached taverns,
because of secondhand smoke and the smell, would now go out as families
and dine, and business actually improved.
[See how irrational these fanatics
are! It is elementary logic that, if there were both smoking and
non-smoking taverns, then ALL consumer groups could be accommodated.
Yet these vermin pretend that in order to accommodate anti-smokers, it
is absolutely necessary to un-accommodate smokers! And that by
excluding one very large group, the total business actually INCREASES!
It proves that the only thing they care about is persecuting smokers,
and that every emission from their slimy mouths is merely an attempt to
rationalize their contemptible goal.]
[Cardin] We hear that at least from a lot of places where they have
enacted these bans, Professor Miller.
[Miller] Right. Yeah, what happens, yes, particularly in
restaurants, maybe a little less in bars, but particularly in
restaurants, I think there would be, would be some increase in business
if it's a total ban. In the South, of course, there's been opposition
to not only the ban, but also increasing taxes like we have a very low
beer tax in Wisconsin, they have a very very low cigarette tax in many
of the Southern states where tobacco remains a uh significant crop.
[Cardin] Only 30 seconds, do you see this passing this session, or
not?
[Miller] I I don't know if it'll pass. I don't think so, maybe
a subsequent session. I mean it could. There is a Democratic Senate and
I think maybe they would ovecome diverse opposition.
[Cardin] Eventually though this is for sure you think
[Miller] Yeah I think eventually if it's not this coming year it'll
be the following year.
[Cardin] Thanks for being with us.
[Miller] You're very welcome.
[Cardin] Ed Miller, Professor of Political Science at UW - Stevens
Point. Thanks to Leo Duran for producing the hour. This is the Ideas
Network.
"Ed Miller received his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of
Pittsburgh and was a resident fellow at the Institute for Social and
Political Research at the University of Michigan. He served as a staff
member of the U.S. House of Representative's Energy and Commerce
Committee and was a policy analyst with Maryland’s Department of Labor
& Industry. Currently, Miller is a professor of political science
and co-director of the Center for the Small City at the UW-Stevens
Point. He has served as department chair and chair of the Faculty
Senate. He has published in the areas of health policy, public policy,
legislative process, state government, and local government. With
Robert Wolensky, he is co-editor of the 15-volume proceedings of the
Small City and Regional Community conferences. A frequent guest analyst
on radio and TV, Miller is the political science reviewer for the Wall
Street Journal." (Miller bio. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and
Letters, May 14-15, 2007.)
And how did this
anti-smoker tyranny happen? Remember who appoints the Surgeons General
- the president, a piece of scum from the Republican or the Democratic
Party. And who
approves the appointments? The corrupt Republicans and Democrats in
Congress. And who has
poured
out the taxpayers' money on malicious and fraudulent junk science
(while never ever questioning it) - the corrupt Republicans and
Democrats in Congress. And even taxpayer-funded
Wisconsin Public Radio is the puppet of the corrupt scum in the State
Legislature, from the Republican and Democratic Parties - as well as
the corponazis who finance their campaigns!
This is why, literally, ONLY the gibberings of their corrupt lackeys
are ordained as science, while the real
scientists are excluded, marginalized and IGNORED!
Tyranny
is tyranny, and violence,
terrorism, and assassination are the solution! This is how to deal with
liars and thieves and persecutors! They must pay for they've done to
our country! We
must have bloody retribution against them, to force these pieces of
subhuman filth to acknowledge the truth and restore liberty - or else
destroy them all! And if the worthless
pussies in this country aren't up to the task, then we should support
al-Qaida, because they have the guts to attack and KILL! And we can
agree with them about at least one thing: That exterminating our filthy
rulers would be the greatest virtue in the world!
cast 11-04-07