Senate Bill 150

The Gigantic Fraud Behind the Proposed Statewide Smoking Ban

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 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