Lawmakers to take up Scott Walker DNA proposal (Good Intentions Bad Policy)

Leave a comment


Madison — Wisconsin lawmakers are set this week to consider Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to take DNA from anyone arrested for a felony and anyone convicted of any crime.

Wisconsin currently collects DNA only from convicted felons and sex offenders. Walker’s executive budget lays out nearly $6 million for the initiative. The money largely would come from an existing $250 surcharge on felony offenders and a new $200 surcharge on misdemeanor offenders.

For starters being arrested for a crime felony or not you don’t forfeit your constitutional rights namely your fourth amendment rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On conviction of a felony you do lose constitutional rights but only on conviction. Not for an arrest. You have to show probable cause to seize anything. Some people may say what’s the big deal if you have done nothing wrong.  Would you let them search your house simply because you got caught speeding?

This goes far beyond searching your house, they are taking a piece of you.  While they always make promises that it will only be used for criminal investigations history shows that the government never keeps those promises.  Putting your DNA in a database will eventually be used for other purposes.  Obamacare is a classic example, your DNA can be used to determine what diseases you may be prone to, you could be denied government jobs because of this, it could be used under Obamacare to determine how much money they will spend on healthcare based on what diseases you are prone to.  Demand probable cause before forfeiting your rights.

Advertisements

Scott Walker the Traitor of the TEA Party Movement

Leave a comment


When Scott Walker ran one of the promises that he made was to repeal the smoking ban.  Not only did this ban violate the Constitution namely the takings clause of the fifth and 14th amendment. ” nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Mr Walker not only reneged on that promise, it appears that he is expanding the attack on smokers using the exact same methods that Comrade Doyle used to enact the ban.  The state budget. First here is Scott in his own words on the smoking ban.

Mr Walker has a multi-pronged attack on smokers in the budget.

The first is an attack on the owners of the RYO machines on page 435

17. Cigarette Regulation Updates
The Governor recommends defining organizations that operate roll-your-own cigarette rolling machines for public use as cigarette manufacturers. The Governor also recommends studying the use of additional cigarette stamping methods. The fiscal impact from the change in regulation of roll-your-own tobacco machines is an estimated increase in tax revenue of $1.4 million in FY14 and FY15.

Ignoring the fact that there will be no increase in revenue, actually revenue will go down as a result of smuggling, it is a matter of justice.  Should the books be balanced on the backs of smokers?

On the Freedom index Wisconsin rates towards the bottom we are the 12th worst, down two points from 2009.

Wisconsin performs below average in a number of personal freedom categories. The state has high victimless crimes arrest rates, though its drug enforcement rate is below average. It has the worst gaming laws in the country (social gambling is not allowed) and almost the strictest campaign finance laws. The state also performs below average on gun freedom and travel freedom. Home schools are regulated with some onerous notification requirements. Wisconsin has some of the best alcohol laws in the country, with taxes fairly low across the board. However, its cigarette taxes are very high and smoking bans are extensive. Wisconsin recently enacted a domestic partnership law. Its asset forfeiture laws score well (over one standard deviation better than average).

Policy Recommendations

  • Reduce the income tax burden while continuing to cut back spending through cuts in government employment and public employee benefits.
  • Pass a right-to-work law, whenever political conditions so allow.
  • Reform tobacco and marijuana regulations, using the state’s alcohol-friendly beer, wine, and spirits regulations as a model.

The second assault is on Government employees. On Page 167

The Governor recommends that the Group Insurance Board expand the current wellness program and implement a tobacco use surcharge for state employees beginning in calendar year 2014. The Governor also recommends increasing expenditure authority for supplies and services related to these wellness initiatives.
4. Modifications to Group Insurance by the Group Insurance Board
The Governor recommends a statutory modification that will allow expansions of group insurance coverage only if deemed cost-effective by the Group Insurance Board.
Employee Trust Funds 155

Of course it has been proven time and again that smokers cost society less not more so any surcharge is punitive and more “Nanny Statism” and not good policy.

The last is the funding of the very groups that lobby against smokers.  They do it under the guise of Quit lines but these lines are the very groups that lobby against smokers so any funding to them is direct funding to their lobbying efforts since it frees up their other money. Page 220

MISSION
To support economic prosperity and quality of life, the department exercises multiple roles in the protection and promotion of the health and safety of the people of Wisconsin.
PROGRAMS, GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES
Note: Programs, goals, objectives and activities have been modified.
Program 1: Public Health Services Planning, Regulation and Delivery
Goal: Provide QuitLine tobacco cessation services for up to 8,000 BadgerCare Plus adults and First Breath face-to-face cessation counseling for up to 3,000 pregnant BadgerCare Plus members using financial incentives as a tool for increasing engagement in treatment and increasing quit rates.
Objective/Activity: Create structure and process to link BadgerCare Plus members in South Central and Northeastern Wisconsin to the QuitLine by January 2012.
Objective/Activity: Create structure and process to link BadgerCare Plus pregnant women in Southeastern Wisconsin to First Breath by January 2012.
Objective/Activity: Implement protocols for evaluation by March 2012. Evaluate effectiveness and return on investment of individual incentives on tobacco cessation by December 2015.

Of course the above is pushed by those who work in tobacco control and lobby for these laws.  What it does not show that the big pharma solutions that they push are not only ineffective but they fail to show their ties to the big pharmaceutical companies pushing them.

Again Nanny Statism is not a legitimate function in a constitutional government.

The tactics used by Scott Walker are identical to those of Comrade Doyle and one can only wonder how much this has to do with his wife’s ties to the American Lung Association.  From her bio page.

First Lady Tonette Walker

First Lady Tonette Walker was born and raised in Milwaukee, Wis.  She spent more than 20 years employed in the insurance industry before working for the American Diabetes Association. Currently, the first lady works in the development department for the American Lung Association.

Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Accuses the Rest of the Story Author of Being Unprofessional

2 Comments


Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Accuses the Rest of the Story Author of Being Unprofessional 

 

I disagree with Dr Siegel on the issue of smoking bans, but I would never question his integrity!  He is one of the very few within the Tobacco Control Movement that is willing to stand on what he believes is sound science. A lot of earlier links to his works are broken as are a lot of mine when I was with “Ban the Ban Wisconsin”

There are only two people in the “Tobacco Control” movement that I have any respect for and that is the good “Dr Siegel” and “Martin Pion” of MoGASP although I am losing faith in the latter as I have been banished from his site without explanation.  Both are members of the FDA shadow panel.

I defended Dr Siegel several years ago while working with “Ban the Ban Wisconsin” not because I agreed with him but because of his integrity.  One can disagree with someone and still respect them for their integrity.  Science is not as simple as 2+2=4, and it is even less so when it comes to statistics, and the entirety of smoking bans are based on statistics! And as Mark Twain said in his autobiography said “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”

It is one thing to disagree with someone, it is quite another to attack their integrity.  This is not the first time that Dr Siegel has been attacked! The other time I defended him they attempted to get him fired from his job at the Boston University School of Public Health.  Again my post at “Ban the Ban” is gone and I can’t find his post from that period, but it did happen. But to put the good doctors words in perspective.

As a primarily science-based movement, public health is supposed to have room for those who dissent from consensus opinions based on reasonable scientific grounds. To argue that those who fail to conclude that the small relative risk for lung cancer of 1.3 among persons exposed to secondhand smoke is indicative of a causal connection are comparable to Holocaust deniers is to turn public health into a religion, where the doctrines must be accepted on blind faith to avoid being branded as a heretic.

While I personally believe the evidence is sufficient to conclude that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer, there are a considerable number of reputable scientists who have come to different conclusions. While I believe those scientists are wrong, I would never argue that they are denialists, nor would I ever compare their dissent with Holocaust denial.

Diethelm and McKee appear to be basing their assessment that secondhand smoke “dissenters” are “denialists” not on the reasonableness of the scientific arguments, but on the position of these arguments. This is a dangerous proposition which threatens the integrity of public health by turning it into a purely ideological movement, rather than a scientific one.

Again my links are broken but those are the words of Dr Siegel, if I could find the original article Diethelm and McKee compared those of us fighting the bans as flat earther’s yet it was those very people that tried to use consensus and political might to suppress the opposition.

As much taxpayer money that is being spent in the name of “Big Pharma” and in the name of Tobacco Control” it is time for a full fledged investigation into the spending and grants into this prohibitionist movement.  A lot of the money funding this movement came from extortion from the Master Settlement Agreement, when in history was any group forced through force of law, forced to fund the lobby group lobbying against them.  Where the Jews forced to fund the Nazi party?  Where the blacks forced to fund the KKK? But in modern america it is acceptable to force smokers to fund the very people lobbying against them? And even with the billions of dollars they have extorted they still demand more through more punitive taxes!  When does it all end!

For the Children!

3 Comments


“For the children” has been the mantra for modern day prohibitionist for quite some time, and why not? IT WORKS!  Who would dare not make sacrifices in the name of “the children”.

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

The question is does the science back up their claims? Not really!  A recent report shows childhood asthma rates are skyrocketing!

SPRINGFIELD, Mo.— Asthma nationwide is at an all-time high.  About 1 in 12 people in the U.S. now have asthma, an increase of more than 4 million in the last decade, and what’s most concerning is experts don’t know why.

Not only are there more people with asthma, but its costing those people billions of dollars more to treat the condition that’s not merely uncomfortable; it can be deadly.

Of course those of us fighting for freedom of choice and property rights have been using the following graph for years!

Then there is this new study on allergies.

MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand.

Writing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Robert Hancox (University of Otago, Dunedin) and colleagues explain that “the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the immune-suppressant effects of cigarette smoke protect against atopy.”

They go on to say.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”
They conclude: ”
The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it.
“Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

How can this be, you ask?

Well to understand that you would have to look at the rational behind a vaccine.

A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe. The agent stimulates the body’s immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and “remember” it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.

But they say that there is no safe level of second hand smoke!

Well, they ignore the first rule of toxicology.

EVERYTHING IS TOXIC, DOSE MAKES THE POISON.

From Yale

A substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within your body in a sufficient concentration (a high enough dose). The toxic effect of a substance increases as the exposure (or dose) to the susceptible biological system increases. For all chemicals there is a dose response curve, or a range of doses that result in a graded effect between the extremes of no effect and 100% response (toxic effect). All chemical substances will exhibit a toxic effect given a large enough dose. If the dose is low enough even a highly toxic substance will cease to cause a harmful effect. The toxic potency of a chemical is thus ultimately defined by the dose (the amount) of the chemical that will produce a specific response in a specific biological system.

“All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison….” Paracelsus (1493-1541)

So where do they get this no safe level from?

Well it’s called the LINEAR NO THRESHOLD  MODEL which was designed for radioactive materials and even that is in dispute!

NONE of the studies on second hand smoke have a linear dose response curve, NONE! So that is an out and out lie!  As a matter of fact they have no real dose response curve period. All they have is statistics taken from “observational studies” (surveys) and even the vast majority of them showed no statistical significance. The only way they could come up with any meaningful numbers was to cheat and use META-ANALYSIS which I have written
about.

But what about lung cancer, isn’t exposing children to second hand smoke increasing their chance of lung cancer?

We’ll, the fact is there was only one study that included children, yup just one. It was commissioned by the WHO (World Health Organization) and guess what, they came to the same conclusion as the above study. IT MAY HAVE A PROTECTIVE EFFECT!

No you say! Well first you have to learn a little on how to read a study, in particular you need to understand CI’s (Confidence Intervals) This from Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics

How to Interpret a Confidence Interval
When you see a confidence interval in a published medical report, you should look for two things. First, does the interval contain a value that implies no change or no effect? For example, with a confidence interval for a difference look to see whether that interval includes zero. With a confidence interval for a ratio, look to see whether that interval contains one.

Here’s an example of a confidence interval that contains the null value. The interval shown below implies no statistically significant change.

Here’s an example of a confidence interval that excludes the null value. If we assume that larger implies better, then the interval shown below would imply a statistically significant improvement.

Here’s a different example of a confidence interval that excludes the null value. The interval shown below implies a statistically significant decline.

Remember “ONE” OR 1 IS THE NULL POINT

Now to WHO’s study.

Results: ETS exposure during childhood
was not associated with an increased risk of lung
cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence
interval [CI] = 0.64–0.96).

If you notice they don’t mention the protective effect. But the numbers don’t lie. The entire CI is less then one, meaning a protective effect.  As a matter of fact children exposed to second hand smoke  have a 22% lesser chance of getting lung cancer.  As a matter of fact that was the only statistically significant finding of the study.  No wonder they tried to hide it.

So if there is research showing positive effects, why don’t we hear about it?  Why isn’t there more research done?

For that you have to know about the players involved and the role that “Big Pharma” plays, that alone would take dozens of posts.  Here is but one example.

Stanton Glantz started a group for non-smokers rights back in the 70’s. He was a key player in the 1992 EPA report(Which they got caught faking) and every subsequent Surgeon General’s Report. Here is his philosophy on doing research.

“…that’s the question that I have applied to my research relating to tobacco: If this comes out the way I think, will it make a difference [toward achieving the goal]. And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don’t know, then we don’t bother. Okay? And that’s the criteria.”
–  Written Transcript Of 3-Day Conference Called “Revolt Against Tobacco,” L.A., 1992

He is not the only one.  Much has been written on the “Scientific McCarthyism” within the neo-prohibitionist movement.

The funding an the ties between the movement and “Big Pharma” have also been well documented. Perhaps the person who has written the most on it is Dr Epstein from Prevent Cancer.  Another who points to the influence of “Big Pharma” on the neo-prohibitionist movement is former tobacco control trainer Dr Michael Siegel.  Mark from Clean Air Quality blogspot has written a lot on the subject.   Here is just one and here in Wisconsin I exposed a bit of astroturfing they did here. Suffice it to say they stand to make billions from the smoking cessation industry.  Well the rise in the asthma rates was an unexpected bonus for them, or was it?

So to you prohibitionist out there, ready to inoculate your kids?  Come on! SPARK ONE UP. . . Remember . . . “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN”

The Libertarian aka The John Galt Tavern

1 Comment


A business plan.

Having reread “Atlas Shrugged” it gave me some ideas for a business and am looking for other Libertarians to join me in this business. Since Wisconsin, Madison in particular is known for Progressivism/socialism and since it is the birthplace of John Galt’s motor it is appropriate that this movement start here.

The Libertarian

In the spirit of John Galt no Monopoly money printed by the Federal Reserve will be accepted. All purchases must be made in gold and silver which can be purchased at the attached Smoke Shop based on the current meltdown value of the coins. So a drink would cost $0.!! in silver. The business will be clearly marked at the entrance “Private Property,Smoking Allowed!” below will be a sign “Law enforcement must have search warrant”

In the spirit of John Galt no fines will be paid. I will sit in Jail (at a cost to the looters) While I fight the Constitutionality of “taking of private property for public use” If I lose I will sue the collectivist for “Equal Protection” as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. That everything that is of equal or greater risk as that of second hand smoke be banned from “public accommodation” which would include all public cooking.

Midas Mulligan Bank/Smoke Shop

In the spirit of Midas Mulligan the Monopoly money printed by the Federal Reserve will be exchanged for real money of gold and silver for a 10% processing fee.

The Smoke Shop will have two rolling machines The tubes will have the gold Midas $ sign on them. You can roll your own cigarettes at a cost of $1.00 in silver per 200.

Anyone want to be my partner?

i

Progressive Mythology ” The Level Playing Field”

2 Comments


In my fight against the draconian smoking ban I checked out MoGASP.  Now Martin Pion is a decent, but misguided man.  He is one of two pro-ban activist that I know of that allows dissenting opinions, Dr Michael Siegel’s being the first.

Acknowleging the integrity of Martin I still have to laugh at the hypocrisy and and conflicting statements in some of the posts. This is not intentional as I find Martin to be an honorable man. It is blind faith in the cause and faith in progressive ideals. The first statement is in fact the call for a “level playing field”

The speakers said the seven-month-old smoking ban did not provide a level playing field for businesses.
Ken Breier is an owner of Schottzie’s Bar and Grill in South County, which does not have an exemption.

What makes this statement a myth is the fact that the free market is the ultimate “level Playing field”, it was the smoking ban that created the unlevel playing field which brings us to the total hypocracy and dishonesty of the tobacco control movement. You see they frequently boast and claim the popularity of these smoking bans using carefully crafted polls.

I hear almost weekly from county residents that are thrilled with the new environment, and employees I talk with are also thrilled. A recent survey done for the American Cancer Society showed that voters really like this ordinance and want it strengthened.

I find it ironic that these activist don’t see the conflict in these statements, you see the “free market” is also the ultimate polling place, people will frequent businesses that cater to the wishes of their clientele. But is it the bars with exemptions that are calling for a level playing field, crying make them allow smoking? Of course not, based on these facts any intelligent person would question the integrity of these polls.

But this “level playing field” or “fairness” is a common cry of the progressives in order to rectify problems of their own design. Progressive states impose excessive draconian taxes which cause their constituents to seek relief through interstate sales. How do the progressives react to this? After all they handicapped local businesses with the draconian taxes, well instead of lowering the taxes they call for “fairness” or a “level playing field” They call it the “Main Street Fairness Act”

Tobacco control in Wisconsin is using similar tactics when it comes to tobacco taxation. They use carefully crafted polls to deceive the public. The exact wording of the poll was Closing the tax loophole so candy and fruit flavored tobacco products are taxed at the same rate as cigarettes. This of course is after planting in the minds of the interviewee that this was an act to protect children. The fact is, it is not children that smoke these, it is the elderly on fixed incomes. Any one that has tried these find them disgusting and would not appeal to children. Then they call for public funding of their lobbying efforts.

close tax loopholes that allow some tobacco products to be
taxed less than others and continue funding the Tobacco Prevention and Control Program

Is it proper for tax dollars to be spent on any lobbying efforts?

Progressive Scott Walkers Doublespeak!

1 Comment


Listen carefully as he artfully dodges the question. He does not answer the property rights issue or the role of the “Nanny State” Government.


He uses Doublespeak with the efficiency of the most ardent progressive.He claims “It works” but according to who? The anti-smokers and their Big Pharma allies who use questionable methodologies like Meta-analysis? Or the 20 to 25% of Americans who are discriminated against by government mandate, because of lifestyle choices? Or the business that are forced to eject long time customers because of this discriminatory mandate? Or is it the businesses complying and complaining that they have lost business to those not complying.

And what is the proof that it works. Is it the scores of anti-smoking studies that claim to be economic studies and measure everything except that which shows economic impact and that is revenue.

So no more doublespeak Mr Walker, Is it the role of government to dictate who a business chooses to cater too?

Older Entries