Tobacco Documents Online

Services of Mead Data Central, Inc. PAGE 202 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. A11 Rights Reserved, September 9, 1986 Israeli raids, so they have suffered quite a lot. But havi'ng"said that, the Islamic Jihad and such organizations are accused of several things,, amongst which that in seeking Iranian Identification, it is done at the expense of their Lebanese nationalism. They're also accused of having -- of seeking hegemony over the other groups in Lebanon. And Lebanon, as you know, Is a number of minorities where, if one of the minorities seeks hegemony over the others, it is a non-starter to begin with, and It blocks any reconciliation. HUNTER-GAULT: But basically they are associate6with or tied to Iran? Ms. DERGHAl4: It is widely understood to be so. But since we don't know the exact identity of the organization, then, again, other possibilities exist. Eu.t it is widely assumed and understood that they are associated with Iran. HUNTER-GAULT: And they are one group. I mean, we heard about Islamic Jihad last year and other times when,there've been these kidnappings. Is there the sense that these are all the same or that there are various cells independently operating? Ms. DERGHAM: Well, again, because we don't know enough, I can not answer this question. And perhaps especially, I don't know enough, but I also have heard the Islamic Jihad is not exclusive to Lebanon -- that there are other groups which have operated outside of Lebanon in the Islamic world which claimed association with Islamic Jihad. HUNTER-GAULT: What seems to be their goal? Ms. DERGHAM; Several, I suppose. I suppose you are asking me in terms of the particular kidnapping. They have identified the United States very much with Israel, due to the policies of the United States government on Middle East Issues. So it could be that they are seeking attention. It could be that they are seeking revenge. It could be that, for example, there have been rumors that Israel has -- is planning another offensive in Lebanon. It could be so that -- to shift that tension. I really don't know the answer to the exact motive, but what I can understand is that they have grievances, and yet the expression of these grievances -- the way they're portraying i't, in a way -- in many cases it has defied their own purposes. HUNTER-GAULT: It's been more than a year since there's been any kind'of kidnapping of an American citizen. Do you sense that there might be some N connection between the recent terrorist incidents in Turkey and Pakistarr, which Q is why this happened now? Or is to totally coincidental? N Ms. DERGHAM: Even the State Department -- I watched the briefing today -- and ~ even the State Department has said that they don't know the identify of the ~j people who have committed the Tu!rkey incident and Pan Am. So I don't really (f~ know. N HUNTER-GAULT: It's not -- ~ Ms. DERGHAM: I can not possibly speculate on that. HUNTER-GAULT: I know you said that there were a number of groups and!they were shadowy and so on, but is there any sense that inside Lebanon -- that in Lebanon, there is support for their actions, support for the group? ® ® ~ ® vt ®

Services of Mead Data Central; Ina PAGE 203 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved,, September 9, 1986 Ms. DERGHAM: Maybe there is support for some of the causes they stand for, when it comes to the Middle East issues.Some of them, for example, if it is t he plight of the Lebanese themselves, for example, being tired of consistent Israeli raids or for the Palestinian issue itself, is that I think there Is as euch -- if there is association with them,on these issues, there is also -- in general, the Lebanese are rather unhappy withithis blanket attack against American cultural institutions - academic institutions. I've heard many Lebanese -- the majority, I believe -- they object to this -- to the killing, of American culture, academic institutions, because it defies the character of Lebanon. HUNTER-GAULT: But what -- Ms. DERGHAM: Of Beirut, in particular. HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. What about the Lebanese government? I mean, do they have any control at all or any role to play in moderating or -- Ms. DERGHAM: A role -- everybody could have a role. Everybody could contribute. But the Lebanese government, as you know, lacks authority these days. And there is many, many Shi'ites who are operating on their own. And there is an attempt, twmever, at reconciliation -- reforms, political reforms. Yes, in terms -- Lebanese, amongst themselves, must start tolwork this out, and they have to start first. But also what is needed is support and contribution from other regional and internati'onal powers, including the superpowers, for these efforts at reconciliation. HUNTER-GAULT: I was about to say that, you know, in the past it's been said that Syria has a lot of authority in the region. What about powers like Syria, like Libya and so on? Do they have any authority, any role? Ms. DERGHAM: I don't believe Libya has any political authority -- political, I said'-- In Lebanon. But Syria, yes. Syria is closely associated with Lebanon, and it is trying. And it is the only player, in.fact, on the political front that is trying to play a role in bringing the Lebanese parties together -- factions -- and trying to find a solution for the Lebanese internal problem. But then again, if you point out the Syrian element, again, there is -- the Lebanese themselves must cease to have these marriages of conveniences of several different points. So it Is a contribution of the Lebanese which should be the paramount one in reaching anything for Lebanon. ~~ HUNTER-GAULT: Just very briefly, since the U.S. seems to be such a target O here, what Is it that your sense is that they might be expecting from the United: N States now? ~ Ms. DERGHAM: Oh, they want -- I mean, I know what they would -- not only this ~ particular group, but I know the majority of the Middle East; governments, ~ people, organizations -- they want a different United States policy on the N issues related to the Middle East. I mean, the United States is perceived as ~ the godfather of Israel. Isreal launches all its attacks and offenses with ~ American weapons. So all the masses of the Middle East and governments would like to see a more sympathetic U'.S. position towards their causes; not only an adoption of Israeli positions -- blanket adoption. So I don't know if this is the way that this is what they are trying to say to the United States or not. I don't know if they're trying, but there is a message to the United States

Services of Mead Data Central, Inc. PAGE . 204 (c) 1986' EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, September 9, 1986 government. I don't know if this is the way to tell it. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Thank you, Raghida Dergham, for being with us. Campaign '86: Senate Sweepstakes LEHRER: Now to some talk about U.S. politics and what is at stake In this off-year year of U.S. Senate and other important contests. Judy Woodruff has more. Judy? WOODRUFF: With this year's elections only nine weeks away, candidates across the country are already deeply engaged in their campaigns. The races getting most of the attention are those for the U'.S. Senate, because of the possibility that Democrats could'win back Senate control from the Republicans. To do so,• Democrats would have to have a net gain of four seats. (voice-over) Of the 34 Senate seats up this year, 22, or two thirds, are held by Republicans, leaving them heavily exposed. Among the most vulnerable is Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida, who is facing a stiff challenge fromthe current Democratic Governor Bob Graham. And in South Dakota, Republican Senator James Abdnor is lagging behind Democratic Congressman Tom Daschle, who is pressing hard on farm issues. Among the 12 Senate seats currently held by Democrats, there are also some vulnerable spots, particularly in those states where the Democrat incumbent Is retiring. In Missouri, the race to replace Senator Thomas Eagleton is now leaning~in favor of the former Republican Governor Kit Bond over Democratic Lieutenant Governor Harriet Woods. Meanwhile, in California, Democratic incumbent Alan Cranston is facing his toughest opponent in four elections -- Republican Congressman Ed Zschau. (on camera) Senate Republicans who need his help can virtually all count on a visit from President Reagan. With some 18 political road trips already under his belt, most of them for Senate candidates, the President made an appearance this week in California for Congressman Zschau. Pres. REAGAN: The election of Ed Zschau and control of the United States Senate is absolutely critical to the future of this country. If there was ever time for a maximum effort, that time is now. WOODRUFF: On his way back from California yesterday, the President stopped in Colorado, where Republican Congressman Ken Kramer is in a dead heat with Democratic Congressman Tim Worth In the race to fill the seat being vacated by Democratic Senator Gary Hart. Pres. REAGAN:. I didn't go to Washington to be a six year President. I didn't seek reelection just to protect the gains of the first term. There are too many exciting challenges still before America and too much business that stilL must be completed in these next two years. And I don't want my hands tied by a totally hostile Congress. WOODRUFF: To help us look at some of these races and the rest of the political landscape this fall, we have joining us two veteran political observers.First, Ed Rollins,, who managed President Reagan's reelection campaign in 1984 and is now~a private Republican consultant. An6Kirk O'Donnell, president of a Democratic think tank called the Center for National Policy. Hp was formerly the chief political adviser to House Speaker Tip O'Neill. Well, LEXIS

Services of Mead Data Centrall Inc. PAGE 205 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. A11 Rights Reserved, September 9, 1986 gentlemen, when the President talks about a totally hostile Congress, he's saying, that is, if the Senate goes Democratic, as the House is certain to go once again. What are the chances the Senate's going to go Democratic? Ed Rollins? ED ROLLINS, political consultant: Well, I think it"s certainly going to be a very difficult, uphill battle for the Republicans to hold control. If the election were held today, they'd probably have a one or two seat margin. But with eight or nine weeks to go and with so many incumbents to protect, they've got to win those open seats the Democrats have In order to maintain that control. WOODRUFF: So you're saying if the election were held today, the Republicans would come out ahead, but -- Mr. ROLLLNS: It would be very slim. WOODRUFF: Kirk O'Donnell? KIRK O'DONNELL, political analyst: Well I would say that if the election were held today, that the Democrats would probably come out ahead by a very slim margin. WOODRUFF: What about on election day? Mr. 0'DONNELL: Well, I think i't's a toss up. WOODRUFF: What difference does it make if the Senate goes Democratic? Mr. 0'DONNELL: I think it makes a big difference in terms of se tting t he agenda. Namely, the Democratic Senate could set the agenda in the same way that the Democratic House does today. For example, the President talked about a hostile Congress, but he came back to Washington to meet wi~th the leadership of the Democratic House, the bipartisan leadership from Congress. And the House ws already moving on a bipartisan drug bill that's going to be considered tomorrow. So setting the agenda on issues li'ke arms control would be very important. WOODRUFF: How important is it that the Senate stay in Republican hands? Mr. ROLLINS: Well, I think it's very, very important. I think, you know, first of all, Ronald Reagan is going to continue to try and set the agenda whether he has a Republican Senate or not. But I think it is very, very important to have allies in the Senate, to have the leadership of the committees, in order to try and move his agenda. If we had to deal only with the Democrats in the House and like-minded people in the Senate, I think the President would have had a great deal of difficulty in achieving some of the great successes that he's had over the last six years. WOODRUFF: I'm asking, because there's at least one political analyst who's been quoted in the last week or so as saying that it doesn't really make all that much difference, because whoever's elected'-- Republican or Democrat -- is going to be reflecting the views of the same constituents. Mr. ROLLINS: Oh, I don't think that's true at all. I think those committee chairmanships are so very, very Important. You know, youlcan just imagine the ® ® ® ~lE~lri ~~  SE Z'~ LEXIS IX4 Em t

Services of Mead Data Central, In¢. PAGE 206 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, September 9, 1986 President trying~to get through the Supreme Court nominations with Senatar Kennedy from Massachusetts being the chairman. It would be very, very difficult. And I just think it's just crucial for us to hold that Senate. WOODRUFF: Let's talk about some of the important races. Kirk O'Donnell, where would you say the Republicans -- which seats woul6you say the Republicans have the most to worry about in the Senate? Mr. 0'DONNELL: Well, I would agree with your assessment of the two seats in terms of Florida and South Dakota. I think they have to worry about North Carolina. They have to worry about Nevada. They have to worry about an open seat in Maryland. They have to worry about Idaho. I think Oklahoma and 6eorgi'a are looking much~better for the Democrats these days. • WOODRUFF: Would you buy that list? Mr. ROLLINS: I would buy that and maybe add one or two more. But I do want to state this: as of today, in any polls -- public polls or private polls -- the two incumbents that you mentioned are trailing. Both are very strong candidates and, I think, can come back. The three open seats on the Democratic side -- Missouri, Colorado, Louisiana -- are crucial to the Republicans holding the Senate. Today,, I would say we"re ahead in.two -- close margins -- and dead!even in one.I think there's no question the Republican open seats -- Nevada, Maryland -- are going to be very, very tough battles, but we have some outstanding candi'dates there, and I think we have some chances there. WODDRUFF: Do you two agree on the seats the Democrats have got to hang onto? Mr. 0'DONNELL: Sure. Start with,all the incumbents. Mr. ROLLINS: First of all, I think one of the great disappointments to us Is that there aren't more Democratic incumbents who are up~this time, and certainly those who are are in pretty good shape. There's not a Democratic incumbent behind today, which is unfortunate. WOODRUFF: Is there -- Mr. O'DONNELL: That's your point of view. WOODRUFF: What was that? I missed that. Mr. O'DONNELL: He says it's unfortunate. WOODRUFF: Is there an overriding national issue or issues that will affect most or many of these races? Mr. ROLLINS: To date there is not a national issue. In eight weeks, nine weeks, a lot can occur. I think the key concern of most Republicans is If the economy is perceived as going into a stale period and the Democrats can make that an issue -- that we're going to go back i'nto recession, even though we're not -- that may have an effect on one or two percentage points. And really all you're talking about Is a change In the environment of one or two percentage points, and quite a few seats could go down. L=

Services of Mead' Data Central, Inc. PAGE 207 (c) 1986 EEC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, September 9, 1986 WOODRUFF: Do you buy that, Kirk? Mr. O'DONNELL: Clearly, the Democrats are trying to focus and regionalize, at least in those states -- maybe 31 states -- that are suffering from sluggish economy at the moment a message. And the theme being that you don't need more of the same. You don't neet someone who's going to come to Washington and follow the leader. This is an effort that has just begun over the last couple of weeks, and I think it will be critical to Democratic success in November. WOODRUFF: Do you -- is that a smart -- Mr. ROLLINS: Well, it's certainly -- it's a good strategy, but I'm not sure it's a strategy that will work. You take one of the most heavily economically stressed areas of the farm community of this country. Someone like Bob Dole.,' someone like Chuck Grassley have been extremely effective spokespersons for their point of view and have differed with the President sometimes on agricultural issues, and I think are going to win overwhelmingly. So I don't think in every area it's going to work. WOODRUFF: But in some. Mr. 0'DONNELL: Clearly, it's a major factor in North.Dakota, and it's a major factor, obviously, in South Dakota. An6it can be a factor throughout a11 the farm states. I would like to make the point that Ed Rollins did a terrific job in 1984 in putting,forward a national theme -- that It was morning in America. In 1982, the Republicans had a clear national theme -- stay the course. In 1980, they had a strong theme, whi'ch was vote Republican for a change. I thin k in 1986, running theme-less, they've given advantage to the Democrats, because Democratic strength is, by definition, local strength in this country. And their inability to come forward with a theme is a serious deficiency in this election.year. WOODRUFF: Are the Republicans running theme-less, Ed Rollins? Mr. ROLLINS: Well, I think the President's agenda clearly is the theme tha t most Republicans are running on across the country. But I think the advantage W is -- WOODRUFF: Well, wait a minute. Let me stop you there. Is that a plus or a minus? N, Q. Mr. ROLLINS: I think it's a plus in the sense that the President still holds ~ very high popularity numbers. Traditionally, iathe sixth year, an incumbent (~ President usually is a draw on the ticket -- a drag on the ticket. This ~ President is very popular, and I think that his ability to raise money and his ~ ability to campaign -- he will probably save one or two incumbent senators by N his last minute visits this ear and I think that's very important , , y . ~ . Mr. O'DONNELL: His personal popularity is not a theme, though. He's -- ~ Mr. ROLLINS: Well, his programs are, and I think -- Mr. O'DONNELL: Well, but his -- the situation he has at the moment is that he"s seeking bipartisan sup ort for his revenue prog ram, which is tax reform. You have bipartisan cooperation in Congress on spending. So the refrain that LEX!StX!S ~' ® ~_ ~ ® LEK- IS  V~® ~ ® EZ:- 13

Services of Mead Data Central, Inc. PAGE 208 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, September 9, 1986 you've heard for years, which is an effective refrain -- tax and spend -- is not available to him as he travels around the country this time. Mr. ROLLINS: Well, I think there's no question, Kirk, if the Speaker and you were still setting the agenda, we'd still be spending more and taxing more. But I think the key thing is that the President's popularity has got the Republican pool of support higher than It's ever been before. And I think it becomes ve ry, very Important that he mobilize voters. And I think the key to this election is going to be what kind of turnout is there? Is there any great enthusiasm, on t he part of your voters or our voters? And if there is not, then who knows what's going to happen? WOODRUFF: Is he going to go around and help every single Republican senator? Mr. ROLLINS: Well, he can't possibly help every Republican senator, but he'is WOODRUFF: Well, I mean the ones who are in tough races. Mr. ROLLINS: There"s no question. He already has. He has done more than anyy president inimodern history. In '82 he had done more. He exceeded that in early `85. '86 he's already surpassed that. So I think there's no question he's going~ to go to the maximum. Mr. O'DONNELL: Well, he did it in '82 in North Carolina, and it didn't have Mr. ROLLINS: Did i't in Nevada in '82, and -- Mr. 0'DONNELL: -- the sort of effect he'd like. And he won 377 House districts in the campaign that you managed in 1984. And he had virtually no coattails. So as long as he's going out and personalizing it, as he has in his speeches so far, I think he's missing the boat. Mr. ROLLINS: Well, I don't think he's -- I think that he clearly is going to help some incumbents, and that's the key factor. He has raised -- one of the advantages that certainly is going to make a difference is the fund-raising ability of the President, and he went out and raised a million and a half dollars for Ed Zschau the other day, put some momentum in his campaign, raised $800,000 for Ken Kramer yesterday. That certainly is going to have anieffect. Mr. 0'DONNELL: Sure does. WOODRUFF: You don't dispute that. What about -- Mr. 0'DONNELL: I would make a point -- that that fund raising isn't going into generic advertising by the Republican party to put forward a theme in this campaign. WOODRUFF: Generic -- you mean national. Mr. 0"DONNELL: Right. WOODRUFF: What about -- a:couple of people have -- it's been written recently that this anti-drug effort that's underway, both on the part of the Democrats ® ® ® '90ft ~~~~~~

Services of Mead Data C:entral; Ina PAGE ' 209' (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, September 9, 1986 and the Republicans, may turn out to be an issue. Do you -- either one of you think it will? Mr. ROLLINS: There's a tremendous concermamong the American.public among drugs. I think both Democrats and Republicans are out there advocating toughh drug programs, and so I don't think, unless an incumbent member of Congress or challenger has a record of weakness somewhere and supported legalizing mari'ju ana or not tough on drug enforcement, will It be an advantage to anyone. WOODRUFF: rou go along with that? Mr. 0'DONNELL: I think it will be local. And I think, again, this is another example of how differences are not being defined between Republicans and Democrats -- namely, that this i's a bipartisan approach that Congress i's taking, and therefore doesn't lend itself to a national theme. WOODRUFF: And you're saying neither side really helps in that. Mr. ROLLINS: We feel bipartisanship works much better if we have a Republican Senate. Mr. 0"DONNELL: We like it with a -- WOODRUFF: Ed -- we know what you were going to say. Ed Rollins, Kirk O'Donnell, thank you both for being with us. Mr. 0'DONNELL: Thank you very much:. Fumes at Work LEHRER: Finally tonight, a report on!the ongoing!battle between smokers and nonsmokers. It's over turf -- specifically, efforts to ban smoking! in the workplace. One sharply fought battleground is in the state of Washington. Lee Hochberg of public station KCTS, Seattle, has more. LEE HOCHBERG {voice-over}: On an average workday in Seattle, white collar workers cluster onithe sidewalk, forced out of their offices to light up outside insurance companies and hospitals and television stations. N ~ Smoker: I don't mind. It's cut down my smoking. HOCHBERG: It has cut down your smoking. ~ Smoker: Cut it in half. ~ Smoker: I don't think it's a very professional look for the company to have ~ people huddlediaround smoking outside. I think it's very juvenile, actually. (~ Reminiscent of high school days. HOCHBERG: What if they forced you outside to smoke? Smoker: Somehow or another, that never has seemed to me to be constitutional. It's a legal activity. It's not illegal. E L - Es w x~~ kEXES L E~~S L'XES

Services of Mead Data: CentralJ Inc. PAGE 210 (c) 1986 EBC & 6WETA. All Rights Reserved!, September 9, 1986 HOCHBERG (voice-over): That's the position of the tobacco industry, as suggested by a spokeswoman on a recent Seattle television program. (clip from HightSight) ANN BROWDER, The Tobacco Institute: We're saying it's a legal and lawful product, and anyone who chooses to use the product should be able to use the product. That's all that we're saying. We're saying that there should be efforts within the workplace, consideration given to the smokers as well as the nonsmokers. An6that's a situation that should be worked out within the indivi'dual workplace. We don't think that there should be any type of uniform law restricting the use of tobacco products. HOCHBERS (voice-over): But legal experts say companies are within their :, rights to force cigarette smokers outdoors. The constitution prevents states from acting in certain ways, but not private employers. CORNELIUS PECK, University of Washington: We all admire those wonderful, free spirits who feel so good and happy when they work that they love to whistle while they work, but if the employer decides that that interferes too much with the production In the plant, the employer most certainly may say, "There's no whistling while you work in this plant." They say the same thing about smoking. HOCHBERG €voice-overl: With the law on their side, hundreds of Seattle companies have snuffed out smoking. The Northwest's largest employer, the Boeing Aerospace Company, is gradually Imposing a total ban on smoking for its 1:12,000 workers. At the Seattle Times news room, cigarettes, cigars, pipes have been prohibited ever since these two reporters pushed for a no smoking policy two years ago. They say they were fed up with their colleagues who refused to use desk-top air purifiers provided by the management. CAROL OSTRQf1y Seattle Times: You know, I don't want to work -- have to be sick iniorder to work. I don't think the Times wants me to have to be sick to work either. HOCHBERG (voice-over): The Times say there's no indoor space with,adequate ventilation to serve as a smokers lounge. So now Times journalists who smoke have to find another way to work off news room tensi'on, like chewing gum. Or they have to find their way to the fire escape. Here, accompanied by the whir and whine of motors and air compressors, they can enjoy a quick smoke. And smoking on the fire escape can mean braving rafn, snow and wind. RICK RAPHAEL, Seattle Times: In the winter, this is really rough out here. The only salvation for us Is this. This is exhaust, and It gets warm, radiates heat, so we stay warm out here. HOCHBERG: So you huddle close to the chimney here. Mr. RAPHAEL: Oh, yeah. It's funny. It's really funny, you know. You get out here, and there will be five or six people out here smoking,cigarettes, and they're jockeying for space up against the wall to stay warm. HOCHBERG (voice-over): But, even banished to the fire escape, some smokers see a positive result. LEJ,;~3 I- m r. s" v r, s " &nEr" ELi M " ' - 0

Services of, Nlead' Data Central, Ino. PAGE 211 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, September 9, 1986 Mr. RAPHAEL: I was smokingitwo packs of cigarettes a day when I got here. I'm smoking about a pack of cigarettes a day now. HOCHBERG: So it's helped. Mr. RAPHAEL: Oh, it's helped. Yeah. .RICK ANDERSON, Seattle Times: Every step like this reduces the attractiveness, the attraction of smoking. Every step like this adds to the sort of psychic costs of the habit. HOCHBERG (voice-over): By discouraging employees from smoking, theSeattle Times says it's saving on health care costs, though it doesn't yet know how much. Its smoking policy does help it retain its preferred status on property casualty insurance, and that saves the paper upwards of $200,000 a year. Therapist: How bad is it? Smoker: It's awful. Disgusting. HOCHBERG (voice-over): The benefits to employers are so great that many of them are spending thousands of dollars to help their employees kick the habilt. They're employing the whole gamut of treatment programs: hypnosis, psychoanalysis andy here at the Schick Center in Seattle, aversion therapy. In this program, a smoker is shut into a dirty, smoky, little both. Electrodes clipped to an arm deliver electric shocks as the smoker is required to quick-puff cigarettes until her mouth is uncomfortably hot. It's all intended to associate smoking with unpleasant sensations, so the smoking employee loses the craving to smoke. Therapist: Is the impulse on your arm strong enough? Is it irritating? Smoker: I probably could use it a little higher. Therapist: Okay. HOCHBERG (voice-over): More than 20 companies around Seattle are putting employees through the program at $345 per person. In just one year, corporations have paid Schick $130,000 to get their employees off smoking. And, bizarre as the treatment may be, Schick says more and more employees are lining up to take it. That may be the most surprising part of this anti-smoking trend -- how willing smokers have been to accept the no smoking policies; indeed, to take advantage of them to help them break the habit. It's an attitude that makes anti-smoking crusaders like Bill Weiss and Bob Rosner confident tha t smoke-free workplaces wi1L soon be the rule; not the exception. BILL WEISS, Smokin Policy Institute: The notion that there are a bunch of militant. you know, fist-pounding smokers out there screaming rights issues is a fallacious notion. a simpZy is not tne case. BOB ROSNER, Smoking Policy Institute: This is somethin that eo le are oino to have to get used to -- that the ashtraY in the corporate environment is going to be as rare as the spittoon~i S. Smok ing is on its way ou t e~t LEXIS ° f~,°EZ- FS' E €XESa `!`E~"E3