Tobacco Documents Online

Services of Mead Data Central, Inc. PAGE - 175 Cc3 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, November 14, 1986 MacNEIL: Usually, we run our essays at the end of the program. But tonight's is so pertinent to the discussion, we decided to let it play in. Thi's is Roger Rosenblatt°s analysis of why the President undertook secret dealings with Iran. ROGER ROSENBLATT: Some shock has followed Ronald Reagan's apparent blunder in dealing arms to Iran to free U.S. hostages in Lebanon. Howicould a President with an uncanny grasp of the public mind go off so deep an end so suddenly? In fact, the effort to free Individuals at a possible extreme cost is perfectly consistent with the way Reagan has always conducted the President's business. In forests of complex issues, Reagan likes to point to the trees, to Individuals. Think back to all you know of Ronald Reagan, and there is always some other person in the picture. Originally, that person was you, the individual tree he addressed with startling success in the 1980 Presi'dential debates. Pres. REAGAN: Are you better off than you were four years ago? ROSENBLATT: In the six years since, you have remained' preeminent in the President's vision. It is still you he addresses in weekly radio broadcasts and in television appearances, as he did'when he tried to put the best face on the Iran negotiation. Pres. REAGAN: I ask for your support, because I believe you share the hope for peace in the Mi'ddle East, for freedom for all hostages, and for a world f ree of terrorism. ROSENBLATT: Britain is America's ally. But in Reagan, that abstract agreement is brought to life by personification -- by the friends hip and ideological comradeship of Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Libya is America"s enemy. But that enmity glowers as a private hostility between Reagan and 1(hadafy. If free enterprise needs commending, Reagan.wiLl shed his spotlight on a Mother Hale of Harlem, as he did in the 1985 State of the Union speech, and elevate one woman to:an entire economic theory. If a war Is to be honored, a single veteran will stand beside the President, creating a tableau that speaks, if imprecisely, for itself. - Whatever sense one can make of the Iran deal may be traced to Reagan's microcosmic vision. Yet, that vision seems emotional; not rational. Reagan sees the world as individuals, because individuals embody feelings that stir his N own. In the case at hand, he apparently felt for the plight of the bostages, C and those feelings took precedence over his nation's stated policy of not IU trading with terrorists, over using accepted channels for intelligence ~ operations, over our declared neutrality in the Iran-Iraqi wa r. ~ In recent incidents Involving Nicholas Daniloff and the summit meeting in (~1 N Iceland, Reagan also focused on individual feelings. Daniloff's Imprisonment spurred Reagan to solve that problem alone, and not the problems that accrue to ~ it. In Reykjavik, he tried to charm Gorbachev the man, mindless of the fact W that Gorbachev is also a system. With:Daniloff and Gorbachev, Reagan's luck, not his vision, prevailed. With Iran, both his luck and his vision may have run dry. To a point, Americans will tolerate, even applaud, a President's leapfrogging of rules and restrictions, as long as they perceive a worthwhile goal ,~ ~ -. ,~~~® - r~ ~ ~ ~~ -~ ® L EXIS ® Efl~E)LIS' L~~ ~

Services of Mead Data Central, Inc. PAGE ' 176 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, November 14, 1986 achieved. But their tolerance will go quickly of they feel that Presidential self-assurance is giving way to recklessness. In the matter of Iran:, it Is hard to argue that a few lives now are worth what may be perpetual incentives for terror. In a way, the American people asked for what they got in this inciden t, by always having treated Reagan exactly as he always has treated the people. If Reagan has zeroed in on individual members of the republic to make his points, the republic has also zeroed in on and favored Reagan as a man:. Nbt the office, but the individual has garnered an attitude of all embracing trust. Yet, the country values principles as well as lives. And it remains a question whether the sight of a few freed hostages smiling warmly at the President's side will relieve the criticism that Reagan overlooked the forest for the trees. MacNEIL: Sometimes in Washington, the words of columnists in major newspapers give clues to public officials in shaping debates. That certainly has been the case in the Iran imbroglio, and two of the shapers are with us now. Charles Krauthammer is senior editor of the New Republic and a syndicated columnist. Suzanne Garment is a columnist with the Wall Street Journal. Starting with you, Charles Krauthammer, what is your comment on Roger Rosenblatt's view of this? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, New Republic: Weli, I think he focused'correctly on what the problem is, which was an obsessive and excessive focus by the President on individuals. And I think it resulted in a disaster -- a political disaster. MacNEIL: Suzanne Garment, what's your view of it? SUZANNE GARMENT, Wall Street Journal: From what I've been able to learn so far, the major objective was the opening to Iran. MacNEIL: In other words, you agree with some of the previous speakers -- Mr. Brzezinski and the two congressmen -- that the geopolitical motive was uppermost, and the hostage question secondary. Ms. GARMENT: That is the burden of the evidence so far. MacNEIL: And you don't agree with that, Charles Krauthammer. Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I think whenever people are in a tight s pot in Washington, they use the word strategic, and that makes them a geopolitician. It seems to me, in this case, the question of motives is irrelevant. The question is, what happened? And what happened was an obvious swap. This morning, Don Regan was asked on one of the news shows if this was a swap. An d his response was to rhetorically ask about Daniloff, was that a swap or was it not, as if It's still an open question. In this case, it"s not an open question. And I think it was a disaster for the United States to jeopardize its interest in the Middle East with the moderate Arabs and its standing in Europe on this issue over individuals. MacNEIL: Ms. Garment, what's your commen t? Ms. GARMENT: You know, if some hostages get freed in the course of a negotiation like this, I, for one, don't mind at all. The question, to my mind, is the question of what principle is in.the main governing the actions of the U.S. administration. And as far as I can tell, it was the strategic LEXIS IVEX 19® LEZi 1Z® k1FEJJ 4 m

Services of Mead Data Central, Inc. PAGE 177 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, November 14, 1986 consideration. MacNEIL: You -- Charles Krauthammer, you'd like a comment? Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: If I could make a comment,, I remain extremely skeptical about that. Look, last summer, a plane arrives in Tehran bearing arms. An6on the day it flies out, Reverend Weir is released in Beirut. And on the next day, the President calls the prime minister of Israel and thanks him. Now, did he thank him for arranging the coincidence? It seems to me quite obvious that w hat happened is, whatever the motives, what in fact happened was a trade of U.S. national interest against hostages held by kidnappers. MacNEIL: Ms. Garment, you wrote today in the Wall Street Journal, there is -- I'm paraphrasing you -- there is much less than meets the eye in this whole story. What did you mean by that? Ms. GARMENT: Simply that what happened in:the negotiations -- that is, the attempt to find the opening; the use of the hostages, the use of the arms -- is not -- does not strike me as politically immoral in the way that some commentators have made it look. Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: But I would argue that it's not a question of immorality; it's a question of a sound policy. We have been made the laughing stock of Europe. I mean, any policy which allows the French, who are the masters of cynical diplomacy, to look high minded, I think, is on its face a catastrophe. In this case, I think what's really happened is the administration has mounted what's called in Washington a campaign of spin control to make i't look as if this was a grand, strategic design. Where, in fact, it was a primitive hostage swap. MacNEIL: So you just disagree with the previous speakers that it only became a hostage swap or a hostage release lower down the line. You think it started that way. Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: Whatever the motive is or its evolution is irrelevant.What's relevant is what actually happened. What has the United States done? It wen t abroad berating allies for caving in to terrorism. It went abroad claiming that we have a strong interest in preventing Iran from winning the Iran-Iraq war -- which, in fact, we do. And all the time, it was dealing arms to Iran in the middle of that war in contravention to our policy and to our interest. ~ MacNEIL: Ms. Garment, you also wrote today at the end of your column words to Q this effect: that when -- if the administration gets a bit of breathing room IV now, people are going to start saying it was worth taking -- I don't have your 1V GO exact words down here -- but it was worth taking a long shot and perhaps losing an iLt. ~ Ms. GARMENT: Well, I wrote that taking a long shot was not the worst of ~ crimes, which is a little more guarded. ~ MacNEIL: Yeah. Ms. GARMENT: It was a long shot. And'for the moment, they seem to have lost. The damage is very real. But I suspect that there may be less shock and outrage among our allies than among our journalists. LEXISk!EXISLEXS ' ' F ' E"E Z6 3'

Services of Mead Data Central, Ina PAGE 178 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, November 14, 1986 MacNEIL: And in the public mind? Ms. GARMENT: Don't know. MacNEIL: The President sayd today most of the people woul6side with him on this. What's your hunch on that? Ms. GARMENT: Just don't know. MacNEIL: Charles Krauthammer, what is your hunch on whether the public will buy the explanations? Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: I think the public has a tendency to buy whatever the President offers. But our allies in Europe will not buy it. We already heard this evening the comments of the foreign secretary of Britain. And earlier today, Dennis Healy, who's the labor spokesman, found himself attacking Ronald Reagan from the right. I find that's an extraordinary event, and it shows how much this policy, this swap which we've arranged, has undermined our standing on an anti-terrorism policy in Europe. MacNEIL: Ms. Garment, you also wrote that opponents are using this as an excuse to start trying to roll back Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. Did-you mean.opponents inside the administration or outside? Ms. GARMENT: I was talking about outsiders. I hadn't been thinking about Insiders in the administration, although, of course, there's been dissension there as well. There's no doubt that there is great political hay to be made out of this, and it's being made. MacNEIL: Do you think it is going to have a significant, permanent impact on Mr. Reagan's ability to~conduct foreign policy for the next two years? Mr. Brzezinski, whom we talked to earlier, though it could;well. Ms. GARMENT: It could. MacNEIL: If the -- what do you think, Mr. Krauthammer? Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I suspect that this will die down over the next "ee k or two. There will be an attempt in Congress to revive it, but I suspect that that will not succeed. The President has an astonishing: to remain popular. I think the real damage is going to be abroad and among our friends in the Middle East and in Europe. And that damage, I think, could only be rectified i'f there was some principled resignation by people in charge, and I don't think that's going to happen. MacNEIL: Do you think that's the case, Ms. Garment -- that there should be some resignation in order to set this right? Ms. GARMENT: Well, this was a Presidential decision. There is not much doubt of it. And our system doesn't have much room for Presidential resignations over this sort of thing. MacNEIL: Right. We''ll move on. Charlayne? rn S' ' ." O 0 kEXILEXIS1iEXIS.

Services of Mead Data Central, Ina PAGE 179 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, November 14, 1986 HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Hyde, what do you think about that? How severely do you think the administration's policies abroad are damaged by this inciden t? Rep. HYDE: Let me say something in response to Mr. Krauthammer. I don't think we needed Bud t/cFarlane to risk his life for four days in Tehran and ot her overtures, if this was a primitive hostage swap:. That could' have been arranged at the U.N. without all of this cloak and dagger stuff. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, let me just get him to -- Rep. HYDE: There's much more than a primitive hostage swap, and the strategic Initiative has been going on for 18 months. It has to do with a lot of issues beyond the hostages. And I think it"s a gross oversimplification that is born out of not being familiar with the people involved, nor being briefed by the right people, to make that, I think, superficial conclusion. HUNTER-GAULT: You want to respond to that? Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I find it hard' to believe that Mr. Hyde is arguingg what really went on here was a grand strategic design. There's a report that this policy began in July of last year, after we realized that the Iranians had helped in the release of a few of the TWA hostages. Which would indicate that even at the origin there was an understanding that this was an avenue to releasing hostages. Rep. HYDE: But this was -- Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: And in fact, it may be true that there was no need to send McFarlane to Tehran to negotiate a primitive hostage deal, but that's in fact what happened. Rep. HYDE: Well, you say it happened. Mr. McFarlane doesn't say that happened. Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: Well, we had a hostage released, and we haven't had a great strategic realignment. '`Rep. HYDE: Well, in addition to that -- I just disagree, and I think the facts don't support Mr. Krauthammer's position. Superficially, they do. As to our allies, let me say this: a moderate Iran would be a boon to all of our ~ allies, Including Saudi Arabia, including Egypt, including Kuwait, including O Britain and France. And If our initiatives, if our negotiations can elevate a ~ faction within Iran whi'ch does exist and which is weary of the war and seeing N their 14 year old kids mowed down at the front, which is fearful of a Soviet Incursion similar to Afghanistan and which i's against terrorism, we would be crazy and derelict in our duty not to pursue that, and that's what the President ~ has done. It"s risky, but It was worth the risk, as Suzanne Garment said. N HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Aspin, let me just ask you, how severely damaged do ~ you think the administration is abroad, and if,, in fact, you think that the criticism now is aimed at further weakening the President. Rep. ASPIN: I think he is damaged, and I think that Charles Krauthammer is more right than wrong. Although I think that the distinction here is not a clear cut one. It isn't just was it geopolitical or was it hostages. I'm L ® '~~~® ® w ® fi~ ; ~~~i/ _ ~ ' ~ ~EZ-

Services of Mead Data Centralj Inc. W_ PAGE 180 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, November 14, 1,986 convinced now that it started out as a geopolitical goal, and it ended up as a base political swap. So the only thing that has happened so far, as Charles Krauthammer said, is the swap. And that, of course, is the focus of all the attention. The geopolitical goal may come later. But right now, what we've got Is a swap. And I think for that reason, it is very, very damaging. Because what has happened now is something that just has gone totally contrary to wha t we have been proclaiming publicly, totally contrary to any intelligent way to deal with the hostage situation, and totally contraray to everything that the President has said about the way we will deal with hostages. HUNTER-GAULT: All right, well let me -- let me just go back to Charles Krauthammer, because the other thing -- Suzanne Garment seems like the only person writing today, we've quoted her so much -- but the other thing she did say was -- I'm paraphrasing -- that the press has been hammering away at the administration to do something about the hostages, and then they do something about the hostages, and the press gets upset that they've done the wrong thing. I mean, is it a damne6if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation? Mr. KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I'm not a defender of the press, and I think those in the press who do say hostages are worth any price are wrong. But if I can ma ke one response to Mr. Hyde, whenever people argue that in.relation to the Soviets, we have to be nice, give credits and open trade and make concessions as a way to open an avenue to doves in the Kremlin, Mr. Hyde is the first to jump on It and to call this nonsense. Now we've concocte6a scenario in Iran which is exactly identical, with much less evidence of doves, and he's hanging his entire hat in this argument on the theory that, in fact, there are doves whom we are appealing to by trading arms. Rep. HYDE: Well, Mr. Krauthammer, if I can respond, I don't know how many doves there are. You call them doves. There's a moderate faction in Iran tha t I'm reliably informed is there and has power and has access, and I think we're crazy not to exploit It. And there are differences between. the Soviet Union and Iran, which is going through a transition. But let me just say this: the one plane load -- and we're told these spare parts and other defensive weapons would have fit into one cargo plane, although there were three deliveries -- in no way compares to the $150 million worth of armanents that the Carter administration proposed giving Iran in exchange for our 52 hostages, which never went through. But let's put it in historical context. HUNTER-GAULT: We don't have a lot of time to put it in historical context, Congressman. I'm sorry. Let me just ask you very briefly, is the President ~ going to be able to win over domestic critics in the United States, you think? 0 Just very briefly, Congressman Aspin, and then Congressman -- N Rep. ASPIN: Let me say taht I think that if this were the only thing that had ~ gone wrong, it would be a passing matter. But we're now on a roll, and the ~ President is on a real roll, and it"s all going downhill. C11 N HUNTER-GAULT: All right, well, we've got -- (~ Rep, ASPIN: We've had Daniloff, we've had the Iceland summit, and now we've ~ got Iran. Rep. HYDE: And I think the President comes out smelling like a rose on all of them -- especially the Iceland summit, where he told Mr. Gorbachev, "No, we're m ~ ® ® ~ o L ~`I'~.6~ ~'~~ L EX 13 I~ ~,3~ .. ~d(7

Services of Mead Data Central, Inc. PAGE 181: (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, November 14, 19B6 not giving up the SDL." HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, we'll just have to wait and see. Thank you, Congressman Hyde and Congressman Aspin for being with us, and Suzanne Garment and Charles Krauthammer. Second-Hand Smoke MacNEIL: Finally tonight, a new report on smoking. Passive smoking, or the inhaling of other people's tobacco fumes came under sharp attack today by a blue ribbon panel of scientists. They concluded in a major study sponsored by the federal government that passive smoking causes health problems for young children and spouses of smokers. The results were released today at a Washington news conference. We have reached three major conclusions:: one, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is clearly harmful to young children and infants by increasing the risk of respiratory illnesses; two, passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer In nonsmokers married to smokers; and three, passive smoking causes ve ry real acute effects in many nonsmokers, largely through irritation of the eyes, nose and throat, and'annoyance at the persistent odor. MacNEIL: Todayr''s report is bound to fuel the ongoing battle between smokers and nonsmokers, and it will undoubtedly lead to renewed calls to ban smoking from the workplace. One such battle is being fought in Washington State. For more on that story, we have a report originally broadcast in September from Lee Hochberg of public station KCTS, Seattle. LEE HOCHBERG (voice-over): On an average workday in Seattle, white collar workers cluster on the sidewalk, forced out of their offices to light up -- outside insurance companies and hospitals and television stations. Smoker: I don't mindi. 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 huddled around smoking outside. I think it's very j.uvenile, actually. Reminiscent of high school days. O HOCHBERG: What if they forced you outside to smoke? N Smoker: Somehow or another, that never has seemed to me to:be constitutional. ~ It's a legal activity. It's not illegal. ~ HOCHBERG (voice-over): That's the position of the tobacco industry, as ~ suggested by a spokeswoman on a recent Seattle television program. ~ (clip from NightSight) 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 .~ LEJ3S m ® R " EXI Z'LEXIS 1EJ3S

Services of Mead Data Gentralj Inc. PAGE - 182 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA. All Rights Reserved, November 14, 1986 efforts within the workplace, consideration given to the smokers as well as the nonsmokers. And that'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. HOCHBERG (voice-over): But legal experts say companies are within their rights to force cigarette smokers outdoors. The constitutioniprevents states from acting in certain ways, but not private employers. CORNELIUS PECK, University of Washington: We all admire those wonderful, f reQ 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-over): 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 112,000 workers. At theSeattle 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 OSTROM, Seattle Times: You know, I don't want to work -- have to be sick in order to work. I don't think the Times wants me to have to be sick to work either. HOCHBERG (voice-over): TheTimes says 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 tension, 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 rain, 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. H'oCHBER6: 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 O they're jockeying for space up against the wall to stay warm. N HOCHBERG (voice-over): But, even banished to the fire escape, some smokers N see a positive result. ~ Mr. RAPHAEL: I was smoking two packs of cigarettes a day whemI got here. w I'm smoking about a pack of cigarettes a day now. O HOCHBERG: So it"s helped. O Mr. RAPHAEL: Oh, it's helped. Yeah. LEXISIEXI$ 'LEXIG

Services of Mead Data Central„ Inc. I PAGE 183 (c) 1986 EBC & GWETA: All Rights Reserved, November 14, 1986 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 ssoking 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 1't? 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 habit. They're employing the whole gamut of treatment programs: hypnosis, psychoanalysis and, here at the Schick Center in.Seattle, aversion therapy. In: this program, a smoker is shut into a d'irty, smoky, little booth. 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 will soon be the rule; not the exception. BILL WEISS, Smoking Policy Institute: The notion that there are a bunctof_ militant. vou know. fist-ooundinq smokers out there screamin fallacious notion. That simply is not the case. 0 0 BOB ROSNER, Smokinq Policy Institute: This is somethin a 0 to have to oet used to that the ashtray In the cor in oin 0 to be as rare as the s 0 ittoon is. Simokin that aeople are 0 uora nv i runaen is on its way out. 0 ~ O N N ~ ~ ~ ~ HUNTER-GAULT: And now a final look at the top stories of this Friday. 04 President Reagan said the country wilIl support his secret negotiations with Iran. There was more criticism from Congress over the President's decision t o ship same weapons to Iran. And the United States imposed economic sanctions on Syria because of its links to terrorists. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Goo6night, Charlayne. That's the News Hour tonight. We'll see you on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night. ® kEXIS® ~ ® y~ ® ~~~ ~ it~ v ) ~' i1 ~'~' f. w i/~1ti ~