Tobacco Documents Online

330 West 42nd Sheet New Ydk NY. 10036 715 Boylston Sheet 8osten, M4 02116 190 East Ninth Avenue, Denwr. CO 80203 (212) 736-2010 (617) 266-2121 (303)C61-7152 3434 WestSixih Street LosAngeles CA 90020 8111 L8J Fieewuy, Dallas, TX75251 630 Oakwuvd Avenue. West Fiartford, CT 06110 (21J) 3d0-5011 (214) 644-9696 (203) 246-18e9 212 West Supenoa SYreet, Chicago,lL 60610 (312) 649-1131 1066 Natbnal Press 8uilding, Washington, DC 20045 (202) 393-7110 1951 Fourth Avenue, San Diego. CA 92101 (619) 544-fA60 1930 Che shwt Sheet. Phllade/phia. PA 19103 (215) 569-4990 10260 Westhelmer, Hbusfc+n, TX 77042 (713) 789-1635 577 Hoaard Sfroet San francisco. CA 94105 (415) 543-3361 2125 BLscoyne Boulewrd.M1ani, FL 33137 (30) 576-W1 A Affiliate DATE July 17, 1990 TIME 12:00-1:00 PM STATION WPTA-TV(ABC) Channel Twenty-One LOCATION Fort Wayne, In. PROGRAM 21 Alive News TaMscRIPr Jane Hersha, co-anchor: (Graphic: 55 million Americans smoke according to estimates from the Philip Morris Company.) Tobacco and smoking: It's been part of America since the first settlers. Jeff Gilbert, co-anchor: Sir Walter Raleigh brought the golden leaves back from England (sic), and the tobacco industry has been going strong ever since. And since the surgeon general came out with the first report on smoking in the 1960s, there's been a growing number of people speaking out against the habit. Hersha: In the past few years, groups on both sides of the smoking issue have become more militant; anti-smoking groups calling for an almost total ban on smoking in public areas, and pro-smoking groups decrying what they feel is a total infringment on their right to smoke. Well, that's the topic that we're going to discuss on "Liveline" today. Joining us live in our studio is Dr. Frank Byrne, a local pulmonologist who was one of the people who pushed for the total smoking ban at Parkview Hospital here in Fort Wayne. And via satellite from our Washington bureau, Thomas Lauria of the Tobacco Institute, which is a non-profit group founded by the tobacco industry to present its views in tobacco-related issues. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us, first of all. Tom Lauria (Tobacco Institute) : Good afternoon. TIMN 400299 Hersha: It's obvious we probably have some differing opinions from the positions that both of you hold, and in light of the recent evidence and long-standing evidence concerning smoking and the hazard to the health, how does the tobacco industry still take its stand that smoking is not hazardous to our health and continue to promote the activity? Lauria: I don't think the tobacco industry denies that there is a body of evidence which associates smoking with risk factors and health problems, but we also recognize that our sixty million adult customer-base in the United States continues to choose to use the product. Hersha: OK, Dr. Byrne, you have extreme concerns about smoking and have worked to ban it in several of our public places. '':~.~ L 0539251 Videocassettes are available in any fmmat for a period ~ 31 days from air date, aud'~o coss

-2- Dr. Frank Byrne (Pulmonologist): I think the Tobacco Institute- finally acknowledging, based on Mr. Lauria's comments, that indeed there is a valid body of scientific evidence that associates smoking with disease and death is laudable. I think what smokers choose to do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. However, their right to smoke literally stops where my nose begins, I guess. There is certainly an adequate body of scientific evidence that also supports the link between passive smoking- that is, sidestream smoke or you experiencing another's cigarette smoke- and disease and even death now, based on recent studies. Lauria: I would like to challenge that. I think that of the twenty-four studies that the Environmental Protection Agency is looking at in draft form, eighteen have shown no statistically significant increase in risk in non-smokers who in fact are exposed to one level or another to tobacco smoke in the air. The five studies that do show an increase in risk statistically are foreign studies of which many have questioned the background data on. It's- it's really premature to try to use secondhand smoke as a- as another weapon against people that choose to smoke. It belies the central theme in America of fairness. Smokers aren't second-class citizens and the most recent efforts to ban them in public is an- is an attempt to take away first class citizenship from a group of people that are our friends, neighbors and relatives and co-workers. It just doesn't seem fair. Hersha: OK, Dr. Byrne? Byrne: First of all, I think one has to take issue with Mr. Lauria's comments. Well, indeed, he says many do not accept the statistical significance of these studies. The many who don't accept- accept them are probably all working for the Tobacco Institute. The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the U.S. Public Health Service, the World Health Organization and the American Lung Association, among others- the American Heart Association- all accept the statistical validity of studies showing that secondhand smoke is linked with disease. The surgeon general first issued his warnings on secondhand smoke in 1986. The EPA's recently released data, which in fact is still in final editing stages, only confirms and rehashes that data, which is accepted by the scientific community. Who does the Tobacco Institute represent? They represent the tobacco companies; they do not represent smokers. Hersha: I tell you what- I tell you what, gentlemen; we have some smokers on the line who want to talk with each- not smokers, some callers. We don't know if they're smokers. Let's take a listen. Yes, caller, go ahead. You're on the air. Unidentified Caller #1: Yes, I simply have a comment. I am a smoker, and I think that non-smokers do have the right to tell us not to smoke. It's all- it's all- it's in respect; you have to have respect for other non-smokers, and I even find it sometimes very rude when a smoker in a- in a closed in area without a window or something- and they light up. I think that's offensive, and I- it's siAtply respect. TIMN 400300 '1][JUL., 053a252

-3- Hersha: Thank you. Lauria: I agree with you. Byrne: I would like to echo that. I think if we could remove some of the emotionalism, and I think that the Tobacco institute has been one of the leaders in polarizing, by Philip Morris' campaign to attach smokers' rights to the Bill of Rights and all these smokescreen campaigns that they have- I think they've been one of the primary forces promoting an emotional response to this. I think that our caller is right on here; it's a simple matter of respect and courtesy, and in fact, reliable polling organizations such as the George Gallup organization, in studies that they have taken independently, have shown that most smokers support bans on smoking in public places. Lauria: Not total bans on public smoking. That's- that's egregious to imply that. What- what you propose are unilateral bans. What we propose is merely a common ground to accommodate both the interests of smokers and non-smokers. There's no reason why, in large airports, in office lobbies- there are plenty of places technically, in public, where there's room for both smokers and non-smokers. I'm not saying deny non-smokers their privileges; what I'm saying is make room for both. Hersha: OK... Lauria: ...percent of the American public smokes. They're not an incidental group. Hersha: OK, I tell you what. We've got to take a break. We've got more callers on the line. Get your call there at 483-811 and we'll be back shortly. (commercial break) (Graphic: The tobacco industry directly employs 700,000 people . It takes in $42 billion a year.) Hersha: OK, we find that you employ a lot of- thousands of people in the tobacco industry and many thousands of dollars. We have a caller on the line right now though. Go ahead, caller. You're on the air. Unidentified Caller #2: I agree with Dr. Byrnes one hundred percent, and I think it's more than just a matter of respect. I think that the non- the smoker has caused- has been the cause of more health hazards- cancer, fires in apartment buildings and homes through their smoking- also airplanes. I think that the only safe place that a smoker should smoke would be outside, and I believe that that is not taking anybody's rights away. They have a right to smoke, but it should be in a safe environment and indoors is not safe, really. I don't believe it is. Hersha: Thank you, caller. We have another caller on the line. Go ahead. Go ahead, caller. T . L 0539253 TIMN 400301

-4- Unidentified Caller #3: Yes, I'd like to say that I feel we definitely have the right to ask smokers not to light up around us. I think our freedoms have always ended where the other person's began, and even though we have the right to destroy our_own bodies by smoking, we certainly don't have that right to inflict that on others. I have a daughter who's severely allergic to smoke, and if we go out to eat in a restaurant and happen to be seated near the smoking section, it can ruin our evening, and she's sick for the next twenty-four hours. So, I feel a definite right that we have to ask people not to light up. If I can- we can drive our sports car a hundred and twenty miles an hour down the highway and hurt ourselves, but we don't have the right to endanger other people. Hersha: Thank you, caller. We have another caller on the line. Go ahead. Yes, caller, go ahead. Unidentified Caller #4: Yes. My opinion is- on smokers' rights, I think that we all have our own rights and this is America, and I think that other people have their rights too. I do not smoke in people's houses; I ask first. I do not smoke in their cars, etcetera, etcetera, but I have the right like everybody else in a public place, and I think that government or Fort Wayne City or whatever needs to make space for all people. Hersha: Doctor? Byrne: I don't think anybody- despite what Mr. Lauria says, I don't think that anybody is calling for a complete and total ban of smoking in public places. What we are asking is that each worker, each individual, has a right to have a smoke-free environment, a smoke-free workplace, a smoke-free trip to the mall. That is their right. Again, you talk about the rights of the public; three-quarters of the public do not smoke and do not wish to be exposed to smoke. Lauria: Well, I mean... Hersha: Mr. Lauria? Lauria: I- I will challenge that. What is behind Dr. Byrne's words is a ban on public smoking. I agree with some of the callers inasmuch as on a one-to-one basis, individuals have a complete right- non-smokers who are- who are in the presence of a smoker are annoyed by it. No one questions that smoking can be an annoyance to some, but to say a majority of the public of the United States is demanding smoke-free environments is merely false. We've been polling people every single year, and we have found that seventy-six percent of the American public as recently as last November have stated- have said that they believe smokers should have at least an area in every public place to smoke if they want to. it's called tolerance, and since so many of our friends, neighbors and relatives smoke, it's only natural the American public would have understanding and outreach towards them. Gilbert: All right, thank you, Mr. Lauria. Dr. Byrne, I'm going to let you respond to that in just a moment. Right now, we'll take a break; we'll come back with your calls. TIFL 0539254 TIMN 400302

-5- (commercial break) Hersha: Looking at smokers and smokers' rights, and Dr. Byrne, you have a comment- a response to Mr. Lauria. Byrne: I don't think it's surprising that Mr. Lauria's data from his organization goes against that of other credible polling organizations such as the Gallup Organization. After all, the Tobacco Institute has spent the last twenty-five years denying the forty thousand studies that link smoking with disease. The data on secondhand smoke and disease is likewise quite solid; it extends to a recent study done at the Medical College of Virginia in the heart of the tobacco-growing areas in Richmond, Virginia, showing that the children of smokers had a higher incidence and an earlier incidence of heart disease and stroke. So, it's really not surprising- I'd like to look to more credible organizations for my scientific information. Think about this: Antonia Novella, the current surgeon general, estimates that if current smoking rates persist, five million children that are currently alive in America will die of smoking-related disease. Hersha: Thank you, doctor. Mr. Lauria, do you have some closing comments? Lauria: A couple. One, current smoking rates aren't persisting; in fact, the market is declining by two percent a year. But let's keep something in mind. See those columns behind me? The top of those columns are tobacco leaves. Tobacco is an entrenched cultural tradition in the United States; whether it's on the decline or not is irrelevant. People, consenting adults, choose to use the product and should basically be allowed, within certain reasonable limitations, to continue to do so. They don't need Big Brother social-engineering their lives. Hersha: OK, we thank both of you gentlemen for being with us. You have each presented us additional facts, reminded us of thoughts on both sides of the question, so that you may make your decision. We thank you for joining us on "Liveline" today. # # # TIFL 0539255 ® TIMN 400303