Tobacco Documents Online

~ ~~~•.11 RADIO TV REPORTS, INC. 4 701 Ufl_..1"'lJCD /'1Vtir•VUC. 7Yf'1J`11NGiLiN. L-) C 2LC 1~ FOR THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. PROGRAM ST.anGtv W E TA F M Whose Rights" NPR Network Town Meeting: "Smoking: DATE August 23, 1979 10:30 AM v~ Washington, DC `IIIBJCCs Fu I I Text RICH FIRESTONE: Welcome to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. I'm Rich Firestone with another in the series of National Town Meetings. Today's topic is "Smoking: Whose Rights?" The panelists are John M. Pinney, Director of the Department of HEW's Office on Smoking and Health; John F. Banzhaf IJI, Executive Director, Action on Smoking and Health; and William Dwyer, a Vice President of the Tobacco Institute. Now, here is the moderator of.today's National Town Meeting, Frank Fitzmaurice of National Public Radio. FRANK FITZMAURICE: Good morning, and welcome to National Town Meeting. Today's topic is "Smoking: Whose Rights?" It's been 15 years now since the Surgeon Generals report on the he4ith hazards of smoking toba-cco:`_`More recently, though, the public has been bombarded with information on the hazards of not smoking -- or, more precisely, the effects of other people's tobacco smoke on the nonsmoker. H The American Medical Association said a few years ago that at least 34 million Americans can be considered sensitive to other people's cigarette smoke, in one way or another. T'~?.~ While research continues into what's really in cigar- ette smoke and such things as the development of a safe cigar- ette, the focus of the cigarette debate has now shifted from health to civil rights. The Tobacco Institute has been sharply critical of national and local efforts to restrict public smo- king, calling It an assault on the smoker's personal freedom. The opposition, most notably the Action on Smoking and Health QFPCzS tN r.E: ro,'<K • • cHiCaGO • D, T• AND O+riER PRiNGPAL GTtES +/a er a x G-.. ea oy aoo op r.er~or s. ,c ^wy e sec ' t. e^^ 2`e e xe F r esCS a-'Jy N -naY r•C G& fEr rA,.cc~7 5d0 or ry•U.^: y aH~,p+l5tiotBtl Cx 3xni0000. .

2 group, has been equally militant, from promoting the economic benefits of smoke-free workplaces to employers, to promoting no-smoking sections on airplanes, trains and buses. They've coined a phrase, too. They call it involuntary smoking. And chances are, in your hometown measures for restricting smoking in restaurants, offices and public buildings are now being debated, or may actually be already in force. Then there's the federal government. In January 1978, then-HEW Secretary Joseph Califano announced a major-federal anti-smoking campaign aimed mainly at reducing the cigarette habit among the nation's teenagers. He called it public health enemy number one. Shortly thereafter, Califano himself became public energy number one in North Carolina. And the political fallout from Tobacco Row should not be discounted in any discussion of Califano's recent involuntary resignation. Just this past January, the current Surgeon General released another report, restating and expanding the 1964 fin- dings, underlining the particular risks to women who smoke. Pregnant smokers, the report said, give birth to sma(ler and less healthy babies. But the report was inconclusive on the subject of involuntary smoking, to coin that phrase. The evidence, it said, is too new and too limited to determine if somebody elsets smoke •is a hazard to your health. John M. Pinney, here today, our first speaker, as Director of HEW's Office on Smoking and Health, supervised the preparation of that 1200-page document. His office is respon- sible for managing HEW's anti-smoking publicity campaign and for collecting and distributing the latest scientific informa- tion on the subject. Mr. Piriney. JOHN M. PINNEY: Thank you very much. I think it'd be very useful for this audience to know a little bit about how the federal government and, for that matter, the major voluntary health agencies in this country -- the Cancer Society, the Lung Association, the Heart Association got into the business of warning people about he hazards of smo- king. Cigarette smoking didn't really take off in American until about 1915. From that time onwards, cigarette consumption increased. By about 1955, over half the men in this country smoked cigarettes regularly. ,Ir T1.1.39,12 TIMN 0112754

3 As early as the 1930s -= and on a National in 1939, for example -- scientists expressed concern ette smoking, mostly as the result of an increase in of lung cancer. In 1930, less dying of this disease. By the 18,000. And, incidentally, in Town Meeting about cigar- the incidence than 3000 people were listed as 1950s, this number had grown to 1979, the number will reach 100,000. By the 1950s, the evidence implicating smoking as a cause of iiiness and death became overpowering. And this led, in 1962, to a request from President Kennedy that the federal govern- ment assess the problem. The request came from those same volun- tary health agencies -- Cancer, Lung and Heart -- and from the American Public Health Association. The result was the 1964 Surgeon General's report, which established the relationship between smoking and disease and death. The findings of that report have since been endorsed by virtually every country and every medical society in the world. With the publication of the 1964 report, cigarette smoking began to inch downwards, in terms of per capita consump- tion and in terms of the percentage of U.S. population who smoke. Today, only about 37 percent of men smoke, compared to 57 percent in the middle-1950s; and about 30 percent of women. And per capita consumption of cigarettes is lower now than at any time since 1958. Last January, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued the report that Frank mentioned, a 15th anniver- sary report, bringing up to date the enormous amount of research which had been accomplished since 1954. This report, 1200 pages, was roughly three to four times as large as the report issued in 1964, and was an accurate reflection of the increased evidence linking smoking to disease. Some of the research was financed by the tobacco indus- try. The evidence added up to an even more damaging indictment of smoking than that that was issued in 1964. Today I want to be as respons i ve to th i s aud i ence as I can, but I want you to remember that I'm an administrator and not a physician or a scientist. I will not attempt, as a layman, to talk about medical or scientific questions. I will, however, attempt to get questions answered after this meeting if they're beyond my ability to answer. I'd like to make one other point. Although I'm a government employee, I don't want anyone to think that the smoking and health issue is some kind of battle between govern- ment and private industry. The struggle to contain the health effects of smoking was started a long time ago by physicians and scientists and health agencies and educators. And in my TIMN 0112755 T•~a.3agr+.3 TS .

4 opinion, the federal government was a Johnny-come-lately to this public health problem. But we are principals now. Thank you. FITZMAURICE: Thank you, Mr. Pinney. [Appiause] FITZMAURICE: Our next speaker is Mr. William F. Dwyer, Vice President of the Tobacco Institute, a nonprofit organization whose members are the tobacco product manufacturers. Mr. Dwyer's a frequent commentator on issues involving tobacco and cigarettes. You may have heard him defending smokers' rights on any one of his numerous public appearances. Mr. Dwyer has worked for the federal government and is also a former broadcast journalist. Mr. William Dwyer. WILLIAM DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Fitzmaurice. Mr. Pinney, Mr. Banzhaf, ladies and gentlemen. I thought, after what John Pinney said about how much has. been imparted, it might be useful to test the level of aware- ness of this audience on these asserted health effects of smoking. I'd like to conduct a 14-word recitation for you, and then ask, at its conclusion, if those who are meeting this information for the first time would so indicate by raising their hands. Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health. May I see the hands of those for whom this is a new piece of information, hearing it for the first time? No. I've asked that question, I guess, before thousands, and never seen a hand. Frank, if I do, we'll call National Public Radio so that your news department can interview a cave dweller. For discussion and debate, let's pose a couple of per- tinent questions. First, to what extent should a free society invite government into personal matters, like cigarette smoking? In a case that went alI the way to the Supreme Court, the federal courts said they didn't belong in the issue. You'Il recall some anti-smokers in New Orleans wanted to block smoking in the Louisiana Superdome. The first judge to hear the case dismissed it. He's a nonsmoker, but he ruled that those who would use the Constitution to protect themselves from cigarette smoke were mocking its lofty purposes. The case went on appeal. M'IN 0112756 T-11,39.4r4 3 ~;1. :.. f `-'`~y~

5 His decision of dismissal was upheld. And finally, ultimately to the Supreme Court, and they refused to review It. Another question: Hasn't history taught us the futility of prohibition? Sociologists now are beginning to discuss the parallels that exist between the anti-saloon forces early in this century and those in the anti-smoking sector today. For example, they see similarity in the crusading nature of such movements, the fact that these movements spawn moral entrepreneurs, or those who develop a vested or career or political interest in the busi- ness of social reform. And the sociologists also point to how the anti-smoking forces are now advocating coercive and legal restraints, since their ends haven't been served by educational or assimilative tactics. We recall Santayana's admonition, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Finally, let's understand that I do represent the cigar- ette manufacturers. This is not "The Good Smokers League" before you. We don't have the last or final word, but we have a point of view. We have been drawn into this debate because our product has been incriminated. But it isn't so much that our product is there in the gun sights of the adversary, but, as well, because those who chose to smoke: the consumers. Now, we believe that they are, as I suggested at the outset, adequately on notice of what many believe to be the health hazards of smoking. However, when the government or voluntary agencies or any who are disposed to be noble move from information to intervention, then the social cost is larger than any of us can calculate; it's tyranny. Thank you. [Applause] F I TZMAUR I C E: Thank you, Mr. Dwyer. I think our next speaker can be counted on to disagree. John Banzhaf III is Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health. ASH is a tax-exempt organization which Mr. Banzhaf founded in 1968, shortly after he had personally simultaneously ,jolted the tobacco industry and the broadcasting industry by successfully convincing the U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold free radio and television time for anti-smoking messages. That even- tually led to the broadcasting industry's ban on cigarette com- mercials on TV and radio. Mr. Banzhaf is also a lawyer and professor of law and legal activism at the National Law Center of George Washington University. TIMN 0112757 T~IO-1,39,`5 s:.^.~. .~ i• ~;WyyaY' " .

6 Mr. Banzhaf. JOHN BANZHAF III: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I'm sorry I don't have a fancy prepared speech, as my colleagues on the panel do. But I would like to try to respond to the issue here, and that is, "Who's Rights?" Action on Smoking and Health believes that a nonsmoker has a right to breathe air unpolluted by tobacco smoke. In con- trast, we believe that the smoker, who's, after all, only enga- ging in a habit, does not have a legal right or a moral right, but rather a privilege, a privilege which can and should be limited where the exercise of that privilege begins to interfere with those around him. The reasons for this are rather simple. First, study after study shows that the majority of nonsmokers -- or, as they're sometimes called, involunary smo- kers -- find it very annoying to be seated near a smoker. Study after study also shows that the average nonsmoker suffers real and physical irritation -- runny eyes, nose; coughing, sneezing, headaches, and so on -- upon being exposed to cigarette smoke, in many situations. Indeed, the level of cigarette smoke and of the contaminants from cigarette smoke in many indoor areas exceeds those levels regarded as safe by the federal government either for outdoor air or for exposure to occupational workers. I'm rather suprised that the federal government didn't find that and report it in its most recent Surgeon GeneraJ's study. Indeed, in 1972 they did come out more strongly, pointing out the risks and problems that ambient tobacco smoke creates for the nonsmoker. And for some reason, they seem to have re- treated. But to copy a technique from Mr. Dwyer, we can conduct a little bit of a study right here. How many people out in this audience have a problem with ambient tobacco smoke when you're exposed to it? Could you raise your hands? How many people would say you have a serious problem that causes you to cough or sneeze or take medication, and so on? Mr. Moderator, I think you'll agree with me that a substantial majority of the people here are raising their hands. And if the federal government couldn't find these people and report on them, maybe they should be looking a I ittle bit harder. - It also appears that approximately 30 million Americans have a variety of conditions which make them particularly suscep- tible to the problems of smoke: allergies, hay fever, heart con- ditions, lung conditions, respiratory diseases, and so on. For these people, smoking is not just an annoyance and an irritation, TIMN 0112758 T1- .1 .319,16 n......-- <

7 it is a serious health hazard. People have been forced to go to a hospital, people have been forced to take medication, people have collapsed, people have fainted from exposure to tobacco smoke. These have been documented. Theyfre in the files of various federal regulatory agencies. They have been involved in lawsuits. Indeed, there are some people who are so sensitive to tobacco smoke that they are being forced out of their jobs, they cannot go to most restaurants in a city like Washington, and in one case, for example, cannot even go into a post off'ice lobby to mail a letter. Imagine the indignity of having to stand out- side in the street and pay someone to go into that post office lobby because others are smoking in there and they cantt go in. Th i s i s a true story. For these reasons, we believe that the nonsmoker has a right, both a legal and a moral right, not to breathe tobacco smoke. Smoking is not simply an expression of freedom, Bill. It's the source of pollution. It is a major source of pollution, a major source of indoor air pollution. And we have long since recognized that the government has the right, and indeed the obligation, to put reasonable and appropriate limits on sources of pol lution. Smoking is also a habit. It's very akin, for example, to chewing spitting tobacco. People derive exactly the same satisfaction. Yet, I don't think even you would say that the chewer and spitter has a right to do it in a restaurant, in public places, or that there should be a chewinl-and-spittin' section on an airplane. [Laughter] There are lots of habits that people engage in: chewing and spitting, playing loud radios, running around in various states of undress, burning incense. And, Bill, we have no objection at all if these people would like to do it in the privacy of their own homes, where others are not going to be affected. But when they start doing it in public places, when it begins to seriously affect other people around them, we feel they have a right to say no, and the government has an obligation to prevent it. Now, you did mention a case that went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and the nonsmoker lost. But, of course, he was basing that on the Constitution. And you're probably right. There's nothing in the Constitution about smoking and not smoking. TIMN 0112759 .= T'"

8 What you failed to mention, Bill, Jersey, for example, where a court held, as that smoking creates serious air pollution, who is sensitive to it had a legal right to banned, not simply smoking is a case up in New a matter of fact, and that a worker have all smoking and no-smoking sections. There are now a number of cases where nonsmokers have brought legal actions and have one. And more and more of them are co l 1 ect i ng money. And i f you read our news I etters -- I' m sure you do -- you find about about them. You talked about the futility of prohibition, Bill. Weli, they said exactly the same thing when we began to realize, back near to the turn of the century, that chewing and spitting was not just annoying and irritating, it was also a health hazard. The chewers and spitters said, "You can't prohibit us from doing this. We have a god-given right to do it. It will never work. We'll do it despite the prohibitions." And yet, in not too many years this habit was, if not ended, at least taken out of polite company. There are many laws which work only in part: our anti-littering laws on the street, New York's pooper scooper for dog pollution. They said it wouldn't work. And yet, reasonable tests of these, and nonsmoking laws arount the country, have shown that they can do it. And, Bill, this isn't prohibition. You know it and I know it. We have no objection whatsoever if you and the other folks who want to smoke want to go into smokeasies and smoke all day long. We just object that you do it around us. [Applause] Finally, Bill, there is no Good Smokers League, there are no national organizations standing up for the rights of smokers here. Because the funny thing is, this isn't a smoker- versus-nonsmoker•battle. A third of the nonsmokers -- I'm sorry. A third of the smokers interviewed in a recent survey by HEW indicated that they, themselves, found it annoying to be seated near a smoker. And a majority, a majority of smokers, as well as nonsmokers, said they believe there should be more restric- tions on smoking in public places. Every major survey that I have seen says exactly the same thing. And it is working. Any of you who get on a plane every day can see that it is working. We now have only five states, five states in this entire country which do not have some kind of state or local ordinance restricting smoking in public places. Some of them work weil. Some of them don't work so well. But they all work better than no laws at all. And that's the direction. TIMN 0112760 T1.1.;? 9,`.8 3~-

9 Bill, nonsmoking laws are an idea whose time has come. You can fight 'em, but they're coming. [Applause] FITZMAURICE: Now, as the audience, it's your turn to ask the speakers today questions.... I'm the moderator. I'il ask the first question to Mr. Dwyer from the Tobacco Institute. Mr. Dwyer, not long ago, your organization took out rather extensive ads in national magazines, two-page spreads, addressed to smokers and nonsmokers. Your organization made a strong case against restrictive laws, laws restricting smoking In public places, and so on. You charge that anti-smoking organ- i zat i ons were try i ng to erect wa I I s between smokers and nonsmo- kers, to use the organization's phrase. My question is, what's the problem with segregating s.mokers and nonsmokers? It seems that it would probably be more comfortable for both involved. As Mr. Banzhaf indicated, nobody is really all that happy with a smoker sitting next to a non- smoker. Both seemed to be inconvenienced. What's the problem with segregating? Why is your organization opposed? DWYER: Nothing is the problem with -- I would prefer the term separating, rather than segregating. It's always been rather interesting to me that the CAB and the ICC, who put smokers in the rear of the conveyance, as a sociologist says, which has an observable practice of status symbolization difficult to ignore, refer to segregation. Here we broke down those barriers that used to divide people on pretty untoward bases, and now we've got federal governments that are at least giving an imprimatur of acceptance to it. Frank, we say let's have separate seating for smokers and nonsmokers for their mutual comfort and convenience. I only draw the line at the necessity of inviting government into the act. I don't want to call 911 and say, "Hey, come down here. Someone's smoking." Not with rapes and robberies and murders and muggings. I'm a citizen, ladies and gentlemen, of this com- munity; and we not only have grime and congestion, we have crime here in Washington. And I'd like the metropolitan police force dedicated to that, not to the annoyance of cigarette smoking. You see, I concede that my smoke can be a bother, can be difficult to someone else. Just tell me, Manager, Proprietor, Owner, Operator, where the smoking section is, and I'II go there. Or hang on the front of your restaurant a sign that says, "Ain't no smoking allowed on these premises." Then I take my patronage i TIlVIN 0112761 T~~.1 .3 9, " 9

to to another place. That's called democracy of the marketplace. I'm voting my preference with my pocketbook. That satisfies smokers and nonsmokers. That's the big audience. The anti-smokers_are a small but vocal core of -- I have to say it -- neo-prohibitionists. They are reformers. They are those people, essentially a joyless tribe -- None of them is here this morning, however. I insist on that•, of course -- who want to manage everyone else's life, perhaps be- cause they' ve been i ncapab i e of manag i ng the i r own. , [Applause] BANZHAF: I've got to reply to that, Frank. It's very interesting that the tobacco industry attacks the proponents of an idea rather than the idea itself. And that's what i t's do i ng when it says that a i I of us out here and all of us around the country who are concerned about the air we breathe are anti-smoking fanatics and radicals. It's funny, we must be doing something right against your multimillion-doilar carnpaigns.... [Tape turned] BANZHAF: I agree with you, Bili. I agree with you we shouldn't have the police force running around arresting smokers. A good experience is D.C. We've had a law on the books here for over 2 1/2 years. There's only been one pro- secution under it. I know 'cause I brought it. The guy wanted to punch me out. The police haven't been involved. There have been no mass arrests. Smokers aren1t languishing in jail. But those of you who are residents of the District of Columbia will know that the law works reasonably well, better than none at all. Why not leave it up to the individual restaurants, Bill? Wett, why not? Why don't we let a restaurant owner de- cide if he's going to allow chewing and spitting? Or bring in dogs and cats into the restaurant? Or walking around bare- chested, or walking in bare-footed? Or why shouldn't we let them decide whether or not to wash their hands? about. DWYER: They do. That's what a dress code is all BANZHAF: Well, maybe in the restaurants you go to they do that. I've never seen one. The point is very simple. Where we're talking about TIMN 0112762 T-11-39"

basic safety and health, the government has always enacted regu- lations, particularly where we can't wait for the individual restaurant owners to do it. Today, in the District of Columbia, sensitive non- smokers can't enjoy their meal. And they don't want to wait another 5 or 10 years while the restaurant owners wake up and find out about it. [Applause] FITZMAURICE: Now we have a chance for the audience to ta ke a crack at th i s.... ALAN CRUSELL (?): I'm Alan Crusell from Washington, D.C. And my question is to Mr. Dwyer. I realize that it's extremely difficult to figure out a way to protect everyone's rights in regards to tobacco smoking. So I would like to address myself to another problem area. About half of the cigarettes sold in New York City are bootlegged from such states as North Carolina. And I was wondering, should the New York taxes on cigarettes be reduced so that organized crime will not find it worthwhile to bootleg cigarettes to their city? DWYER: You betcha. Thanks for raising that point. 1 f anyth i ng hes ps to suggest what can happen when I aws and regulations get out of step with human nature -- and I have to say, John, you can't repeal human nature, as hard as you try, any more than you can fool Mother Nature. 1-95 has been turned into the new Tobacco Road. The cigarette state tax in North Carolina is two cents a pack. In my former homestate of New York, it's 15 cents at the state level and eight cents at the New York City level, 23 cents in toto. So that differential of 21 cents a pack, 2.10 a carton, $126 a case is an economic inducement, now, to organized crime, who, according to all the law enforcement agencies, sell half of the cigarettes in New York City. If we could bring down that state and city tax to something that is approaching the national average, the economic inducement would be gone. There is a new federal Interstate Contraband Act, and I believe it applies to possession of more than five cases of cigarettes. That's considered to be enough to establish that the individual intends to sell them illegaly, without the pay- ment of the state taxes. TIMN 0112763 § ~. ~

12 Isntt it regrettable and isn't it a precursor of what I was attempting to suggest earlier, that when things are skewed to that extent, that something that is in demand -- whether you like it or not, ladies and gentlemen, cigarettes are in demand by the smokers of the population. And look what happens, just alone, when there's this tax differential. Now, imagine if we had what Mr. Banzhaf wanted. He says he's not a prohibitionist. I have to assert differently. He said on the Today Show -- he and I debated there a year ago -- "Restrict the sale to pharmacies." The previous June, he said, quote, on Good Morning America, "We're asking that sale of cigar- ettes be limited to pharmacies. There would be some form of prescription." No one here is old enough to remember how alcohol was sold from 1920 to 1933, a prescription from your friendly federal government on their form. A doctor would sign it. And that's how booze was sold. It was such a nasty experience. The Noble Experiment became the National Disgrace. Organized crime the big beneficiaries. Let's not repeat it question. BANZHAF: Bill, thanks so much for drifting off the [Applause] What you didn't tell the gentleman is, first of all, with all of your great attitude about not involving the federal government unnecessarily with the tobacco industry, which fought for that federal law, so that the FBI, which isn't busy enough with murders and arson and rape and so on, can get involved in policing the cigarette business. There is, of course, a much simpler answer, and that is not lower New-York's taxes, but, rather, raise the federal tax, which has remained at eight cents a pack since about 1933. At a time when wetre taxing everything else and taxes are going up, I don't see why cigarettes should be exempt. DWYER: They aren't exempt. BANZHAF: We should raise the federal tax on cigar- ettes high enough so we eliminate any differential. Then, if the sovereign state of North Carolina, in its wisdom, wishes to rebate a part of that tax, from the federal tax to its own citizens, it would have the privilege of doing so. Yes, Bill, we're in favor of restricting the outlets for cigarettes. Most states, of course, restrict the outlets TIMN 0112764 T-%AR ~r-,2

13 for alcohol right now. !n Virginia you can only buy it from a Virginia state store. Because alcohol is a dangerous product, although we don't have prohibition in Virginia. We restrict the sale of pornography and dirty books because we recognize that those create a problem. But anybody who wants to buy a dirty book has no trouble today buying it. We have -- we s i mp f y say that today, when we know the health hazards of cigarette smoking, when we know that the great majority of people get hooked when theytre still kids, as young as 10 and 12, we shouldn't be selling cigarettes in unattended vending machines, where any kid who is tall enough to reach up to the coin slot can get it. If I were selling booze or Hustler magazine out of an unattended machine, the wrath of every government would come down on my head. And yet, that's exactly what we do with cigar- ettes. We say, simply, cigarettes are as dangerous a drug as virtually any other that you buy at a pharmacy. Buy them at your pharmacy. Now let's go on to the next question. DWYER: What about a law that already exists, that you have? Why aren't you pushing for the enforcement of the laws that exist in every state of this union which make it illegal to sell cigarettes to minors? BANZHAF: Because those laws, as you well know, are unenforceable when your companies, the ones you represent, go around putting their cigarettes in unattended vending machines. Bill, right over your head is a little sign from the set we're sitting on, "Murder Game.', And I think thatts very appropriate... DWYER: That's... BANZHAF: ...for an industry that lives off the pro- fits of death and disability. DWYER: That's also a cheap shot. [Applause] FITZMAURICE: Well, let's let the next questioner have a shot here, cheap or otherwise, sir. MAN: Mr. Pinney, there's been a lot of discussion so far about smoking and health and the nonsmoker. I'm curious, are TIMN 0112765 TIA'I-S'3 i•

14 there any passages in that document that indicts, as you say, cigarette smoking which talk about the smoking and health effects of cigarettes on nonsmokers? PINNEY: Yes, there's an entire chapter. I could read down the 10 summary points that were made, if you'd like. One.. BANZHAF: ...be able to understand them, but he can read them. DWYER: Why don't you let the people decide that, John? [Applause] PINNEY: Read them? FITZMAURICE: Well, no. Why don't we just keep moving along here? Okay? The gentleman on the right, you have a follow-up here? MAN: Yeah. I'm more interested in knowing if -- we have a spectrum here. We've got John Banzhaf over on one side and we've got Bill Dwyer over on another. And maybe there's some middle ground on this issue. And I think Mr. Pinney knows if there are statements in that document that provide that middle ground, that maybe the health claims just might be exaggerated for nonsmokers. BANZHAF: Well, I could provide a simple and unbiased middle ground. Anybody who's interested in the problems of ambient tobacco smoke can write to Action on Smoking and Health and get our material, including articles. They can write to the Tobacco Institute in Washington, D.C. and get Bill Dwyer and the tobacco industry's point of view. And can write to HEW here in Washington, D.C. and get the entire Surgeon General's report. I suggest that you do so, read them, and make your own decision. DWYER: But is there some hesitancy to have a summary statement from Mr. Pinney, who is the executive editor of the Surgeon General's report, on this question of what the effects on nonsmokers are who are exposed to tobacco smoke? PINNEY: What follows of that chapter. will be essentially a lay summary First of all, Mr. Banzhaf referred to surveys which show that a large majority of people surveyed do experience severe irritation from cigarette smoke. Secondly, cigarette smoking in the household appears to TIMN 0112766 i T~n.1.3,95•1

15 have some effect on raising the incidence of respiratory compli- cations among children in that household. Thirdly, for specific health-impaired groups, people who have respiratory problems, allergic predispositions, and others, there appear to be potentially severe health effects as a result of heavy exposure to cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces does, in fact, raise the concentration of pollutants in the blood stream. It raises the ambient carbon monoxide level beyond the levels acceptable under most occupational safety standards. Beyond that, i n terms of l ong-term hea l th i mpa i rment, there is no specific evidence to date to show, for example, that cigarette smoking in an enclosed room would result, in any way, in the development of lung cancer, for example, in a nonsmoker. But there are a number of indications that, beyond irritation, there is risk, and sufficient risk for the policy of the Depart- ment of Health, Education and Welfare to support the adoption of state and local level of reasonable restrictions against smoking in public places and in the workplace. DWYER: May I make one addition to it? Because it really does depend on where you're reading from in that chapter, quite obviously. F i rst of a l l, the former Secretary of HEW sa i d i n Seatt l e, "The j ury i s st i l l out on the q uest i on of harm to non- smokers." This was Mr. Califano, who conducted what many regard as an ambition... BANZHAF: The former Surgeon General. DWYER: Surgeon General. HEW Secretary. Excuse me. I didn't mean to demote him. From their chapter: "Healthy nonsmokers exposed to cigarette smoker have little or no physiologic response to the smoker, and what response does occur may be do to psychological factors. "Secondly, levels of carboxy hemoglobin" -- that which comes into the blood stream from CO exposure -- "produced in involuntary smoking situations are functionally insignificant in health individuals." Finally, we hear of this one about benzopyrene, the carcinogen that is contained in cigarette smoke, as well as what we get on our charcoal-grilled steaks. "The effect of chronic exposure to very low levels of this carcinogen, benzopyrene, as found in cigarette smoke, has not been established for humans." } TIMN 0112767 ~9 ,~ , ~ r T~'1.,..~_ .~

16 It really doesn't support what is being sought, and that is legal action. What it does support, obviously, is more research. And we hope it also supports good sense on the part of public policymakers to let those who want to control smoking do it by private management decision, rather than by more govern- mental intrusion. BANZHAF: Mr. Moderator, this problem of trying to... [Applause] ...find scientific proof by having panelists read selected portions out of context in quotes to people really isn't a very effective way to spend an hour. Again, I would suggest anybody who has an interest in the problem write to Action on Smoking and Health, Washington, D.C.; write to the Tobacco Institute, Washington, D.C.; and write to the Department of HEW, Washington, D.C. You can get all the material. You can read it for yourself. You will not be subjected to quotes out of context. And, Bill, those quotes that you gave us before simply don't square with what mos-t people in this [Confusion of voices] FITZt9AURiCE: Mr. Dwyer. audience know... DWYER: ...accept the Surgeon General's report as such a weighty document in support of your action, you can't cull selectively from it. You have to take it or not. FITZMAURICE: Okay. Let's take another question.... JOHN BRACEPIT (?): My name is John Bracepit. I'm from North Dakota. I address my question to both -- to the gentlemen from the Tobacco Institute and from ASH. First, to the Tobacco Institute. Why is the Tobacco Institute using the question of civil rights so much in trying to protect their, quote, right to smoke, when I feel it's nothing more than a privilege? And the purpose [sic] for the gentleman from ASH. Why does ASH want to limit sales purely to pharmacies, when there could be other methods used other than that, and not doctor'-s prescription, as I feel that is going too far and In- volving too much government? first. FITZMAURICE: Okay, Mr. Dwyer. The question to you 7 TIMN 0112768 t~;~~~~ T •M

17 DWYER: On the civi I rights. We see -- and we're backed up by sociologists, who are studying this increasingly -- the con- troversy as having shifted from the health arena to the political arena. There are significant, serious health questions raised about smoking. The answer will never come from Kennedy Center, from Capitol Hill, from any of us. (t'll come from research, from bench science. What's happened is that the attack brought by anti- smoking people, well-intentioned, sincere crusaders.-.. [Laughter] I'm feeling charitable this morning -- focused on the product initially: package warning labels, broadcast advertising bans, higher taxes. It didntt work, from their point of view; didn't slow the sales. A little frustration, one assumes, sets in. And rather than going after the product, go after the consumer of the pro- duct; shame that person who smokes; make us appear to be morally flawed; indicate to the rest of society that we're enemies, we're violators, we're weak-willed, we're akin to the types who would steal the wash from the neighbor's clothes line or introduce rabid dogs to the countryside, portray us as those who've had no evident success in business or in bed. Now, what happens is that that isn'fi working either, because it just hasn't had the enforcement that the public smo- king laws were expected to have, since America has mightier and taller priorities. '4hat we see is the effort, then, being one that is sort of to cr i m i na l i ze the smoker, to go after the behav i or, i n an attempt to regulate personal preference. BANZHAF: Thank you, Bill. I think once again you're a little bit overreacting here. Simply because we put out T-shirts and signs that say, "Nonsmokers make better lovers," and, "Non- smokers do It without puffing." Dt+lYER: How do you know that, by the way? [Laughter] BANZHAF: It doesn't mean, Bill, that... DWYER: Have you gone i nto the bedrooms? BANZHAF: ...smokers are failures in bed. With regard to the gentleman's question about why should T1MN 0112769 TI'I - " 9!~- 7 3

18 the sale of a dangerous product be restricted to certain outlets, the answer is very simple. First of all, this is one of the trad i t i onal ways of l i m i t i ng and gett i ng out of the hands of children dangerous products. We limit the sale of other dan- gerous drugs to pharmacies. We limit the sales of alcoholic beverages either to state stores or certain other stores where careful -- where IDs are very carefully checked. We restrict the sale of fireworks in many areas. 'r!e restrict the sale of dirty books and pornography -- and those are two different things, as I think you know -- because we have a problem with keeping them out of the hands of kids. Any person could go to a drugstore -- goodness knows, there are enough of them around -- and buy their cigarettes there. But at least wetd be sure that they'd be over 12 years old, or over 15, or, hopefu I! y, over 1 8 years o I d, wh i ch i s not the case today. Cigarettes containing nicotine are a dangerous drug. They ki 11 more than any other drug in the country. And if you -- and, obviously, I don't mean you, sir. But the women in the audience, for example, if they want their birth control pills, they canit buy them out of a vending machine. They go to a drugstore, because they are a dangerous substance. Cigarettes are the most dangerous substance known. They're the most dangerous consumer product. They kill over 320,000 people every year. ence... FITZMAURICE: We have another questioner in the audi- CAROL MCNALLY: Hi. I'm Carol McNally, and Itm from Si lver Springs, Maryland. And I'm addressing this to Mr. Pinney. The latest Surgeon General's report says, and if I may quote, "it may be that women do not generally perceive smoking as a threat to their health." Women in this country have been exposed to the same anti-smoking information as men have over the years. Since you're the executive editor of the Surgeon General's report, would you explain what this means? Are you saying that women are incapable or too dumb to interpret or understand the Sur- geon General's report? PINNEY: No, I'm not. I think the point that was being made there, and one that w i 1 1 be emphas i zed even more great I y i n this coming January, when we release a report on the health con- sequences of smoking for women, is that, over the years, women neither smoked in large enough numbers or smoked enough to have 7CIMN 0112770 T-~~. ~;~ 5,9

19 the same demonstration effect as smoking among men did. They d i d not see themse l ves dy i ng of l ung cancer. They d i d not see themselves suffering the effects of smoking on their cardio- vascular disease status. They weren't as aware of the effects that smoking would have on them. And most of the information programs, most of the education programs were targeted more specifically at men, because that's where the knowledge was. Now we know that women and men equally share the con- sequences of long-term smoking. And our efforts are •now turning much more towards catching up and closing that gap. It's not a question of lack of consideration for women at all. Unfortunately, now, women have achieved the status of equa l i ty, in terms of suf fer i ng those same health consequences. MCNALLY: Doesn't the -- doesn't the '72 report have a section on pregnancy? That's at least -- what? -- seven years. I mean I just find it insulting, the way that chapter was written PINNEY: I'm sorry, i don't understand. The way the '72 chapter was written? MCNALLY: As if we were not aware. I mean we're aware. I mean you'd have to have been, as i may quote Mr. Dwyer, a cave dweller not to be aware of the hazards. And i beiieve that the Surgeon Generalts original report was based on some studies that were done both on men and women. PINNEY: The Surgeon General's report of 'b4 makes a very specific statement about the fact that... MCNALLY: It talks about men, but... PINNEY: ...the evidence regarding women is nowhere near as significant, and leaves a number of questions unan- swered. The '79 report... MCNALLY: I beiieve they're using some of that as the basis to reiterate the new report, too, aren't they? They're using Hammond and Horn and using that data, just puiiing it out now... PINNEY: No. The i979 report, in its conclusions on women, uses studies which included much larger populations of women. MCNALLY: All right. Thank you. FITZMAURICE; Okay. Let's have another question from the audience.... TIMN 0112771 7

20 MAN: I'm [unintelligible] from North Yemen. I am here at American Language Institute at Georgetown University. My question to Mr. Pinney. I want to know If the Department of Health have any statistical surveys or documents to show us what are the dangers the dangers and the side effects of smoking for the pregnant womans and the womans who are nursing babies. FITZMAURICE: Mr. Pinney, you're being asked another question out of your report there. PINNEY: There is an entire chapter in this report on the consequences of smoking for pregnant women and for infants. And that section is based entirely on a series of studies, some of them with populations up to 50,000 pregnant women, that have been conducted over the past years. J So, yes. And i'd be happy -- we have taken a number of these sect i ons and repr i nted them. Itd be happy, i f you ld leave your name, to send you a copy of that entire section. FITZMAURIGE: And, let's see. We have a question on a card here from a member of the audience. M. Burton from Alex- andria, Virginia asks Mr. Dwyer: If another equally lucrative use for tobacco were to be developed, such as using it as a food source, as some experiments have tried, would your institute be as emphatic about smokers' rights? Aren't you really just arguing to save the economy of the tobacco industry? If not, why can't smokers support their habits in private, without inflicting health hazards on others? A question for Mr. Dwyer. be... DWYER: We have an economic interest in this. It would [Laughter] DWYER: I'd be ludicrous to suggest that we didn't. We even make profits. Of course, we also provide some jobs, pay some taxes, a little return on investment along the way, and also respond to a demand for goods that exists in the marketplace. Take the legal tobacco companies out of business, kind of akin to 1920, put the federal padlock on the tobacco bar, make i t i I l ega l, maybe wi th a new Vol staad Act, to se l 1, import, manu- facture tobacco; just substitute the wording of the 18th Amendment for alcohol to tobacco. We're out of business. Does anyone here seriously believe that smoking is going to stop? John said -- John says that the smokeasies would take TIMN 0112772 T'~.?!.~'~?~(;U

21 the place of the speakeasies. I completely agree. There are nearly 60 million people in this country who smoke. They don't smoke because they're told to. And they're not going to stop simply because the product isn't legally avail- able. Now, there are some tests that have been done out at Beltsville, at the USDA station, on the rich protein source that leaf tobacco may afford for animal, and possibly even for human, nutrition. Obviously, we want to see those go forward. But our business is providing a response to a demand. One of the weaknesses I think we can all identify in America, in especially our educational system, is that we really haven't taught as much about how the whole business cycle works. And regrettably, those of us in this community -- John Banzhaf and I are here in response -- not John Pinney, because John Pinney is doing his job in government, and someone else would be doing it if he didn't. But we're nothing more than a function of big government. °AY lnstitute to restriction. could either people, they sector. manufacturers wouldn't have a need to have a Tobacco lobby or to do PR if it weren't for regulation You know what they could do with the money? They cut the cost of the product, they could hire more could do a great number of things in the private John Banzhaf -- well, he could find something more important to do than crusading on this narrow area, too. Because his fertile legal mind doubtless could be applied to things that are more important. Most people really aren't concerned about this question. But just enough have been, just enough people have made it their private crusade, that the manufacturers finally said, "Listen, we've got a piece of this action too. We're going to get in there and we're going to express it, and we're going to be heard." And I hope that if one thing is clear, we believe it is better to debate this question, rather than to settle it without debating it. BANZHAF: Mr. Moderator, the tobacco industry... [Applause] You left out three important points. A little bit more of their unfair and deceptive propaganda here. TIMN 0112773 T'I.a.?9C1

22 First of all, Bill, as you well know, the sales of tobacco and American cigarettes are blooming all over the world, particularly the Third World, where you and the tobacco companies, knowing that in America we are now more and more concerned about the health hazards, are pushing the sale of these products in areas where they're not quite as aware of it. So even if we had a significant downturn in smoking here, you guys would continue to make an awful lot of money. You're not about to go out of business. People don't smoke voluntarily, Bill. The funny thing is that John Pinney's survey found that 9 out of 10 smokers said they really would like to quit. Six out of 10 smokers said they've tried one or more times, and they can't do it. A number of studies show that people are phy -- many people are physio- logically addicted. And I'm sure most of you out in the audience here, and the radio audience, know one or more of your friends who are smokers who are not happily smoking because they want to, but, indeed, are trying to quit, and they're spending hundreds, thou- sands, millions of dollars, totally, on devices, clinics, and programs to help them do it. Finally, Bill, if you want to save some money for alI those th i ngs that you' ve been ta I k i ng about, that your tobacco industry would do, you could simply cut back somewhat on your three to four hundred million dollars a year worth of unnecessary advertising. F1TZMAURICE: Mr. Pinney's report was mentioned, and let's let him say something too. PINNEY: I think it's only -- it's only fair to set the record straight with regard to big government, as an employee of the government and someone responsible for informing the American people about the hazards of smoking. None of us would be here if the product that'Mr. Dwyer represents were not responsible for killing over 320,000 people per year. [Applause] And secondly, it is the Ieast regulated product that I'm aware of anywhere in the world. If it were subject to the regulations that are applied to products which have the same im- plied hazard and the same direct and real hazard, we wouldn't be here at all. DWYER: Isn't it interesting that you would devote 2 1/2 pounds and 1200 pages, another 468 pages in your latest publica- t i on of ongo i ng research i n smok i ng and hea 1 th tha t HEW has i d en- tified, if this is all so settled and established. if there isn't TIIYIhT 0112774 i

23 any question? If this is killing 320,000 people, as you say -- and that, I believe, is guilty of statistical malpractice. Num- bers are rules, not to be misapplied that way; and that can't be established. Otherwise we would -- do you know who said this best? One of the non-friends of tobacco, Ralph Nader, on Public Television: "There is no causative proof that X person died from smoking cigarettes. It's all statistical." [Groans] Ohhh. That's just what happened when Ralph Nader said it. The audience went, "Ohhh." And then he pointed out that, of course, the American public has never really been able to grasp th i s because they' ve been so hammered at w i th th i s i dea that cigarettes are killers. Why do most people who smoke not die from these dis- eases? Why do some people who've never touched tobacco also get lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema? Lad i es and gen t l emen, we have an open q uest i on . But every one of you indicated that you are aware of the health hazards that are asserted about smoking. At that point, if you want a government to go further, to take over a larger role of command and control, all you have to do is support the efforts of those who are asking for it, and you'11 get it. A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. [Applause and shouts] FITZMAURICE: We have time -- we have time for two more questions, with any luck. Let's see if we can't get in the two questions.... CORNELIA MONROE: I'm Cornel ia Monroe, with Fresh Air Concerns Everyone. And I would simply like to maybe say in 1790 snuff was popular,. Snuff is no longer popular. So I don't buy the idea that a product can't go out of fashion. But my question is a very serious one. To what extent, I would like to know, has the activities of the Tobacco Institute been involved in the past five years or so, in the states of Maine, North Dakota, Oregon, and some other states, in promoting the idea of acquisition of land for the future growth of other materials which can be smoked once they're legalized, including marijuana, and possibly cocaine? And I want to ask -- I want to mention that I have a reason for asking this question. In our own national survey, when we went to these states, we were told by several authori- ties, one of them extremely reliable, that the name of the Tobacco Institute was involved. And I would like to give Mr. Dwyer an TIIVIN 0112775 T-1.1.39,3

24 opportunity to explain or refute. We'd be glad to have this refuted, but we've heard it a number of times. FITZMAURICE: Mr. Dwyer? DWYER: Oh, I'll lay out a challenge on that one, because it's good enough, it's a sufficiently-sized howler, that we ought to keep this before the public. The Tobacco Institute and the cigarette companies have no interest in going beyond tobacco. We have purchased no land. You see, again, I guess our industry isn't that well understood. The tobacco manufacturers don't grow the leaf tobacco. We buy it from the tobacco growers, about a half a million of them, principally in the Southeast. So we don't have land to set aside for the growth of grass. I don't mean the type you put Turf Builder on, of course; the other type that you were referring to. And also, one could check to see whether or not those names, like Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, that Jack Anderson and others have said our companies have reserved as trademarks for future marketing, are over there at the Patent Trademark Office of the Commerce Department. They're not. We have -- you' l l pardon the pun -- a ki ng-s i zed con- troversy with a fully legal product. We are not involved, do not intend to be involved, and have made no such acquisitions. Those who make that charge, by the way, I would be happy to confront directly on it. And if they even want to put a little monetary wager on it, I'd be pleased to do that as well, because we could all use the funds. Thank you. BANZHAF: Unfortunately, we have to take anything that the tobacco industry says with a couple of grains of salt. They've been found by the Federal Trade Commission to engage in unfair and decept"ive trade practices. They've been found guilty of lying to Congress. They sit here and tell you... DWYER: Wait a minute. Where? BANZHAF: I'll find it for you. DWYER: Be speci f ic. BANZHAF: They sit here telling you that it has not been established that smoking is hazardous to your health, much less to the health of the nonsmoker. Now, if you want to find out whether a Pinto is a dangerous car, you don't ask Ford. And if you want to find out '1'IIVIN 0112776 T.1:1.C39r,+ 4

25 about the radiation hazards from Three PAile River, you don1t rely on the people who have an economic interest. Bill, you've got an economic interest in this. I th i nk anyth i ng you say has to be taken wi th a gra i n of sa I t. What I look at is the evidence of every other independent sci- entific and medical authority, not only in this country, but a I i around the wor i d. Everyone who has ever I ooked at the issue has concluded smoking is hazardous to your health. F i n a I I y, B i I I, you know very we I l that you can acq u i re legal rights in name, such as Acapulco Gold, without having them registered on file. I don't know whether you're doing this or not, but I do know that your claim that anybody can go and look it up is legally wrong. DWYER: That is not correct. A trademark reservation has to be there and the product has to be put into interstate commerce. BANZHAF: Well, then, I will tell -- I will call you right here and now, on radio, a liar. And you can sue me for defamation. DWYER: I wouldn't begin to think of it, because I would consider the source. The other thing is, are you doing this for nothing? Are you receiving no compensation or remuneration for your acti- vities on the part of ASH? You make it appear that itfs just a noble idealism. BANZHAF: ASH has -- ASH receives all of its money from contributions from individuals. We do not have a direct economic interest one way or another in what happens to the tobacco industry. DWYER:- I didn't ask that question. BANZHAF: That's the whole point, Bill. DWYER: Are you paid for your work? BANZHAF: Of course I'm paid. DWYER: Oh. BANZHAF: So are you. So are John Pinney. DWYER: Yes. But I'm paid by the... BANZHAF: So is the moderator. Maybe you want to get TIMN 0112777 T i

26 back to the question. DWYER: I'm paid by the tobacco companies, not by those people who are confiributing to find a solution to a prob- lem. In other words, you're using charitable contributions for this effort and making it appear that it's nothing more than idealism. Idealism, as Russell once pointe•d out, is something that can be disguised hatred, or even disguised love of power. [Applausej FITZIMAURICE: We have time for one quick question and one quick answer. We have to do it all in about 30 seconds.... tAARV I N 'rAARKS : I wrote i t rap i d I y, so bear wi th me. My name i s PAarv i n Marks. I l i ve i n S i l ver Spr i ng, Mary I and . My question is addressed to all three panelists. Separation of smokers from.nonsmokers on commercial airlines is accomplished by assigning nonsmokers to front seats and smokers to rear seats, but in the same compartment or cabin. This does not accomplish the purpose of the separation law, as smoke drifts from the smokers to the nonsmokers. And for people who suffer from tobacco smoke, this is not much better than the old law. or door... What is needed is real separation by means of a wall FITZPAAURICE: Can we ask you if you have a question in there, sir? MARKS: The question is, what do any or all of the panelists think of the situation now, where there's supposed to be a separation, which is not a separation? And the answer to that would be by a wall or door to separate the smokers from nonsmokers. BANZHAF: The simple answer... FITZMAURICE: Okay. Let's go through the panel and see what everybody th i nks of th i s. BANZHAF: The simple answer is that ASH has opposed this present system. The Civil Aeronautics Board is now inves- tigating the whole situation of smoking on airlines. And all of you, whatever your views, are invited to write to the CAB. They have solicited comments. You, s i r, can te l l them what you fze l. I f a smoker feels that they're being discriminated against, they can write i n. We wou I d I i ke to have as many peop l e wr i te i n to the CAB TIMN 0112778 T'~.~.~ ~3~~

27 and tell them what they feel should be done about the problem of smoking on airlines. We think there should be far more restrictions than there are now, because of the prob l em that you ment i oned and many others. FiTZ"4AURICE: Mr. Dwyer from the Tobacco Institute. DWYER: The ultimate solution, in the minds of the anti-smoker, would not be to allow the smoker on the 'plane at aII. Right now, the smoker sits in the back, is the last to be served, is in the noisiest part of the plane, and the last one to get off. There's an indignity already that I would, just as a freedom-loving, not see further perpetuated. BANZHAF: Cor.ie sit in the nonsmoking section. FI TZ;AAUR I CE: Mr. P i nney from HEW gets the l ast word. PINNEY: At the risk of ;naking it two-to-one, I would encourage you to contact the Civil Aeronautics Board, who has jurisdiction over that particular issue. [Laughter and applause] FITZMAURICE: That's it. We're out of time for today.... I TIMN 0112779