Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Free-for-All Friday

Aired February 08, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AMY ATKINS, HOST: It's free-for-all Friday.

Today, forget guns. Maybe an old-fashioned ax could do the job. Would you feel safer if your pilot was armed with something?

Then, air safety pat-downs. Is an airport security badge a license to grope?

Also, the government ties drugs to terrorism and marches that message to the Super Bowl.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I helped murder families in Colombia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know this message is extremely powerful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ATKINS: But is it worth the price?

And how far will you go to hide your age? Botox, is it better than Viagra?

Hello, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, America Speaks Out. I'm Amy Atkins, and this is free-for-all Friday. We are going to talk about the possibility of a wrinkle-free society a little later in the hour, but I want to kick off the show with a hangar full of airport issues. Let's start with unruly passengers and threats in an age of terror. Just today, a belligerent smoker caused an Indianapolis to New York flight to be diverted to Cleveland. An Atlanta to Boston flight was canceled over a bomb scare. And yesterday you probably heard a pilot had to use an ax to keep a man from breaking into the cockpit during a flight from Miami to Buenos Aires.

Let's find out more about that from CNN's Mark Potter who is at the federal courthouse in Miami. Hi.

MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Amy. Well, Pablo Moreira had an initial appearance here at the courthouse behind me today. It didn't last very long, about five minutes. He appeared before magistrate Peter Palermo who read the charge against him, and that is interfering with a flight crew. It's a federal offense. It's quite serious; it carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Moreira is currently being held without bond. There will be a hearing on Tuesday to see if that continues. The U.S. attorney's office is recommending that he stay in prison until his trial on the grounds that he is a flight risk, this man from Uruguay, and that he's also a danger to the community.

Now, he was represented in the hearing by two attorneys, two prominent attorneys here in Miami, former prosecutors themselves. They issued a statement saying that Moreira is not a terrorist and that he has no association with any terrorist organizations. But they also did not explain why he might have tried to kick in the door on that cockpit on that flight from Miami to Buenos Aires.

The U.S. attorney, Guy Lewis, said this was a very serious and dangerous matter in the skies, and he said he was particularly concerned about the statement that Moreira allegedly made after he was subdued. He was reported to have said, "I wanted to destroy everything." And Lewis said he wanted the public to know that if this happens again, it will be dealt with very harshly by U.S. prosecutors, noting that there have been a number of incidents aboard flights from Miami since September 11, including five of them actually involving flights from Miami to Latin America or other places in the United States.

Back to you, Amy.

ATKINS: And Mark, exactly how did this play out? How did this man get to the cockpit and then into the cockpit, or at least partially into the cockpit?

POTTER: Well, according to the agents and the eyewitnesses, he was pacing up and down the aisle after coming out of his seat back in aisle 38, in row 38. He was told to sit down. He then didn't do that. He charged up to the cockpit and began kicking and slamming the cockpit door. He was able to kick out a bottom portion of the door and crawl partially inside.

That's where he met the co-pilot who had an ax in his hand, and hit him in the head with it and subdued him. And that was the end of it. The passengers and crew members pounced on the man, and he was put in a seat and seat-belted in for the rest of the flight to Buenos Aires. And he was returned the next night, last night, early this morning, here to Miami.

ATKINS: A lot of people were looking at that ax, and they had never actually seen an ax that looked like. It is unusual. Is that in every cockpit?

POTTER: I believe it is, an ax of some sort. It's a fire ax, and it's used for that safety purpose. It has that spike on the end of it, and that's not what he was hit with. There was a pilot quoted in the paper here who was not on that flight who said if it had been his flight, he would have hit him with that spike. And the circumstances may have been different.

As it turned out, we were all surprised. Looking at him, he didn't seem to show any mark from that encounter, even though passengers said that he had bled quite profusely at the time of that scuffle. We didn't see any signs of it. And he was treated by a doctor in Buenos Aires and also here in Miami.

ATKINS: All right. Thank you very much, Mark Potter. Thanks for joining us.

OK. Now it is time for our free-for-all Friday. Radio talk show host Dennis Prager, a nationally-syndicated host on KRLA in Los Angeles. He is the author of "Happiness Is a Serious Problem, a Human Nature Repair Manual." Lowell Ponte, host of the "Lowell Ponte Show." And Santi Nieves, film critic and host of "Latino Journal" on WBAI in New York. And Nancy Skinner, the co-host of the syndicated "Doug Stefans' (ph) Good Day Program" in Boston, and radio talk show host on WLS in Chicago.

I want to start with Dennis Prager. Dennis, do you think that pilots ought to be armed, and if so, what ought they be armed with?

DENNIS PRAGER, KRLA RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know, by the way, I was just on the Buenos Aires-Miami flight...

ATKINS: You're kidding.

PRAGER: So isn't that eerie? So I did relate to this. I actually am happy to hear about how these people are pounced upon. It's a very healthy thing for the world to know that if you start up on an airplane, people will hurt you. Yes, I do think pilots ought to be armed with at least a stun gun. Whether it ought to be an actual gun with actual bullets, this is something that people could talk about its logistics. But obviously, this is a good example of where if the pilot had no arm, who knows what could have happened.

ATKINS: Lowell, what do you think? Do you think pilots ought to be armed with actual guns?

LOWELL PONTE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, if they are, they need to be rubber bullets or something that will not blow too large a hole in the plane if used. What concerns me is why aren't the pilots protected behind a bulletproof impenetrable door? You know, pilots on long-term flights already are very different from you and me. For example, on a no-smoking pilots, pilots are allowed to smoke, because it's assumed nicotine withdrawal symptoms are more dangerous than it is simply to let them go on smoking.

So the cockpit is supposed to be a very different insular place. What scares me too is what if we have a sky marshal in back who doesn't have a smart gun, whose gun can be taken away by terrorists, and so he would have brought the gun aboard a plane. This may be the only legitimate place to use a smart gun, in fact.

ATKINS: You know, Santi, a lot of the pilots, in fact the pilots union is saying that they want to be able to carry guns. I think a tough question would be, if in fact the pilot had a gun, should he have used it on this guy? SANTIAGO NIEVES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, you know, should he have used it on this guy? I think the gentlemen that just spoke before me has a good point, and that is, what is going to be done with that gun? You know, we are assuming a lot here. We are assuming that a pilot does know the difference between good and bad, who is and who is not an unruly passenger. We have to talk about that.

And so when you have a gun in your hand, I think it adds a whole other thing here that is very, very different. I think what people are talking about is a knee-jerk answer to this kind of thing. We don't have it yet. I think we need to discuss it.

A stun gun might be closer to what we are talking about. And also, that door. I thought that cockpit doors, starting a few months ago, were all going to be impenetrable. So I think that the issue of a gun is a real problem, a stun gun, perhaps, and other ways to disable -- you know, the whole issue here is not to kill someone, but to disable them from doing harm. Bottom line here is the protection of American citizens or any citizen that flies. And to that extent, if one were to push me and say should the pilot have a stun gun or something that is used to protect us, I say yes. But a gun is a very different thing, particularly on an airplane.

ATKINS: Nancy Skinner, what do you think?

NANCY SKINNER, WLS RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Wow! Well, yes, a lot of good points were just raised. I thought that that was the case. In fact, I think they announced that those doors were now the changeover to the new steel-back doors was complete and that all airlines had reinstalled new doors. So this guy, this picture -- I'm trying to picture this guy kicking the bottom of the door in and sticking his head through, and I just get the picture of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining" saying, you know, "Here's Johnny!"

And, of course, the pilot, if he has a gun, if he has an ax, whatever he has, faced with that, he's going to use it. A gun, a real gun, I think mayhem could have enveloped. Who knows if he dropped it, if he was nervous. So, you know, real guns, no way. I just think that they cause -- there's too many uncertainty. A stun gun? Sure. Give him a stun gun. Why make this guy use an ax.

But the bigger question is, Amy, we focus so much on what happens in the cabin and with these loose cannons in the cabin, but at the same time, we still don't have in place machines that are X-raying all the bags that go into the belly of the plane. So that's where we really need to focus are, not only our attention, but our money. It is going to take cash. It's going to take about $1 billion to buy those machines. So if Bush is going to raise the budget by $40 billion, the defense budget, and he is only spending seven percent of that on fighting terrorism, take a billion or two out of that and buy the machines and make every bag that goes into the belly X-rayed and checked for explosives.

ATKINS: All right. Thank you, Nancy Skinner. We're just going to hold off for just a minute. We're going to take a break and continue this topic right after the break. Stay with us. (APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAUL: Hi, my name is Paul Merrill (ph) from Boston University, and I do feel safe flying because as we have seen, passengers and flight crews just aren't going to tolerate people threatening their safety.

(APPLAUSE)

ATKINS: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are talking about safety in the skies. And as part of that safety, you all know that when you go to the airport, you run the risk of being patted down. Now, a lot of women have complained that this pat down has been a little too thorough. And I'm wondering, Dennis, you just flew. Were you patted down when you went through the airport?

PRAGER: My wife patted me down, actually.

ATKINS: And you didn't mind that?

PRAGER: I thought it was great. Actually, I have never seen an opposite sex -- I never -- that's not true. Women have patted down men. I have never seen a man pat down a woman.

ATKINS: It has happened and women have complained about that.

PRAGER: Well, that's -- that would be understandable if they are complaining. That's one thing, I generally think Americans are a little too hypersensitive but I think that's a legitimate complaint. A woman should be patted down by a woman.

ATKINS: It is true that women are allowed -- we have a man clapping.

PRAGER: Well, he might apply for the job.

PONTE: Well, you know, John Dingell had to take his pants off.

SKINNER: Well, Dennis, I for one have been patted down by a man, several times in fact, I mean, which raises the question. I have gotten to wonder, you know, how they are choosing people because I think it's ironic...

ATKINS: You think they did it because you are cute?

SKINNER: Well, what I'm saying is I don't think I look like a terrorist...

(CROSSTALK)

... and I keep getting this come over here and I keep getting patted down. And what's worse, Amy, and I bet this has happened to a lot of women out there, I have heard from a lot of my listeners they have on underwire bras that set off the machines. And when they set off the machines, then they have to actually feel your bra. So I have had a man groping around, feeling my bra.

NIEVES: You know, there's a real issue here...

ATKINS: People have tried to hide -- hang on for a second -- because it has happened that people have tried to hide explosive devices in a bra. So maybe it could just be that women should just leave their wired bras at home and, you know, get some support after they land.

NIEVES: Oh, yes, and they did such a great job with this guy who brought in knives into the plane the other day and this other guy who was trying to knock down the door. You know, the whole point is how do you assess who you have to pat down? And I have been there enough to tell you that they are very inappropriate pat downs. Among other things, I think that people frankly are touched in places that they need not be touched. Often they are patted down not in a private area, and I also think...

PRAGER: How often does this happen? I mean, that's really, how often? Maybe you are right, but how often?

NIEVES: There was a group of women, I don't know if they are in Atlanta, Amy, I think you can tell me, that are very concerned about this being a civil rights issue.

PRAGER: Oh, God.

ATKINS: Civil rights issue in what...

NIEVES: Because they are patted down so much.

ATKINS: In what way is it a civil rights issue?

PRAGER: What is it -- a civil rights issues, the right to what, not have your underwired bra touched if there might be an explosive?

PONTE: Maybe we should make all men and women dress exactly alike.

NIEVES: Look, I think we can make fun of this, but I think the point is here that many women feel that they are inappropriately patted down and they are patted down for the wrong reasons and often it's a certain kind of profiling that goes on that is very uncomfortable. And those things do have to be addressed. They do exist.

PONTE: Make we should make everybody wear exactly the same kind of jumpsuit when they travel, male and female.

ATKINS: We can all have the flying uniform?

PONTE: Well, you do it when you go into the hospital. But there is another kind of surveillance of people in airports that I wonder how you compare to this and that is they now have these sensors that can look right through your clothes. Whether you are a child, whether you are a man, whether you are a woman, can peer right down to your genitalia. And you don't even know that's being done to you.

NIEVES: You are right.

ATKINS: Another issue that is flying around Washington, so to speak, is this issue of I.D. cards and that, maybe in the future, for a fee, you would get an I.D. card that would separate you out from other people and then you would have a quicker security check and presumably one that would be less thorough.

PRAGER: I'm applying. I want to be the first to apply. I think it's a great idea.

NIEVES: Amy, you mean around a frequent flier, right?

PRAGER: Yes.

PONTE: If this would get a wealthy person like Dennis out of the line in front of me, then I would get through the line faster, too.

(CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: But that does bring up the issue...

(CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: ... then, is there then two classes of people. I mean, it's not enough in first class that you get the warm nuts in first class and you get a lot of great treatment in first class, and now you get through security easier. I think -- does anybody have a problem with that?

PRAGER: No.

ATKINS: No?

PRAGER: The issue is security...

SKINNER: But I mean, can't the terrorists go and get these cards as well? I mean, does this really stop -- if they can find a way to get all these fake documents and driver's licenses and everything else, why don't they try -- that would be their first way of doing it, say I'm going to get one of those cards and I'm not going to be profiled, and that's the way to go.

ATKINS: You bring up an interesting point. Renee has a comment.

(CROSSTALK)

RENEE: Well, as soon as you get a card that some terrorist can zone in on, and he can just get that card. And sure, he'll get through quicker. And the point is that everyone should be in the same boat. Whether you are a frequent flier, whether you are not.

ATKINS: You think there shouldn't even be first class at all?

RENEE: It wouldn't bother me if there weren't. PRAGER: You don't fly a lot.

RENEE: And I fly first class.

ATKINS: So you probably would rather fly first class, wouldn't you?

RENEE: No, I'd rather not.

ATKINS: Rather fly in coach?

RENEE: Yes.

ATKINS: You are a unique individual, Renee.

Thank you very much. That's about it with the airlines.

PRAGER: How tall is Renee?

ATKINS: Dennis wants to know how tall you are.

RENEE: 5-foot-6 1/2.

PRAGER: I'm 6-foot-4. I like first class.

(CROSSTALK)

PRAGER: I don't choose coach.

ATKINS: I think we can all agree that first class is, in fact, better.

PRAGER: Yes, absolutely.

NIEVES: But you know, the point is, what do these ID cards do? What in the end do they do? Are they really going to make us any safer?

ATKINS: It's not about making it safer. It's about making it more convenient for people who fly -- if you fly every single week, presumably it would make it easier for you to get through.

(CROSSTALK)

SKINNER: Amy, I just got back from London, and Heathrow -- they have no problems with lines. For some reason, the Europeans have figured out how to have great security and efficiency and speed. Why can't we just do what they are doing, because they have been doing it for a long time? [

ATKINS: All right. We are going to have to leave it at that. That is...

PONTE: They are not efficient.

ATKINS: ... about enough for the airlines. We're going to take a quick break, and then find out why everybody is upset with Rudy Giuliani for going to the movies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ATKINS: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everyone. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is taking heat for showing up at a screening of Arnold Schwarzenegger's new movie, "Collateral Damage." The movie is about a firefighter bent on revenge against Colombian terrorists who killed his family. The controversy stems from a press release promoting Giuliani's appearance in association with the Twin Towers Fund and Board.

I want to start with you, Santi, do you have any problem with Rudy showing up at this screening?

NIEVES: Oh, just a little bit of a problem, I think. Rudy Giuliani -- people have to understand that to a national audience -- and I'm in New York -- to a national audience, Rudy Giuliani is a king. But you have to understand that here in New York, the man did not win by any real mandate. I think he won by one, 1.5 points, and that is consistent throughout his mayoralty in terms of numbers. Mayor Giuliani in New York certainly has done some good things with the police and in terms of crime.

But the problem here is that he's also been one of the most divisive, mean spirited people. And in New York, arguably one of the most diverse cities anywhere, ethnically, cultural, racially, he has helped to polarize the city. So much so...

ATKINS: But what does that have to do with the screening?

NIEVES: Well, I'm getting to that. And so, this is Rudy Giuliani's history. He's also been very much involved in heightening a war mongering element like what's his name the head of this movie, the star of the movie. Sorry.

ATKINS: Schwarzenegger.

NIEVES: The star of the movie -- Schwarzenegger, sorry about that. And he's used to doing this kind of thing. I think it's consistent with him. You know, I'm tired of Rudy Giuliani. It may not have much to do with this, but I think people who are also tired of his being the voice, the heart of the September 11th thing, enough is enough.

ATKINS: You are just down on Rudy, maybe.

NIEVES: Oh, I think as a New Yorker, again, we feel it a lot more. And I haven't seen the film, but I wish I had so I knew what he was supporting.

PRAGER: I still don't understand, though, even if you don't like him, what is the difference if he shows up at a movie opening? I don't understand the entire sequence of your idea.

SKINNER: It's not just any movie. This "Collateral Damage" is not just any movie. It's not a feel-good movie. It is about some terrorists, and they go fly into a building. It was delayed after September 11 because of the violence. And it's so funny that Rudy Giuliani, who has done such a great job for New York, would show up at an Arnold Schwarzenegger film that depicts this kind of violence and tragedy.

PRAGER: Why? Why?

SKINNER: I think there's politics in here...

PRAGER: Why?

(CROSSTALK)

SKINNER: ... if the liberals in Hollywood did something, they would be run out of town. But if Arnold Schwarzenegger does it, Rudy Giuliani is going to go...

PRAGER: What's the it?

SKINNER: ... put his blessing on it.

PRAGER: What is the it?

(CROSSTALK)

PRAGER: I don't understand.

NIEVES: By the way, it's a stereotype. I have not seen the film.

PRAGER: Right. So what is the problem?

NIEVES: But a lot of people...

PRAGER: So what is the problem? So what are we talking?

NIEVES: Let me just say...

PRAGER: What are we...

(CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: One at a time, boys.

NIEVES: Let me just say that a lot of people are complaining about the content of the film, and consistent...

PRAGER: Like what? Like what?

NIEVES: ... and consistent stereotyping of many individuals. And I, as a Hispanic, frankly, haven't seen the film, but I'd very interested and will report to you whether I think the film is stereotyped about Latinos.

ATKINS: All right. Joe has a comment in the audience. Joe, what's on your mind? JOE: I don't understand how the man talking about Rudy being divisive, because it seems since September 11 it has been unanimous in New York. People even talked about him having another term, which he couldn't run for. And you call him divisive.

NIEVES: Oh, let me, by the way, let me tell you about that. Rudy Giuliani tried to betray the people of the city of New York twice. They voted not once but twice for term limits. Rudy Giuliani, just because of the September 11 event, tried to coerce the mayoral candidates and others to extend his term, if you can believe that. It wasn't done, thank goodness.

PONTE: Now, what are we seeing here? Arnold Schwarzenegger has personally contributed $1 million, this movie has raised another $4 million -- or he has -- to help the families of the victims. In addition, supposed this were World War II and the movie were "Casablanca," with all of its Arab stereotypes and so on? Would we be saying, "Oh my, God, Rudy Giuliani is horrible to support "Casablanca"? No.

We would say this is a pro-American, anti-terrorist propaganda film in wartime. And we would be applauding Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger for what they have done.

NIEVES: I absolutely agree that that's how the film is defined. And in that context, yes.

ATKINS: Now, Dennis, what about the idea that Rudolph Giuliani is allowing the producers of this film to use him and, in a sense, use September 11 to further their cause, which is to sell movie tickets?

(CROSSTALK)

NIEVES: The bottom line is the bottom line.

ATKINS: Dennis, go ahead.

PRAGER: It seems to me, you can't -- the whole gist of the two talk show hosts who opposed it was ideological. Now it has moved over to money. So they will do anything to say that it was a bad idea.

I don't know anything about the film. Rudy Giuliani is a private citizen. I don't care if he shows up at any opening. Now I am interested in the film. And perhaps it is a film that shows how evil terrorists are. If it is, I hope it makes $500 million.

(CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: Hang on, guys. Thomas wants to say something.

Thomas, what's up?

THOMAS: To me, this is crazy. Giuliani is in the limelight right now. And it seems like any premiere or movie he goes to -- and he is supporting this movie -- they are going to critique him and say, well, he's supporting this. Come on guys. It's just a movie. (APPLAUSE)

ATKINS: Everyone agree it's just a movie?

NIEVES: It's not just a movie. It's not just a movie.

ATKINS: All right, we have got to stop it there.

(CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: Sorry, guys, got to stop it there. That's all the time we have for this subject. We will break right now for the news -- and then the drug war and the Super Bowl.

Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ATKINS: Welcome back, everybody.

In a Super Bowl full of surprises, the government's pricey anti- drug ads held their own. Check this out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I helped murder families in Colombia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was just innocent fun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I helped kidnap people's dads.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, some harmless fun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I helped kids learn how to kill.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was just having some fun, you know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I helped kill policemen.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was just having fun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I helped the bomber get a fake passport.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Other kids do it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I helped kill a judge.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I helped blow up buildings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My life, my body.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not like I was hurting anybody else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ATKINS: A very interesting ad campaign. I grew up on the: "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs." And that commercial was interesting, but this one takes it in an entirely different direction. It is sort of saying that taking drugs is somehow politically incorrect because the money made from those drug sales might in fact go to terrorists.

Nancy, what you think? You are nodding.

SKINNER: Yes, I think it's a good idea. Really, it's the truth. And we all know that. So I think they have done a great thing here trying to educate people. This is what really happens. This is reality. And so we are dealing with reality.

I just wish that the Bush administration would apply the same philosophy to sex education and deal with reality. The reality is, kids have sex and they get diseases from it or they get pregnant, and deal with the reality, not just, "Just say no" and let's pretend it doesn't happen. When they talk about drugs, they are willing to deal with the hard-core reality of what is, but not when it comes to sex.

(CROSSTALK)

PRAGER: You know, it was such a moment. I was thinking Nancy and I agree. And then she had to bring in sex education. It was so sad.

(CROSSTALK)

PRAGER: But sticking to this ad, the ad was true.

NIEVES: You know, Nancy, that's the part that I liked about what you said.

PRAGER: The ad was an accurate statement that part of the money that is does in fact fund very evil people who do very evil things. And people should know it.

ATKINS: That is true. But what is the evidence?

We know that there was evidence that the Taliban was at one point in the drug trade. What evidence is there that right now, today, some of the money from drug sales is going to al Qaeda?

PRAGER: Oh, no, that was not the only thing there. Remember they said "killed a judge"? You know what is happening in Peru and Colombia right now because of drug money? It's absolutely accurate.

PONTE: What, by the way, is the theme of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

But I think these ads -- and they cost you taxpayers about $3.4 dollars for those two ads in the Super Bowl. That is the real exploitation of the tragedy of 9/11. It's like the people on the left who say, "Oh, we have got to have gun control because of 9/11." Well, none of the terrorists used guns on September 11.

NIEVES: I couldn't agree with you more, by the way. (CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: One issue is of accuracy. And the other issue is whether or not this in fact would be a deterrent.

Paul, what do you think?

PAUL: I don't think it is a deterrent. And one of the major things is, we are talking about drugs come from bad people. Did they not come from bad people before this September 11? Drugs have always been bad. Drugs will continue to be bad. And now you are putting a price on life, that because people in New York vs. people in the streets in gangs in South America died, well, that's OK then, but now it's worse? There's better ways to spend the money.

ATKINS: What would work for you? What do you think would be a deterrent? What could stop young people from doing drugs?

PAUL: I don't know what would stop young people from doing drugs, but I don't think it's a commercial.

ATKINS: You don't think any ad is going to do it?

PAUL: No, not that you don't get from a school, that you don't get from your parents. At this point, it's being pushed down kids' throats. If you are not getting it from one of these other sources, it's not going to be TV.

(APPLAUSE)

PONTE: If the terrorists really were being benefited, you know the best way to fight terror, then? It would be to legalize the drugs, take the criminal profit out of them. And then they would become a tax source for the government so they could have more money to fight terror.

ATKINS: You're saying we should legalize drugs?

NIEVES: And they would be very willing to do that if they had the opportunity.

ATKINS: Who all thinks we should legalize drugs?

(CROSSTALK)

NIEVES: It's one element whether it's true or not about the content of these ads. But its effectiveness is what we are talking about. And they are not effective. I agree with the other gentleman. That really is over $3.5 million that would have been better spent by putting in programs of the sort that are necessary to deal with drugs.

And as the young person said before -- and it's been proven over and over and over again -- young people mostly listen to their peers. And these kinds of ads do not work. It's been proven over and over again, as the young man said in the audience.

ATKINS: So you are talking about even the ads...

(CROSSTALK)

NIEVES: If you target these ads to people who are doing drugs and selling drugs, this ad is not going to work. I absolutely believe that you have to tackle that, but these ads don't.

ATKINS: So you think even the ads that say that drugs are not good for you?

SKINNER: It's part -- it's one part of an overall education program. And we are never going to tackle the war on drugs from the supply side. You just can't do it. We have to go from the demand side. So you tell them about what happens, not only to them personally, but down the pipe, all the consequences. And you educate, educate, educate. And that's how we end the drug problem.

(CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: Phil from New Hampshire is on the phone -- Phil.

CALLER: The commercials at the end said that you might be supporting terrorists. How about an accurate commercial that says that, if you buy gasoline, you are supporting terrorists? It's the policy of prohibition that makes it profitable for the criminals.

(CROSSTALK)

CALLER: We ended alcohol prohibition and you do not see moonshiners and bootleggers anymore, but you see drug prohibition has now given you dealers, cartels, gangs, and now maybe terrorists.

PONTE: Well, and the government prohibition on drugs, of course, is like a price support, making them much more valuable so that, when al Qaeda does chemical warfare on America in the form of pumping heroin in here, they make a lot of money from it. Why not take that profit out of them?

ATKINS: Now, Nancy...

SKINNER: Yes, but that really -- that was really a great point to say, so there's hypocrisy there because we're sending all our money to Saudi Arabia because of our addiction to foreign oil. And what happens? They are the biggest exporters of terrorism on this planet, Saudi Arabia, our so-called allies. And we fund them.

(CROSSTALK)

PONTE: America should stop using gasoline. That's the answer.

ATKINS: Now, what about what some people would say is a hypocrisy, in that we say we don't want to support terrorists, and that if you do drugs, you might be supporting terrorism; at the same time, the Americans supported the Mujahedeen, which turned out to be the Taliban? And, in that sense, isn't there some culpability there? SKINNER: Oh, we supported the Mujahedeen. We supported Saddam Hussein, when it served our interests with Iran. And he turned into a terror. We armed him.

PRAGER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait. Wait. Wait.

SKINNER: We are notorious for getting in bed with bad guys to serve our short-term interests.

(CROSSTALK)

PRAGER: We supported Stalin against Hitler. We will support lesser evils against greater evils. The world is not composed only of good and bad, but bad and worse and yet worse. We had good moral reasons to support the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union.

ATKINS: Kelly has a comment.

KELLY: Nancy, this is what I want to ask you. You talked about reality. The reality is that we spent $3.5 million during the Super Bowl to educate where drug money is going to. But let's look at it realistically, like you say, reality. Reality is $3.5 million just in that ad to do that. Can't we take that money and use it in a whole lot better sense than in that ad?

There's not a drug dealer in the world that is going to, like they asked us, stand up if you are a drug dealer. It's not effective, in that sense.

(CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: She is saying, Nancy, it is not going to work.

SKINNER: You know what? If television advertising were not effective, they wouldn't be charging $2 million dollars a spot. That game had a 63 percent ratings share, 83 in Boston and St. Louis. Absolutely that was getting through to people. Advertising is very effective. That's why it is so expensive.

ATKINS: You can say a lot of people were watching, but you don't know that a lot of people were listening and really took anything away from that. Saying that so many people watched it doesn't mean that so many people decided: You know what? I'm not going to smoke a joint today.

NIEVES: Absolutely. And also because these ads were aired doesn't mean that people adhere to them.

SKINNER: No, but it's one more piece of information.

PONTE: But, again, the way to defeat the terrorists is to legalize the drugs. Take the problem out of it.

ATKINS: So do you think that this ad was effective, Dennis?

PRAGER: I believe that, in the long range of things, ads are one form of making people aware of the evil of drug use.

ATKINS: Even if it's just saying it's politically incorrect, like we should eat dolphin-safe tuna?

PRAGER: No, no, no, wait. Politically incorrect is different from not moral. You are supporting the killing of a judge. You are supporting terror. That was the statement. It is accurate. It is true. Let the truth be told. It sets people free. I am a big believer in that.

ATKINS: Zack wants to chime in.

(CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: Zack, what's on your mind?

ZACK: I think they targeted the wrong market. Who watches the Super Bowl? A bunch fat old guys drinking beer. They should have....

ATKINS: I watched the Super Bowl.

ZACK: They should have put it on MTV if they wanted to target the teenagers or whatever.

ATKINS: Do you think it was with the right demographic?

Nancy, you say yes.

SKINNER: Absolutely. The kids are watching this. Everyone is watching the Super Bowl. It's the most watched event of the year.

But you, know, one more hypocrisy I just thought of. Now we're talking about education and the facts and reality. We have a new AIDS office director in the White House who is not in favor of condoms. Do you really think, honestly, you could say "Just say no" when it comes to adult people, especially adult homosexuals having sex? Why do we only want to deal with reality when it's drugs and not sex or AIDS? Let's be consistent here in our education.

NIEVES: By the way, that adds a great credibility to this ad. Here we have someone who is now in charge of AIDS in the White House, you say, that doesn't believe in condoms, and we are supposed to believe this ad around young people not using drugs. It's not going to work. It's not effective.

PONTE: And don't forget, before these ads, the Clinton administration was even paying moviemakers and TV show makers, under the table, to put this kind of one-sided propaganda into what they were broadcasting into the minds of Americans.

ATKINS: Miles thinks it was a good idea to put the ad on.

MILES: Well, I think it was a good use for the money at least, because you're still talking it about a week later on national television. So it brings the issue out and gives it more light that that money is going somewhere and it's going to bad places. ATKINS: So anything that gets the word out against drugs and has us talking about drugs is a good thing?

MILES: Yes.

PONTE: Yes, but the ads were a falsification, because the problem is not drugs. It's the fact that drugs are illegal, which makes them highly lucrative on a black market. If tobacco were made illegal tomorrow, you would see tobacco selling for those kinds of amounts and probably supporting terrorists.

NIEVES: In a nanosecond, I think.

ATKINS: Sheila, what do you think?

SHEILA: I think that any amount of money that we can spend on our children to get them off drugs, any amount that the government will spend is good.

(APPLAUSE)

ATKINS: All right, thank you, Sheila. Sheila gets the last word. We're going to just say no to that topic.

Up next: What would you give to look forever young? We'll try to answer that question right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, my name is Lucy Romex (ph) from Boston University. And I think the Super Bowl ads relating drug use to terrorism were a complete waste of government money. It could have been spent on drug prevention programs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ATKINS: Move over Viagra. Botox is moving in. Taking stock of baby boomers and anyone else offended by hints of age, the FDA is getting ready to approve botulism toxic injections for cosmetic use. Though they have been used that way for years, do they work?

Well, let's take a look at some before-and-after pictures. It looks like it works. The toxin paralyzes facial muscles and then no more wrinkles. Yes, it is a toxin they are injecting.

Let's just take a look at one more before-and-after. Wow, I guess it does work.

We have a caller from Illinois who wants to talk about Botox.

What's on your mind?

CALLER: Hi. I have seen the things that they have done on Discovery about that. And I have been fascinated with it, because a lot of people go through plastic surgery, which could be really, you know, invasive. This seems like it would be an answer to something to make you look younger. I know I feel like I look five or ten years older than what I am and wish that I could get something like this done.

ATKINS: You want to have it done, Patty?

CALLER: Oh, yes.

ATKINS: Does it bother you at all that, when they do these injections, they are actually paralyzing your muscles so that it's possible that, when you are scared or angry or sad, you will just look normal? Does that bother you, having a sort of expressionless face?

CALLER: That would be kind of nice. I wouldn't be looking angry if something was making me angry.

ATKINS: Nobody would know that you are really mad?

CALLER: No one would know I'm angry.

ATKINS: Lowell, what do you think of this? What do you think of this? Is this a high price for vanity?

PONTE: Well, I understand that not everyone can be as good looking as I am.

(LAUGHTER)

PONTE: And so I would defend people's rights.

ATKINS: I was just thinking that.

PONTE: So people's own control of their bodies, whether they want to use drugs or whether they want to modify the body in other ways to be more attractive, that's fine with me. The question is: Should a government health service pay for it? Or, if the government could provide you a pill that would let you live to be 120, let all of us live to be 120, do you think they would do that knowing they would be paying you Social Security all that time?

ATKINS: Nancy, what do you think of Botox? Are you interested?

SKINNER: Oh, girlfriend, are you kidding me?

(LAUGHTER)

SKINNER: If this stuff works as good as those pictures, I think they should pass a law tomorrow saying that every federal insurance program should carry it, just like Viagra.

ATKINS: Botox for everyone.

SKINNER: Are you kidding me? Absolutely. No, I mean...

(CROSSTALK) SKINNER: Beauty is skin deep.

ATKINS: But it doesn't bother you about this expressionless look that people who have had Botox sometimes have?

NIEVES: It should. It should, because...

PRAGER: That's a price.

(CROSSTALK)

SKINNER: I think it's funny that we went on this anthrax scare cross the country, but this stuff is basically what they use. It's another bioterrorist weapon.

(CROSSTALK)

ATKINS: All right, sorry I have got to interrupt. We are so out of time, out of time.

Our thanks to Nancy, and Santi and everybody else on the panel, including our studio audience.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com