Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Will Plans to Rid Catholic Church of Abusive Priests Succeed?; Would Raising Smoking Age to 21 Curb Teen Tobacco Use?
Aired June 04, 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
Roman Catholic bishops meeting in Dallas this month will be going over recommendations for dealing with priests who sexually abuse children. A church panel has already come up with a list of ideas. They include defrocking abusive priests in the future, and giving a limited second chance to some priests who have molested in the past. I'm going to give you the details in just a minute, and when we do I definitely want to hear from you about this information. Call me at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail talkback@cnn.com. Now, here's a look at what we have on the show for you today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Is a plan to rid the Catholic Church of sexually abusive priests too tolerant if it stops short of zero tolerance?
Also, would raising the smoking age to 21 put a choke on teen tobacco use, or breathe new life into an old taboo?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They really get most of their cigarettes through social sources rather than getting them at the stores, either by bumming them off friends, borrowing them, buying them off friends, or even getting them from their parents.
NEVILLE: And breaking news from Hollywood.
MARK GERAGOS, WINONA RYDER'S ATTORNEY: Things have happened in this case that are highly unusual.
NEVILLE: Winona gets whacked outside the judge's chambers after showing up late for a hearing. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin looks at what happens when stars go to court.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: OK, let's start with those recommendations for Catholic bishops dealing with priests who sexually abuse young people and children. Let's take a look at a few of those. Now, priests who abuse more than one child in the past or future would be removed from the ministry. However there are exceptions for priests who in the past only abused once and are not pedophiles. They could be allowed to remain in the priesthood with counseling. Their status would be considered by a review board.
Also from now on, dioceses will report any accusation of sexual abuse of a minor to the authorities and cooperate in the investigation. Now, those are definitely new guidelines, since all of this scandal broke recently.
And here to talk about these new recommendations, Phil Saviano. He's the regional director of the Boston area Chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests. He settled his case against the church for about $12,000 and did not sign a confidentiality agreement.
Also with us is Patrick Scully. He's director of communications with the Catholic League. And I welcome both of you to the show.
PHIL SAVIANO, SURVIVORSNETWORK.ORG: Thanks Arthel.
PATRICK SCULLY, THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE: Good afternoon.
NEVILLE: Sure. Phil, you're first. Is this proposal good enough?
SAVIANO: Well, it's certainly a step in the right direction. There are several clauses here that I think are very encouraging. Certainly, the zero tolerance for allegations that are reported from this point forward, very important. The fact that they will report allegations to civil authorities, the mandated reporting provision also very important. What troubles me about the guidelines is that things are looking good from this point forward, but retroactively, I think it's really weak. If I may...
NEVILLE: So what should they have done?
SAVIANO: Well, for example, the zero tolerance policy does not apply to people -- to priests who have molested in the past. For example, they seem to be making an exception, if there's a priest, for example, who has say raped a 14-year-old girl five years ago, they seem to say that that priest still has the appropriate moral fiber, the appropriate emotion and maturity to stay within the priesthood. And I think that by having an attitude and a policy like that, the bishops are setting themselves up for more trouble in the future, and they're continuing to needlessly place children at risk. My feeling is that...
(CROSSTALK)
SAVIANO: ... any ...
NEVILLE: Let me understand here, because you're saying that these...
SAVIANO: Yes.
NEVILLE: ... people would still be in place? These other priests?
SAVIANO: Sure.
SCULLY: That's not necessarily true Arthel. If I could...
SAVIANO: Well...
SCULLY: ... if I could jump...
SAVIANO: Let me finish this point.
(CROSSTALK)
SAVIANO: ... just briefly -- just briefly.
NEVILLE: Go ahead. Go ahead.
SAVIANO: Here's the thing. I feel that if a man would do this once to a child, at some future date under the right circumstances, he's going to do it again. And the other thing is that if the bishop says well, we only have one report about this priest, how does the bishop know for a fact that that priest has only done this one time?
My experience in working with survivors is that many of them never come forward for years and years. So just because there's only one public report does not mean that that priest has only offended one time.
NEVILLE: Patrick...
SAVIANO: Why take chances with guys like this?
(CROSSTALK)
SCULLY: Let's be very clear about this. This is a zero tolerance policy for pedophiles, past, present...
NEVILLE: It's not zero tolerance...
SCULLY: ... and future.
NEVILLE: ... because...
SCULLY: It is. It is...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Well then tell me otherwise because the...
SCULLY: It is.
(CROSSTALK)
SCULLY: If I could...
(CROSSTALK)
SCULLY: ... if I could explain -- if I could explain the proposal. If a person has been -- if a priest has been accused of abuse in the past of one case of it, one of the things he has to go through is a review. If he has ever been diagnosed as a pedophile...
NEVILLE: OK...
SCULLY: ... it doesn't matter if...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... then let me jump in Patrick -- let me jump in there because first all, who's to diagnose whether or not he's a pedophile, first of all? Secondly, what sort of review board are we talking about and thirdly, one child is one child too many.
SCULLY: That -- first of all that is absolutely true. One child is too many, but let's also be very clear about the review board will not only involve lay people, will involve the victims. They have their say as well. So it's a very limited possible second chance. It's not this wide open, if you've only done it once, you get a another shot. That's not true at all.
You have to go through counseling, be determined that you're not a pedophile, that you're not going to offend again and that you're also not being sued. If you're being sued you can't come back. I mean, there's -- the bar is pretty high. What they're doing is allowing the slightest bit of leeway for a case, say, 35 years ago where a priest was involved with a 17-year old. He's not being sued over it.
SAVIANO: Yes.
SCULLY: He's got counseling for it, and he -- automatic -- in other words, one size doesn't fit all. We need a little bit of leeway to determine on a case-by-case basis, on those very, very rare cases where pedophilia is not involved, at least as far as this policy is concerned.
SAVIANO: Yes, but Patrick, clearly pedophilia is a problem, but so is a rapist. You know...
SCULLY: Absolutely.
SAVIANO: ... one time, one 14 or 15-year old kid, why give him a second chance?
SCULLY: Well, it's not that easy. He's not just automatically getting a second chance. There's a number of steps you have to go through, including input from the victim, counseling, evaluation...
NEVILLE: But...
SCULLY: ... by experts.
NEVILLE: ... Patrick, first of all, I will go on record saying that I think it is a step in the right direction that the Catholic Church has decided to go ahead and report these cases, because before it was all of this secrecy. Keep it inside the family. Don't let anybody know. So that is a good step in the right direction. But, you know, I'm a little concerned about if it's one person or there's some slippery slope...
SCULLY: Well I...
NEVILLE: ... possibilities here.
SCULLY: ... I just think it really is necessary to leave a little bit of leeway, where not one-size-fits-all on every single case. When it comes to cases of pedophilia, the guy's out, one case or not. I mean that's quite clear, and as far as the secrecy is concerned, also in these proposals is no more confidentiality agreements -- they're out. Once this...
SAVIANO: Right.
SCULLY: ... comes through, it comes out, and that's another positive step.
SAVIANO: But...
(CROSSTALK)
SAVIANO: ... from this point forward?
SCULLY: Well there's not going to be...
(CROSSTALK)
SAVIANO: What about all the people that have signed these agreements over the past 10, 20, 30 years? Shouldn't they also be free to speak...
(CROSSTALK)
SAVIANO: ... about what happened to them?
SCULLY: There have -- there have been cases where the confidentiality rules have been lifted. That happened in Milwaukee and some other...
SAVIANO: Here in Boston.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: But we're talking...
(CROSSTALK)
SCULLY: ... in Boston, that's right.
(CROSSTALK)
SAVIANO: Why not make it nationwide? Why not make it nationwide, retroactive? SCULLY: All of these things that need to be -- go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK, hang on guys. Time out. I'm going to tell you who's going to talk next because you're not doing so well at that, and you really both are making some really interesting points.
So Patrick, you go ahead and continue.
SCULLY: Well, I think we just have to be very clear that it is not as simple as one-size-fits-all, that there are case-by-case basis in very rare circumstances where you can't say all right, that case that you were involved in, forget you've been doing nothing but good work for 50 years, that it didn't involve a child. You haven't been with the victims input cleared by a lay board that you can't continue in the ministry in some way.
Now that's -- and by the way, we're missing all the other fine points of this policy. The lifting of the confidentiality, the -- any case from now on is out, and a number of other things that are very, very positive. The victims are going to be heard, and well they should. They will be heard in Dallas, and we're very encouraged by that. And I think it's time we need to fine tune some of these items; but I think it is definitely a good basis and a great jumping off point for Dallas.
NEVILLE: OK Phil, I know you have a lot to say, and I definitely want to hear, because you work with a lot of victims, and I'd like to get some input. I know Rose (ph), you're standing by on the line, and you Kathy (ph), have been standing here with me for about 10 now. Thank you for waiting. This is obviously a very important subject.
We have a lot of comments standing by here, so please don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. We're talking about recommendations for dealing with sexually abusive priests. Catholic bishops will be debating those recommendations at this month's meeting in Dallas. And as promised, I am going to go to Rose (ph) now in Florida. Go ahead Rose (ph).
ROSE: Thank you. If a Catholic priest has abused a child once, if they've had that desire, that need to fulfill that inside of them, I don't care what you do, you are not going to get rid of that need inside of them to want to do it again. And to put our children into the hands of someone who has done it once, it's scary to think that you're going to change these people's inside ways.
NEVILLE: Rose (ph), you make an excellent point. I'm going to give Patrick Scully a chance to respond to your comments.
SCULLY: Well, she's right. If a person has this inside desire, to be sexually attracted to a child, he's a pedophile, and he doesn't get a second chance. And by the way, to...
NEVILLE: But, but, but you -- the rules say -- or the recommendations say that if it's one child...
SCULLY: No, it does not say that.
NEVILLE: ... then they can stay on.
SCULLY: It says if you've ever been diagnosed or shown to be a pedophile, you have no chance of staying on. The person who, on the very limited chance to get a second chance, is the one who was involved with a minor a long time ago, has been evaluated, is not pedophilia. We're talking about, say, a priest with a 17-year old, which is bad enough as it is. But if it can be determined that this person has been reviewed by the lay committee, by the doctors and, by the way, has no criminal charges against them...
NEVILLE: OK, but Patrick...
SCULLY: Let me just finish. Phil asked, what about the 14-year old who gets raped by the priest five years ago. The guy doesn't get a second chance. He goes to jail. If you have any criminal charges against you, you have no second chance.
NEVILLE: OK, but Patrick...
SCULLY: Let me be clear about what's in these...
NEVILLE: ... let me ask you, so you can clarify something then, and that is because you're saying that if a priest is accused of abusing someone, and he is diagnosed as a pedophile, then he's...
SCULLY: He's out.
NEVILLE: ... out of there.
(CROSSTALK)
SCULLY: That's correct...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: But let's say he's not diagnosed as a pedophile. He stays?
SCULLY: If -- no, that's not necessarily true. That's one of the criteria. The victim comes in and works with the lay board to see whether this guy is ever going to do this again.
NEVILLE: But Patrick, this is the point, I think...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... that people are upset about Patrick, because if they do it one time, that's one time too many. So it doesn't matter if they're going to be diagnosed as a pedophile or not. SCULLY: It does matter.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: It doesn't.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK, hang on one second. I've got Chandra (ph) here from Mississippi.
CHANDRA: I mean, because they're bishops or priests, what makes that right? Why are -- why are they not going to jail for this?
SCULLY: They are going to jail. They are going to jail.
(CROSSTALK)
SCULLY: And you know what, as far as I'm concerned, not fast enough. I think they should be thrown in jail just as much as any of the -- of the people that are weighing in on this argument.
NEVILLE: OK.
SCULLY: What -- all the bishops are trying to do is give a little bit of leeway for the -- for the very, very rare case that may come up in the future, one size does not fit all.
NEVILLE: Lynette (ph).
LYNETTE: As a retired teacher, I'm just happy to see that we are doing something for the children. I think my approach would be that it's about time, and this is a good starting point for continuing the discussion. I'm just happy that the -- that the bishops are doing something about this now. And I don't think that it's just a Catholic problem too, I might add. I think it's a problem that affects all religions.
NEVILLE: You're right about that. Unfortunately, that is definitely the case. Let me get Kathy (ph) over here. Phil, again, I want you to go ahead for me, and tell me what you thought about, or what the comments some of the other former victims have been saying to you regarding these new recommendations.
SAVIANO: Well, one thing I think it's important to say is so many people are putting their faith in the bishops to solve this problem. I think that survivors like myself and the network I'm involved in, we're looking more and more towards civil authorities. We're putting our faith in the hands of the prosecutors, in the hands of the legislators. Laws need to be changed, for example; the statute of limitations laws could be updated, extended in many states in this country. We just passed the mandated reporting law here in Massachusetts.
We'd like to see those sets of laws passed throughout the country. They'll affect not only priest molesters, but all child molesters. And I think that once the laws are brought up to date, and once politicians are willing to address this seriously, and once prosecutors are willing to address this seriously, that's going to go a lot further than anything that the bishops come up with in Dallas next week.
NEVILLE: Let me get...
(CROSSTALK)
SCULLY: Though I would -- I would tend to agree with that, and I would also add that in the guidelines that had been released, it will be required that all records be turned over immediately to civil authorities when an allegation is made. Phil's exactly right about that, and these particular guidelines, they do address that.
NEVILLE: How likely...
SCULLY: Yes?
NEVILLE: ... is it that these guidelines will be implemented?
SCULLY: I certainly think that they will be implemented. They didn't just come up with this yesterday, they've been working on it for a while. I think they'll be debated and fine tuned in Dallas, and then they'll be approved by the Vatican. We certainly hope so. It is a good step in the right direction.
NEVILLE: And how long will it take, Patrick?
SCULLY: Well the meeting's in Dallas next week.
NEVILLE: Yes, June 13 through 15, right.
SCULLY: It's the 13th through the 15th, the big day being Friday of that week. We'll see action there, and then when the Vatican takes it from there -- I don't have a timetable, but I would imagine it's more procedural than anything else.
NEVILLE: OK Kathy (ph), thank you for being patient.
KATHY: Yes, I just wanted to say it's just really a disgrace that the church is considering giving priests who have abused one child a second chance. Didn't those same priests take a vow of celibacy? They should be banned from the Catholic Church. In our school systems we have zero tolerance for kids for certain infractions. We have zero tolerance for kids, but for our priests, they are in positions of authority, and they are abusing children, and that is wrong, and they're suppose to be celibate.
NEVILLE: Thank you for speaking out Kathy (ph).
SAVIANO: It's a very mixed and troubling message, unfortunately.
NEVILLE: OK, well, listen Phil Saviano, I know that you will keep us posted on this story, as well as you Patrick Scully. Thank you both for being here and... (CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... clarifying issues and expressing your different perspectives on this story.
SAVIANO: I appreciate the opportunity.
SCULLY: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Sure.
OK, up next meet a California assemblyman who wants to raise the smoking age to 21. He thinks it'll stop teens from lighting up. You can tell him what you think right after this. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back everybody. Will raising the legal smoking age to 21 prevent teens from smoking? What about young adults 18, 19 and 20? Well, if any state is game for this kind of legislation, it's California. State Assemblyman Paul Koretz is sponsoring a bill to make it happen, and he's going to tell us how he thinks it's going to work.
Glad you could be here with us.
PAUL KORETZ, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY: Oh, my pleasure.
NEVILLE: Oh good. Also with us is Jacob Sullum, a syndicated columnist and senior editor of "Reason" magazine. He's also the author of "For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health."
Welcome to both of you.
JACOB SULLUM, AUTHOR, "FOR YOUR OWN GOOD": Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK, Mr. Koretz, why 21?
KORETZ: Well, tobacco is a huge killer, almost half a million people die each year in the United States from tobacco-related illnesses. And my view as a state legislator, I have no higher calling than saving lives, and the way to do that is by stopping people from becoming addicted to tobacco, which statistics show tends to happen in the 18 to 20-year old range, because that's when people have daily access to tobacco. They usually start much earlier, statistically around age 14, although my father started at age 10. But when they really get hooked is around 17, 18 years old to 20.
If they can't get that daily access to tobacco by buying it from retailers, thousands and thousands of people are going to pass through that period without getting hooked and without a lifetime of poor health, and a high possibility of premature death as a result.
NEVILLE: Jacob, what do you say to that? SULLUM: Well, I think we ought to pick an age and stick to it. If 18 is old enough to live independently, to get married, to vote, to enlist in the military, it certainly ought to be old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes. The question is, at what age do you have the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) level of maturity in order to make these kind of risky decisions, many of which are hard to reverse, in which you may end up regretting. That's really what we're talking about in the case of smoking.
NEVILLE: Now what about, though, Jacob, of all the statistic that says the -- that if you don't start smoking until you are 21, the chances are you may not smoke beyond that point?
SULLUM: Well that's the way the situation is now, but that doesn't mean that if you could somehow prevent everyone from touching a cigarette until they turn 21 that no one would smoke. It might be that the same people who smoke now would also smoke then. They would just start at an older age. You're talking about different groups of people when you compare the people who actually end up smoking under the current situation to the people who don't end up smoking.
NEVILLE: All right let's...
SULLUM: And you know, by the way, if most smokers start as teenagers, which they do, that tells us there's a problem with -- either with the existing law or with the way that it's being enforced.
(CROSSTALK)
SULLUM: It is already illegal for them to get cigarettes at that age. So maybe...
NEVILLE: So what are you saying in a...
SULLUM: Maybe better enforcement of that law would be a wiser course than trying to raise the age. I mean, the important thing is to enforce the existing law rather than trying to raise it to an age and posing a new limit that might not be enforced either.
NEVILLE: Now do you know, Assemblyman -- do you know if there is a problem out there in California with kids under age getting -- you know, buying cigarettes and being able to go to the local dime store to get them?
KORETZ: Well, everywhere you look and in every country, kids have some access to tobacco before age 18. And my father, like I said, started smoking at age 10. They can get cigarettes out of their parents' drawers. They can get it from friends. But that occasional cigarette is not what hooks people. What hooks them is the daily access to a large number of cigarettes, when they can go and buy a pack every day, when they're...
(CROSSTALK)
KORETZ: ... 18 to 20...
NEVILLE: You make a point...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... but 21's a little extreme, isn't it? And let me hear from Holly (ph) from Kentucky here.
HOLLY: At age 18 we consider children mature enough to elect the president. They even help the assemblyman in California. We let them elect our local leaders. We let them serve in our military, and right now they're over in Afghanistan dying for our country.
We let them be tried as an adult and sentenced to the death penalty, if the crime warrants it, so aren't they mature enough to evaluate the risk and decide whether or not they should smoke? If they're mature enough to evaluate the presidential candidates and decide who should lead our country, I feel they're mature enough to evaluate the risks and decide whether or not to smoke.
KORETZ: Well, you know, they said that about alcohol as well, when they gave 18-year-olds the right to vote, most of the states dropped the alcohol age to 18. As a result, they had a huge increase in binge drinking, a huge increase in deadly accidents, and every state in the country bumped it back up to 21. There's nothing magical about 18.
And the fact is, this is not a right. This is not a privilege. This is a very deadly substance that addicts.
NEVILLE: But it is a choice. Some people want to have the right to choose.
KORETZ: And I don't think there's any reason why people need to have that choice before 18.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on for me, because we decided to go right to the people of San Francisco to get their reaction to this whole notion of raising this smoking age to 21.
And let's see. I've got Bill out there standing by at the farmer's market.
Bill, what do you think about all of this?
BILL LUEBKEMAN, CALIFORNIA RESIDENT: Well, I think that it is going to be a very hard law to enforce, strictly because it is hard to enforce the laws they've got now. But the bottom line is that everybody knows smoking is very, very dangerous. It is killing people by the thousands all of the time.
But if this law will bring the attention to the fact that smoking is that dangerous and that the laws are there, they may be quite unreasonable in many people's eyes. And I have that same viewpoint, to a large extent. But, if we can just draw the attention to not smoking to a higher degree, it's really going to be beneficial. Even if we only save one life, it is going to be life that we can all be proud that we have saved.
NEVILLE: Bill, did you smoke or did you used to smoke?
LUEBKEMAN: I smoked from the time I was in the military back in the mid-'50s, early '50s, all the way until I was 44. And I finally got the message, tore up the last pack I had, and threw it out the window. And that was the end of it. I haven't had a cigarette since that time. And I think that was in about 1978.
NEVILLE: All right, Bill, thank you very much for talking to us.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I have to take a break right now. We have to go to the news break.
And, in the meantime, take our TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at CNN.com/TALKBACK: What do you think the legal age for smoking should be: 18, 21, or how about no age limit?
We will take more of your comments and e-mails right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
I'm Arthel Neville. And we are talking about raising the smoking age to 21 is California.
And Grant, right? You are standing here with a lot to say.
GRANT: Well, I had a friend who just started smoking last week. And I let him have it. I come from two smoking parents, but I think smoking is really a disgusting thing. But I will tell that, if you raise the smoking age, teenagers are only going to want to do it more because, if you make it illegal, they are going to want to rebel.
But I want to know what kind of educational -- any sort of educational provisions that you're putting in this legislation, because education, not legislation is going to change things. Just making a law on paper won't change a thing.
(APPLAUSE)
KORETZ: First of all, I want to -- since you mentioned that -- show a picture of my two deceased parents, who both died around 25 years ago from smoking-related illnesses.
The big difference, I think, is going to be in enforcement. And the example I should give you is with alcohol. When the age was raised from 18 to 21, accidents relating to teen use of alcohol dropped dramatically. And it wasn't because alcohol enforcement was very good. It was because there's a certain number of people that are law-abiding. And when it is illegal to buy it before 21, they just won't do it.
NEVILLE: So what about education, sir?
KORETZ: You're going to see a similar huge result just by taking the action.
California leads the nation in terms of education relating to tobacco. So there, we are already way ahead of the game. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counter-advertising to the marketing that the tobacco industry does, especially to try to hook children in. So that's an area where we have been very successful, and we've dropped the teenage tobacco rate as a result of that.
But what will get us there and get us all the way there, and to actually stop people from getting hooked, will be changing the law to make it illegal to purchase tobacco from the ages of 18 to 21.
NEVILLE: OK, well, I have an interesting perspective for you, sir, Cameron here.
How old are you?
CAMERON: I'm 13.
NEVILLE: And your thoughts are?
CAMERON: I think that it should stay at 18, because if it goes to 21, kids my age will just be breaking the law for a longer period of time.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Thank you.
SULLUM: I was wondering -- if I could just interject on this question of education -- I really don't think education is the issue. It is not that people don't know that this is dangerous.
I think, from the point of view of the anti-smoking movement, the problem is that people continue to smoke despite the fact that they know it is dangerous. And I think, as long as people continue to smoke, the cigarette-purchase age will never be high enough so far as the activists are concerned, because the decision to smoke will be cited as evidence of immaturity.
If people smoke at 18, obviously, they are not equipped to make the choice. If they smoke at 21, obviously, they are not old enough to make a choice. Why not 25? Why not 30?
NEVILLE: Why do you say that? Why do you say that?
SULLUM: Why do I say that?
Because I think the assumption underlying these kinds of measures is that smoking is a fundamentally irrational act, and that no mature, rational person could possibly choose to do it. And I think that is simply not the case. I think, if people have different values, and they are willing to trade off health in exchange for whatever benefits they get out of smoking, that may be a perfectly rational choice on their part.
And adults, who at this point are defined as people above the age of 18, ought to be able to make that kind of choice.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on, Jacob. I'm going to let you speak again.
But I have Emily standing by in San Francisco at the farmer's market out there -- gorgeous day in California, as usual.
And Emily, do you smoke, first of all, I want to know.
EMILY FITZLOFF, CALIFORNIA RESIDENT: I do not.
NEVILLE: And what do you think about the idea of California having the legal smoking age raised to 21?
FITZLOFF: Well, I guess I think it is rather unfortunate that this much attention is being paid to legislation. I feel like we would probably be better served putting this kind of energy into smoking prevention for people of all ages and into enhanced cancer research.
I feel like we are sending a mixed message because, in this state, we are increasingly counting on 18-year-olds to make adult decisions. We are laying more and more responsibilities, adult responsibilities, on them every day.
NEVILLE: And, Emily...
FITZLOFF: And then to be telling them -- go ahead.
NEVILLE: Do you think that making the choice, the decision to smoke, do you think that is an adult choice?
FITZLOFF: Certainly. I do feel like it is an adult choice. But I feel like, again, if we are going to be treating 18-year-olds as adults, then they should be able to make that choice at that age.
NEVILLE: I see.
Now, I've got Cheyenne (ph) here.
How old are you, Cheyenne?
CHEYENNE: I'm 16, from Greeneville, Tennessee.
And as a high school student I believe that, if you are going to smoke, you are going to smoke. And if they pass this law at 18, all they are going to do is have people, their friends, go get it for them. And I don't think it is anybody's fault. It's not the parents. I think the government should spend every penny that they make from tax dollars on raising children on awareness of smoking, because I have a father that smokes. And I don't smoke. And I never would because I know what the risks are from that. And so I just believe that, if more money was spent on tolerance, I don't think it would matter if you were 56 or 16 or 18. If you're going to smoke, you're going to smoke.
NEVILLE: Well, thank you.
Mr. Koretz, here is the question, though, because people keep talking about this education, which is very important. Now, if in fact -- because I know there's a lot of tax dollars that go along with selling cigarettes. And apparently -- or I understand that those tax dollars are used to help educate people about the dangers of smoking. So, then you have less tax dollars. It is a little bit of a catch-22 situation there.
So, I don't know. What are you thoughts on that?
KORETZ: Well, in California we spend more per capita than anywhere else in the country educating people about the dangers of smoking.
There is not a deficit there in effectiveness. And it has been very helpful. The one thing we really have to do is stop people from getting addicted at that one age range. Almost nobody starts smoking and virtually nobody stays an addicted smoker if they start after age 21. So there is a maturity question.
(CROSSTALK)
KORETZ: Clearly, once people reach that hurdle, they don't get addicted.
NEVILLE: Excuse me, sir. How old was your friend when he starting smoking, Grant? You said he started the other day.
GRANT: (OFF-MIKE)
NEVILLE: Ah, OK.
Listen, we are out of time.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I'm sorry, sir. We are out of time.
But before we go, by applause here, if you agree with this idea to raise the California smoking age to 21, please applaud.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: If you disagree, I want to hear from you.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: I wonder what the people of California will say.
I want to thank both of my guests for being here with us today.
KORETZ: Thank you very much.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
SULLUM: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Come back any time.
We have a Beverly Hills court case to go to. And we're going to take that up in a moment. So don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Winona Ryder's preliminary hearing on shoplifting and drug charges has been postponed for a fifth time. The actress is apparently recovering from an injury she received just outside the courtroom yesterday. Ryder, she arrived late and was involved in a body collision between a sheriff's deputy and a photographer. And her lawyer says Winona broke her arm.
Now, she is accused of shoplifting, you might remember, $4,800 worth of goods from Saks Fifth Avenue last December. Now another hearing has been scheduled for Thursday.
In the meantime, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is here to talk about this case.
And Jeffrey, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right Jeffrey, Winona's lawyer showed up in court yesterday, asked the judge to delay the preliminary hearing again for the fifth time. What's going on here?
TOOBIN: Well, I think there is always attention when celebrities are involved in legal cases because, on the one hand, the prosecutors are so worried about seeming like they are bending over backwards to give them a break that sometimes they actually wind up treating them more harshly than ordinary citizens who are caught up in things like that.
It's just an exactly of how, when you look at something, when you focus on something, it distorts how the case works.
NEVILLE: OK, so -- and then I think her lawyer said that he had a problem with the prosecution as well?
TOOBIN: Right.
Well, Mark Geragos is a very outspoken lawyer. And people may remember him. He represented some people in Bill Clinton's impeachment case. He is a very flamboyant guy. So he is always looking to put the prosecution on trial, rather than worry about his own client. But the thing that just pains me so much is to look at that video, and it makes you see why people hate the press so much.
NEVILLE: I was going to say, that looks really bad right now.
TOOBIN: It's just terrible.
I've covered a lot of these high-profile cases, and there are ways of dealing with situations like that.
NEVILLE: Yes, like, couldn't they have taken her in a back way, maybe?
TOOBIN: Or just put up a police...
NEVILLE: A little barricade.
TOOBIN: ... barricade and just -- I'm covering the Skakel case as we speak now. And that's a very calm and organized place. There are, in fact, more cameras than there were for Winona Ryder. But the court officials from the first day said: "Here are the rules." And people abide by them.
And, instead, they have a disaster like this.
NEVILLE: OK, I will admit, the media did look pretty bad there.
But still, some attorneys use that in their favor. It's like: "Oh, little, poor, little Winona. She got hit. She got bombarded by these...
TOOBIN: It's true.
And I think you have you to feel sorry for her. She did break her elbow. That's not a small injury. And I think it shouldn't happen. You should feel sorry for that. That doesn't mean she should get away with shoplifting. But it is really a terrible thing that happened to her. And also I think it's worth pointing out, one of the court security officers was injured as well. So it was a total disaster on all fronts.
NEVILLE: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you very much for that update.
We will take a break and we'll be back after this, everybody.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK everybody. Unfortunately, we are out of time. So, all I can do now is thank you at home for watching.
I'm Arthel Neville. I will be back again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
