Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live At Daybreak

Debating Secondhand Smoke

Aired July 25, 2001 - 07:17   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.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: New evidence supports what we have been hearing for years: Breathing secondhand smoke is bad for you.

A small Japanese study found that just 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can impair the normal blood flow to the heart.

An editorial in the "Journal of the American Medical Association" suggests everyone should be protected, even from short-term exposure. The editorial reads -- quote -- "Communities should continue to require that workplaces, including restaurants and bars, be smoke-free and mount public education campaigns to encourage smoke-free homes. Not only will everyone breathe better, but they will also have healthier hearts."

A spokesman for Philip Morris said -- quote -- "We think there are options available to minimize environmental tobacco smoke in general in ways to find comfort and balance for nonsmokers and smokers."

Well, let's go to two people who have strong opinions on how much rights or rights smokers have to smoke and where they should be smoking.

Mark Pertschuk is president of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights -- the only national lobbying group of its kind. They are responsible for more than 1,000 laws across the country.

And Audrey Silk of NYC CLASH or Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment. Audrey started this organization, because she was just simply fed up with what was going on in New York.

Audrey, let me begin with you and get some reaction to this Japanese study. I mean, it is yet another study indicating that smokers' smoke is dangerous to people who don't smoke.

What is your reaction?

AUDREY SILK, CITIZENS LOBBYING AGAINST SMOKER HARASSMENT: Well, another study -- quantity does not make quality.

Just because they have come up with another piece of junk does not mean it supports what they have been saying. And there are more respectable organizations, such as the American Council on Science and Health, who says that -- uncertain and controversial -- that there is any effect on the heart. So this is a very small study that doesn't seem to be peer reviewed that says "may" and "suggests" a lot. It doesn't mean very much.

LIN: Mark Pertschuk, do you think that this is the case for more legislation and regulating where smokers should smoke?

MARK PERTSCHUK, AMERICANS FOR NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS: It has been completely well established since at least 1986 that involuntary smoking is seriously damaging to nonsmokers. Everyone from the United States Surgeon General to the California EPA to the National Academy of Sciences have agreed. In fact, with the exception of scientists connected with the tobacco industry, it is well established and really not controversial.

SILK: Well, that's ...

LIN: Mark, your -- OK. Go ahead, Audrey.

SILK: That's incorrect, because the Cal/EPA report was based on the EPA report of 1992 that was invalidated and vacated by a federal court judge as junk science saying they cherry-picked their data to establish a finding that they preconceived.

And the Congressional Research Service substantiated that judge's finding. So -- and the World Health Organization conducted a 10-year study called MONICA that found that the usual risk factors do not increase heart disease -- the risk factors being smoking or obesity. So they can make as many claims as they want. And there is plenty of studies and research that do not agree.

LIN: Audrey, Mark, arguments on both sides when it comes to medical studies -- but let's focus here for a moment on smokers' rights and nonsmokers' rights.

Mark, your organization says that nonsmokers should have a right to breathe smoke-free air. But last I read the U.S. Constitution, there was nothing in there about that sort of right.

PERTSCHUK: The mission of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights is to eliminate smoking in enclosed public places where nonsmokers are forced to be . Airplanes was one of our major national campaigns, for example -- and workplaces.

Our other mission is to expose the activities of the tobacco industry -- Philip Morris and the other companies -- in addicting young smokers. And it should be noted that the same people who are talking about the passive smoking not being a health problem for nonsmokers say that smoking isn't killing smokers. And that's just complete rubbish.

LIN: Well, Audrey, is that a compromise that I think both sides can agree to that in public places, there should be designed areas for smokers?

SILK: It has reached the point where there is no compromising with these groups. They have -- first we had smoking rooms. Then that wasn't good enough, and they kicked us outdoors. Now that's not good enough. And we must be 20 feet away. That's not good enough. They are banning it in parks and beaches...

LIN: Parks?

SILK: Parks right here in New York City -- Bryant Park has made a voluntary no-smoking section. There is no law, but they ask that people abide by it. It has gotten way out of hand. Any compromise for them is merely a stepping stone to greater restrictions.

LIN: So, Mark, where do you draw the line?

PERTSCHUK: You know, the only thing that we want to do is to protect nonsmokers. We have no problem with smokers smoking in private. And what they do to themselves is entirely their own business. What we say is that communities should have the power to protect their health. And that means that whether it's New York or whether it's San Francisco, the people who live there and their local officials should have the power to do what they want. That's our position.

LIN: But, Audrey, are you saying that the legislation certainly being imposed in New York City is creating a prohibitive environment in that smokers are starting to feel like they are no longer humans?

SILK: Exactly. And they use the term to "denormalize smoking," which means they are deciding what is normal in society and what isn't -- something that has been going on for centuries, which is smoking. And in turn, people interpret that to mean that smokers are not normal or abnormal. They are teaching children to be intolerant, which for any other case, children are taught to be tolerant of everyone.

LIN: So, Mark, in this case, does it sound like really a case about human rights and how people are treated in general? Isn't that part of the debate?

PERTSCHUK: It is. And -- well, you may want to smoke or engage in another activity. Your right to smoke as it were ends when it hurts me, when it causes cancer, heart disease in a nonsmoker, when it makes the life of an asthmatic child miserable. So your right to do something doesn't extend to hurting other people.

LIN: Mark Pertschuk, Audrey Silk, I wish we had more time. Thank you very much for joining us this morning.

PERTSCHUK: Thank you.

LIN: An interesting debate that is sure to continue.

So just what does the American public think about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Frank Newport, the Gallup Poll's editor-in-chief, joins us now from Princeton, New Jersey.

Frank, join the debate. FRANK NEWPORT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, GALLUP POLL: Well, you know, the American public is actually a little more tolerant than we might think about secondhand smoke and also about smoking in public places.

First of all, we just finished actually this past in an update on our annual audit of smoking -- where Americans stand on it. This was the very question: How harmful is secondhand smoke?

And you can see 52 percent say very harmful, but one way that we look at it, that means it's about as many people don't say that it's very harmful. A lot of them say it is somewhat harmful, but aren't willing to go to that very harmful category. And that's not as high as we might have thought.

There has been some change over time. Let me show you the trend line on this, but it has actually leveled off and come back down. We have tracked this since 1994. This is the percent, Carol, who say very harmful, and it was 36 percent back then. And it came up with all that publicity.

But look at this -- in '97, it was 55 percent. And now it's actually back down by a couple of points, meaning that it looks like it has kind of leveled off. So that concern isn't as high as some might have anticipated, Carol.

LIN: Frank, did you find out whether any people think that smoking should be banned altogether?

NEWPORT: Indeed we did. And I think we have to say the public sides with Audrey in the debate that we just had on that. And we gave people three choices: ban smoking altogether; set aside certain areas; or no restrictions at all. And we didn't even put the no restrictions up here, because nobody agrees with that.

But for the hotels, for workplaces and restaurants, you can see more Americans say that it should be set aside areas than say it should be banned. Now, there is most concern in restaurants, but even there it's 44 percent ban. More people actually say set aside areas.

So we don't see a lot of public support, at least a majority saying totaling banning smoking in public areas.

We got some sympathy on the part of Americans towards smokers, whom a lot of people think are addicted, and they feel sorry for them rather than blaming them -- Carol.

LIN: Everyone trying to find a compromise -- thank you very much, Frank.

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