PBS: Think Tank: Transcript for "Smoking, Is Big Brother Becoming Big Nanny?"

« Back to Smoking, Is Big Brother Becoming Big Nanny? main page

Transcript for:

Smoking, Is Big Brother Becoming Big Nanny?

Think Tank Transcripts: Smoking

ANNOUNCER: Think Tank has been made possible by Amgen. Unlockingthe secrets of life through cellular and molecular biology, at Amgen,we produce medicines that improve people's lives today and bring hopefor tomorrow.

Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theWilliam H. Donner Foundation, the Randolph Foundation, and the JMFoundation.

MR. WATTENBERG: Hello. I'm Ben Wattenberg. Is smoking so dangerousthat our government should strictly limit it? How far should thegovernment go in telling people what risks they can take? Joining usto sort through the consensus and the conflict are Peter Huber of theManhattan Institute; Walter Berns, professor of government atGeorgetown University; Richard Daynard, professor of law atNortheastern University; and John Banzhaf, professor of law at GeorgeWashington University.

The topic before the house: 'Smoking: Is Big Brother Becoming BigNanny?' This week on Think Tank.

It is estimated that 400,000 Americans die of smoking relateddiseases every year. Still, one in five Americans continue to smoke.Every year 46 million smokers voluntarily spend $48 billion on anactivity which is likely to harm them. The evidence is not new. It'sbeen very public since the 1964 Surgeon General's Report on Smokingand Health, a report which triggered a tobacco control movement thathas become a social and political force. Today, every pack ofcigarettes carries a warning label. Cigarette advertising is bannedon television. Instead, the airwaves carry anti smoking publicservice announcements.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: (From videotape.) Don't smoke. It'lldrag you down.

MR. WATTENBERG: The anti tobacco campaign has had success. Fortymillion Americans have stopped smoking since 1965. The percentage ofadults who smoke has dropped from 42 percent to about 26 percent.Recently, the anti smoking campaign has been stepped up. Six hundredlocalities have outlawed smoking in public places. McDonald's hasbanned smoking in its company owned restaurants. Six hundred shoppingmalls forbid smoking. And 20 Major League Baseball parks prohibitfans from lighting up.

And now a new bill before the Congress would effectively bansmoking in all public places. Called the Smoke Free Environment Act,it would, and I quote, 'prohibit the smoking of cigarettes, cigarsand pipes within any building entered by 10 or more individuals atleast one day per week.' Violators would be fined $5,000 per day.

But is the government going to far this time? Critics point outthat the risk of getting lung cancer from secondhand smoke is slightabout the same as that of developing colon cancer from drinkingchlorinated water or getting killed in a bicycle accident. And whatabout hang gliding? What about a three martini lunch?

The smoking debate raises a larger question that has bubbledthrough the intellectual community for a generation and more: Howmuch risk should government try to control in people's lives?Liberals generally want the government to protect people from risk,which often ends up limiting their free choices. Conservativesgenerally prefer to let people take greater risks, but expect them tobear the full consequences.

Our first question, Mr. Peter Huber, is the United States ofAmerica in danger of becoming the 'Nanny States of America'?

MR. HUBER: The drift is certainly in that direction. Theconservatives want to protect us from abortion and pornography andother liberal ills, and the liberals want us to want to protect usfrom tobacco and all sorts of other things of that ilk. That'sdefinitely the trend.

MR. WATTENBERG: Are we becoming the 'Nanny State'?

MR. DAYNARD: Maybe we are and maybe we're not, but I don't thinkit has anything to do with the issue on smoking, either secondhandsmoking or active smoking, because of the 46 million Americans whoyou say are voluntarily smoking they're certainly actively smokingcigarettes maybe 40 million of them have an adult choice as towhether to smoke or not. Their adult choice is not to smoke. Theystart smoking as kids, and they reason they're still smoking is thatthey're hooked and can't figure out how to get unhooked. So we're nottalking about, in any substantial degree, overriding having the stateor the federal government override adult choices.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let's talk not about people hurting themselves,but about people hurting other people, because that is the root

MR. BANZHAF: Innocent third parties, right.

MR. WATTENBERG: Innocent third parties.

MR. BANZHAF: Fifty-three thousand Americans by five differentestimates die each year of somebody else's tobacco smoke. That ismore than all the people who die in auto accidents, about twice asmany who are shot in all of the robberies across the country.

MR. WATTENBERG: Do you believe in those numbers?

MR. HUBER: Whatever the numbers, I'm perfectly willing to acceptthat some number of people are hurt by secondhand smoke, and I thinkthe case for regulating public places, truly public places, is a verylegitimate one. I mean, you own an airport or a public spacecollectively, of course you're going to have some collectiveregulation either way, and the majority should rule. But I do resistthe notion that the government can just define everything in creationas public. I mean, McDonald's has made the decision on their own.Good for them. But it sure isn't a public space. McDonald's a privateone. They've decided to ban smoking. They're absolutely within theirrights. And if Burger King wants to have it your way and let peoplesmoke there, why shouldn't they?

MR. BANZHAF: But OSHA regulates all kinds of things in McDonald's.

MR. HUBER: Well, they shouldn't. They shouldn't.

MR. BANZHAF: They regulate sexual harassment.

MR. HUBER: They shouldn't.

MR. BANZHAF: They regulate discrimination. Now you want to go rollback the clock 30 years and get the government out of any privatebusiness.

MR. WATTENBERG: Professors

MR. BANZHAF: You've got a heck of an argument.

MR. BERNS: That's a rather good idea.

MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, Walter Berns. Yeah, what?

MR. BERNS: That's a rather good idea.

MR. HUBER: Why not let people choose between McDonald's and BurgerKing? There's room enough for both.

MR. WATTENBERG: Professor Banzhaf?

MR. BANZHAF: Yes?

MR. WATTENBERG: It has been reported to me that you have said, ifit were up to you, a child living in a house whose parents smokewould be--should be regarded as a victim of child abuse.

MR. BANZHAF: No, that's not what I said. What I have said

MR. WATTENBERG: What do you think about that? What do you thinkabout that idea?

MR. BANZHAF: --and I've convinced judges in 12 different states,that smoking by a parent should be a factor in custody disputes. Morethan half a dozen parents have lost custody because they've beensmoking around children. And recently a case of child abuse by anoutside third party, a physician made a complaint under child abuse.The child was removed from the house. Not in all cases, but whenthose children are rushed, as they are, as they have been, in seriousrespiratory distress in hospitals, unable to breathe because ofasthmatic conditions and the parents continue to smoke around them,then I think the state has as much right to step in as they do whenchildren are left in unsanitary conditions or left alone for a periodof time or exposed to lead based paint.

MR. HUBER: How about the private smoker in his own home? Whatright--I mean, if the government put a tax on abortion clinics orsaid, 'Look, we're not going to outlaw abortion, but we're going todiscourage it strongly,' surely you'd agree there'd be real problemswith that if there is a constitutional right to abortion. How is itvery fundamentally different to put something bad into your body orto have a surgical procedure or to take a drug perhaps for--if you'reHIV-positive, an experimental drug? Why isn't there more

MR. BANZHAF: Well, Peter, nobody has argued that an adult shouldnot be permitted

MR. HUBER: Why shouldn't we have more personal autonomy? But you'dlike to tax it. You'd like to

MR. BANZHAF: Look, let me give you your answer. Nobody has

MR. WATTENBERG: Do you fellows here think that high taxes, reallyhigh taxes, become a vehicle that says this is a luxury that onlyrich people can afford?

MR. BANZHAF: No, because in virtually every country in the world,the tax rate on cigarettes is much higher than it is now. If weincrease the tax rate to two dollars more a pack, which is thehighest anybody's asked for, we would still only be in the middle.

MR. HUBER: Let me ask if we can't perhaps reach agreement onsomething here.

MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah.

MR. HUBER: I will grant you that the public space and the externalharms, whatever they are and one can debate what is a public spaceand how much external harm there is--are legitimate reasons forgovernment intervention. Would you not at the same time thenreciprocally affirm--really affirm, not pseudo affirm but the privateright to smoke without being taxed to death, without being harried todeath, without being lectured, just to--I mean, cut the taxes forpurely private smoking, okay? And also to engage in a dialogue amongconsenting adults--no advertising toward kids--so that Marlboro orwhoever else who wants to can try and pitch cigarettes to theconsenting adult? In the private sphere, whatever that sphere is,would you not--you wouldn't endorse that?

MR. DAYNARD: The problem is that 90 percent

MR. HUBER: You won't?

MR. DAYNARD: Well, I mean, I'd go I'd give a little bit of it.Ninety

MR. HUBER: Not all?

MR. DAYNARD: First of all, you're not acknowledging that 90percent of adult smokers would devoutly wish not to be smokers.

MR. HUBER: Well, let us acknowledge that. I mean

MR. DAYNARD: Okay.

MR. HUBER: --let us acknowledge that and let-- you should alsoacknowledge you can get your nicotine addiction from lots of thingsother than tobacco, like patches and gum today, but that's beside thepoint. Let's acknowledge that and look toward the future

MR. DAYNARD: Yeah, but nobody acquires the addiction that way.

MR. WATTENBERG: No, you use that quit

MR. HUBER: No, but you can kick it. So it doesn't matter.

MR. DAYNARD: Of course, yeah.

MR. HUBER: You can get your nicotine from other sources. You don'thave to smoke to

MR. DAYNARD: Right.

MR. HUBER: --satisfy this addiction. So it's not--you know, youcan get

MR. DAYNARD: Right.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. What's your bottom line? You say there's aright to smoke?

MR. HUBER: Well, the bottom line--surely in private. Can't we getthe government off the back of the private smoker in the privatespace, whatever that private space

MR. DAYNARD: I don't think the government is on their back.

MR. HUBER: Well, they're heavily taxed and

MR. DAYNARD: No, compared with cigarettes in the United States 30years ago, the effective tax rate is less than half of what it was 30years ago.

MR. WATTENBERG: Professor Berns, our constitutional scholar

MR. BERNS: Wants to make a simple point here.

MR. WATTENBERG: --wants to make a point here. And I want to try tounderstand.

MR. BERNS: First, the simple point, and then a constitutionalpoint, okay?

The first point, to say that the government is not on the backs ofsmokers I think ridiculous. All over the city of Washington one seesthis little groups of smokers huddled around an ashtray outside anoffice building. Smokers today are not the most abused minority inthis country, but they certainly are the most despised minority inthis country.

MR. WATTENBERG: You are a smoker?

MR. BERNS: It depends on the

MR. DAYNARD: By the way, John

MR. BERNS: --when you ask that question of me.

MR. DAYNARD: Even John Stewart Mills says it's okay to despisepeople. That's not the issue.

MR. BERNS: Well

MR. DAYNARD: And we don't. I mean, that's not the point on thething. The point on the thing is it's the smoker who wants

MR. WATTENBERG: How do you feel

MR. BERNS: I now want to get to my constitutional point.

MR. WATTENBERG: But I want to ask you a personal question first.How do you feel these days as a smoker? Do you--are you regarded as asocial leper?

MR. BERNS: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To be precise, in my officebuilding at Georgetown University not so long ago when I was in asmoking mode, the police suddenly arrived at my door, having beencalled by a colleague down the hall who complained about the--I thinklargely complained about the fact that I was smoking, not that shewas suffering from the smoke, although she claimed that.

MR. BANZHAF: Were you violating campus rules?

MR. BERNS: Yeah, sure.

MR. BANZHAF: So you--violating the rules, and now you complainthat somebody's enforcing them.

MR. BERNS: Well, I'm not

MR. BANZHAF: Isn't that a strange thing to happen at Georgetown?

MR. HUBER: But shouldn't the campus have a right to set its ownrules?

MR. BERNS: The campus did not decide. The city of Washingtondecided

MR. HUBER: Okay, that's a separate

MR. BERNS: And the campus is making all kinds of exceptions forolder revered professors--I was not among them--who have an addictionthey cannot revere.

MR. BANZHAF: Not old enough or not revered?

MR. BERNS: The latter. But may I get to the constitutional point

MR. BANZHAF: Please do.

MR. WATTENBERG: Yes. I want to ask you this question, Walter.Consider not just smoking, but consider the whole thrust of federalpolicy and governmental policy.

MR. BERNS: That's what I want to

MR. WATTENBERG: What has happened in the country in the last halfcentury?

MR. BERNS: You mentioned earlier, or someone mentioned--perhapsyou, John--sexual harassment. That's now a federal offense. Forthe--and the question arises again, just as it does with respect tothis proposed anti-smoking in public places throughout the countrylegislation, what is the constitutional authority for the federalgovernment to do this? I have no complaints about local legislation,because I regard this sort of thing as a local matter. But for thefederal government to do it, it seems to me it has to violate theConstitution of the United States. What I find interesting is--therehave been reports of this anti-smoking proposal by the federalgovernment--I have not seen in any newspaper or press reference tothe proposed legislation a query about the constitutional authority.

MR. BANZHAF: Because nobody other than people like yourself, whowant to go to 40 years of law, think of it as an issue.

MR. BERNS: And people like myself have a reverence

MR. HUBER: May be right.

MR. BERNS: --for the Constitution of the United States and thenecessity for our own good health to follow the forms of theConstitution of the United States.

MR. WATTENBERG: We have in this country local option on alcohol,which is also a dangerous, addictive drug for some people. What wouldbe wrong with having local option on banning cigarettes?

MR. DAYNARD: Well, I'm not sure we have local option on drunkdriving. We certainly don't have local option on--in effect ondriving over a particular speed limit. And I would think Congress

MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, but you can't do any--you can't

MR. DAYNARD: I would think if some states were

MR. WATTENBERG: But you can't drive drunk until you consumealcohol.

MR. DAYNARD: Yes, but

MR. WATTENBERG: And there are counties where you either have tobring in your own brown bag or you can't get a drink at a restaurant.

MR. DAYNARD: Oh, well, I think that could certainly--since nobodyis pushing for a national or even local ban that I know of on thesales or consumption of cigarettes, that I think the analogy is fine.

MR. WATTENBERG: What would your next step, if you got this bill,be? I mean, my experience in Washington is the slippery slopeexperience, which is you get one thing and then, bingo, you know, youwant something else. What

MR. DAYNARD: Well, this bill I think essentially provides

MR. WATTENBERG: This is the end? This is the end?

MR. BANZHAF: No, I'll tell you what it is because I testified onit just a couple of days ago.

MR. WATTENBERG: Right.

MR. BANZHAF: There's a bill in Pennsylvania which would prohibitsmoking in any motor vehicle where there's a child 15 years of age orunder, because we now know that, in addition to the heart attack andthe lung cancer and so on, secondhand tobacco smoke is deadlydangerous for young kids, particularly those with asthma and evensinus

MR. WATTENBERG: Even with the windows open?

MR. BANZHAF: Yes, even with the windows open.

MR. WATTENBERG: Can you give us a list of all the other things inour society that propose potential harm that the federal governmentought to

MR. HUBER: I can.

MR. BANZHAF: This is a state bill.

MR. HUBER: I mean, being a Christian Scientist is very dangerousto your

MR. WATTENBERG: Excuse me?

MR. HUBER: Being a Christian Scientist is very hazardous to thehealth of your child.

MR. BANZHAF: That's protected by the First Amendment. Smokingisn't.

MR. HUBER: Being a Jehovah's Witness--these people are people whosay that: 'My child is my child. I don't want him to have a bloodtransfusion. I don't want them to see a doctor.' And it can kill thechild. And a certain number of

MR. BANZHAF: But don't you know the courts overruled that

MR. HUBER: No, they don't.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let each--hold it. Hold it.

MR. BANZHAF: Oh, they always overrule it.

MR. HUBER: They're not. That's just finish.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let him finish.

MR. HUBER: That's just wrong.

MR. WATTENBERG: John, just hold a minute.

MR. HUBER: That's just not true, okay? And

MR. WATTENBERG: He can say it again.

MR. HUBER: I mean, we--people do many things to their childrenwhich-- I have two small children, and I would never do to mychildren--I think it would be disastrous. And

MR. WATTENBERG: Do you smoke?

MR. HUBER: No, I don't smoke, and I don't stuff my kids withsugary foods and so on, but other parents do. And we--at some pointwe have to sit back and say,'Look, we know best for our kids, but dowe really trust the federal government or John Banzhaf to make theright call every time? I mean, if they can do smoking now--and Ihappen to agree with him, I wouldn't expose my kids to tobaccosmoke--what's next?

MR. WATTENBERG: You know, we just went through the Brady bill ongun control, and everybody said,'Hey, the Brady bill is a wonderfulthing.' 'The Brady bill, it's just a little old thing; it isn't goingto do anything.' It wasn't 48 hours before--and I happen to supportthe Brady bill. And, by the way, because I have two adult childrenwho still smoke, as well as one son-in-law, I am philosophically sortof on this side, but practically sort of on your side. But it wasn't48 hours that the Brady bill was passed when they started saying,'And for the next step we now do this and this and this and this,'which I also may support. So to say that there is no sort ofprogression

MR. BANZHAF: No, we didn't say that. What I say to you, and Ithink this is true for any bill, you debate a particular bill or anissue or its merits. We may ban smoking in A and B. We may not do itin C and D. The fact that I may want to go to C and D doesn't meanI'm going to get it.

MR. HUBER: But the argument is what the principle that parentswithin a large range of discretion get to decide what's good or badfor their children.

MR. BANZHAF: That is true.

MR. HUBER: I'm a parent. I don't want my kids to smoke. I'd lovethem to grow up in a smoke-free world. But I am even more scared ofthe notion that you and the federal government combined can tell mewhat's good for my kids.

MR. BANZHAF: Okay, and the ones where we're already doing it areyou've got to put your child in a seatbelt or a restraint harness.You cannot use hard drugs around your child. In many cases, youcannot get drunk around your child.

MR. HUBER: And there--and we need limits to this stuff.

MR. BANZHAF: You cannot leave your young child alone for more thana few hours.

MR. HUBER: We need limits to this. That's what we're debating.

MR. WATTENBERG: Hold it. Hold it.

MR. BANZHAF: You cannot keep them in

MR. WATTENBERG: Hold it. Hold it. Just stop for a minute.

MR. HUBER: And it's too much.

MR. WATTENBERG: Whoa!

MR. HUBER: And it's too much. That's exactly the point.

MR. BANZHAF: Well, you want to roll back the clocks

MR. WATTENBERG: Let's

MR. BANZHAF: --just like Walter does.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let's just do what we just

MR. BERNS: Why don't we

MR. WATTENBERG: Let's just do what we just did but separately. Youdo yours, and you do yours, instead of at the same time.

MR. BANZHAF: Okay. I gave him a long list of situations where thelaw routinely prohibits parents from doing things which endangertheir children. And Peter, having worked on these cases, I can tellyou in case after case courts have overruled even the strongest FirstAmendment religious objections and ordered blood transfusions wherenecessary, not to protect the adult, but to protect the child becausethey're innocent children.

MR. HUBER: And the problem what we are debating here is has thislist gotten too long? Okay. When do we draw a line? When do we sayenough is enough? Not every parent's a perfect parent. Many parentsdo things that really are foolish with their kids. Some take themrock climbing. Some feed them bad food. Some feed them too much food.Despite what you just said, many courts have, in fact, affirmed theparents' right to decide within very broad limits what kind ofmedical treatment the kids get. We should draw a line.

MR. WATTENBERG: Walter? Do your children smoke?

MR. BERNS: No.

MR. WATTENBERG: No. Would you like to see--and I assume you'repleased that they don't smoke.

MR. BERNS: Yes.

MR. WATTENBERG: Yes. And I envy you. Would you like to see afederal government that was powerful enough to put forth a propagandacampaign so powerful that you damn well knew they wouldn't and yourgrandchildren wouldn't?

MR. BERNS: No, I think I would not, because I don't like that kindof propagandizing from the government with respect to practicallyanything.

MR. HUBER: But I think within broad limits --I mean, propaganda ifyou shades of Goebbels is a bit much, but within broad limits, surethe federal government can educate people. I have no problem withthat, and they should.

MR. DAYNARD: And also notice that we presently have a $4 billioneducation program on smoking. It's paid for by the tobacco companies,and it's called their advertising and promotion budget, and it's apro-smoking propaganda campaign. The government spends a few million.

MR. HUBER: No, but it's not paid with tax dollars.

MR. BANZHAF: Okay, but we do have exactly what you're talkingabout. We have it in California. It's paid by a tax on cigarettes.And it has caused a dramatic drop in smoking, particularly amongkids. So it works.

MR. WATTENBERG: You also have a dramatic increase on taxation ofcigarettes in Canada which has caused a massive black market wherethey

MR. BANZHAF: But think for a minute why.

MR. WATTENBERG: Is that right?

MR. BANZHAF: The reason why is because our tax is so low comparedto theirs. If we raised our tax two dollars a pack, the bootleggingproblem will virtually disappear.

MR. BERNS: There is something I absolutely agree with you on.

MR. BANZHAF: Well, good.

MR. DAYNARD: I want to make a point about this discussion ingeneral, which is that the--each of the proposals that are comingforth from the public health movement on tobacco, whether it's toeliminate smoking in public places or to raise the tax up to globallevels on cigarettes or to limit smoking around kids, these proposalseach have their own merits. It's not like it's a slippery slope, thatif you buy one proposal, you're automatically committed to theothers. We're in a country I know, you know, some of you may not likeit, but we're in a country in which there's a tremendous amount ofregulation. There has been, there will continue to be, a tremendousamount of regulation.

So the real context of this show, of the questions here aroundcigarettes, are whether in this environment in which there is andwill continue to be a tremendous amount of regulation, is there toolittle, too much or the right amount of regulation for cigarettes?And the answer is very clearly in this context there's too little ona broad range of things, and we all know how it happened. The tobaccocompanies, the Southern state senators from the tobacco growingregion have had tremendous political power, and they have managed tokeep Congress from taking the kinds of effective steps to protect thepublic that you would expect.

MR. WATTENBERG: I did--again, I keep coming back to Walter. We sawthat chart here that showed the percentage of people who smoke goingway down. You and your sort of neo conservative colleagues, amongwhom I frequently count myself in your number, that chart says to meone thing: Social engineering works. Now, you generally don't believethat social engineering works. You don't like social engineering.

MR. BERNS: Well, why do you say I don't believe that it works?

MR. WATTENBERG: I said two things. I said that it doesn't work andyou don't like it.

MR. BERNS: I believe it works. I

MR. WATTENBERG: Aren't you glad that it went down?

MR. BANZHAF: Hold on

MR. BERNS: I have no doubt that the campaign against cigarettes,and it really began back in really the 1950s as I recall, smoking thefirst

MR. BANZHAF: About '65.

MR. BERNS: No, before--well, whenever it started. It certainly hasworked. And I suspect now that smoking is a large extent a classthing now, isn't it?

MR. BANZHAF: That's right.

MR. BERNS: Yeah.

MR. HUBER: Sure.

MR. BERNS: And people like you, Ben, you intellectuals who readthe evidence and so forth, you're persuaded by it.

MR. WATTENBERG: No, I am a world-class Guinness Book of WorldRecords hypochondriac. That's my--(laughter)

MR. BERNS: You have heard the evidence. You have read theevidence. You have been engineered. And you've stopped smoking. Andthere are others in this country who don't pay attention to that. Forwhatever reason they continue to smoke. So I really think it's aclass thing. So this works, and I'm all in favor of that warning oncigarette packages and so forth. I'm in favor of taxing cigarettes.Whether I'm in favor of a two dollar--additional two dollars, that'ssomething else.

But if I may, I want to respond to something here. The argumenthas been made several times here why cannot we simply address thisquestion of smoking? Why does Peter, for example, bring up otherthings? Why do I bring up other things?

MR. WATTENBERG: You are afraid that we are going to go to aregulatory near-totalitarian state if you go down that

MR. BERNS: What will happen is, if we--in the future the argumentwill be something else. Popcorn for example. If you can do it withcigarettes, why can't you do it with popcorn, just as you've beenmaking the argument we've been --we can do it with cigarettes becausewe do it with seatbelts. I mean, that's the argument we've beenmaking here.

MR. BANZHAF: Okay, let's go back

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I wouldlike to try after this very vigorous discussion, and it has beenvigorous, an experiment. Could we go around the room briefly, becausenotwithstanding the-- some of the heat that's been generated here, Isense there is a certain amount of agreement, and I would like youeach briefly--underscore briefly and I'll just go around theroom this way, to try for the benefit of your ignorant moderator andour viewers to tell us what you think this panel agrees on and whatyou disagree on. And keep it brief.

Peter? MR. HUBER: The panel at least purports to agree on thestrictly private right of the strictly private smoker to continuesmoking, and there's a fair amount of agreement that the publicspaces, the truly shared spaces, whatever they may be, have to beregulated collectively. And if the group wants the larger communitieswants no smoke there, that's what the larger community should get.

MR. WATTENBERG: Walter?

MR. BERNS: I think we all agree that smoking is bad and that aneffort ought to be made to discourage it. We disagree as to whetherthis--what form this discouragement should take, whether it thedecision not to smoke should be a private decision or whether the itshould be a public decision, and if it's a public decision, as towhether it should be--that sort of regulation should be done by thefederal government, which I say has no constitutional authority to doit, or by the local governments.

MR. WATTENBERG: John?

MR. BANZHAF: I think we all agree that secondhand smoke is harmfulto some effect or other. I think we all agree that it is appropriateto protect, therefore, other persons--that is, nonsmokers--from it,at least in public places or where the public is invited to go, bywhich I take it to mean businesses like McDonald's.

MR. HUBER: No, we don't agree on that. I flatly said the opposite.

MR. BANZHAF: Well, I thought you would agree that at least inpublic places people can be protected. I think we also agree that itcan be taxed, at least to the extent that we can tie the tax revenuesto the cost to the economy, although we disagree as to what thosecosts are.

MR. WATTENBERG: Dick?

MR. DAYNARD: I think we all agree that we don't want our kids tosmoke and that it's perfectly appropriate for the government to takeI think even strong measures to keep our kids from smoking and tokeep the tobacco companies from doing--exerting their wiles to try topersuade our kids to smoke.

MR. WATTENBERG: We thank you for that note of clarity. And wethank the panel, Mr. Huber, Professors Berns, Banzhaf, and Daynard.

And to our viewers, thank you. You know, this is a new program,and we would like to hear your comments. Please, write to the addresson the screen.

END END

Back to top

Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc.

©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved.

Web development by Bean Creative.