Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues,americast.usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Wed, Oct 7 1992 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 04:38:01 EDT Message-ID: 10-07 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Oct. 7, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Tuesday morning in USA TODAY: Passive smoke, baseball. TODAY'S DEBATE - PASSIVE SMOKE: USA TODAY'S OPINION: The hazy link between lung cancer and passive smoke just got a lot clearer. A study reported in today's Journal of the American Medical Association - the first ever to use lung specimens taken during autopsies - found that non-smokers exposed to smoke had more precancerous lesions in their lungs than those who were not exposed. That's a compelling new body of evidence. It gives credence to what the surgeon general, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and numerous health studies have been saying for some time: that secondhand cigarette smoke harms non-smokers - and is particularly hazardous to the health of children in homes where parents smoke. Some federal and local agencies heeded that message long ago: 30 cities in California alone either have banned smoking in restaurants or are in the process of doing so. The Environmental Protection Agency banned routine smoking in its offices across the country. Since 1990, smoking has been banned on virtually all domestic airline flights. All were bold moves. Others should follow that lead. The International Air Transport Association is currently scoffing at a proposal to ban smoking on international flights. But that dissent rings hollow in light of this new study. Five states still offer no restrictions on smoking in public places, and 46 states still allow smoking in public and private workplaces. What are they waiting for? The evidence is in. We cannot stand by while lives go up in smoke. OTHER VIEW: Walker Merryman, vice president of The Tobacco Institute: Generally speaking, the American public is a pretty accommodating bunch. They tend to dislike unfair treatment of selected groups in our society. So, it should not be surprising that two public opinion polls in the last 10 months show overwhelming support for treating smokers and non-smokers fairly. In December, Gallup researchers indicated: "About two-thirds prefer separate smoking areas ... rather than a total ban" on smoking. And, the report noted, "support even for these limits has fallen slightly, while backing for no restrictions has grown." Similarly, when the American Lung Association released another Gallup Poll in June, preference for no restrictions or separate sections outpaced support for smoking bans by more than 2-1. Anti-smoking groups will find little support in the article in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association. The AMA claims this study is significant because it is the first to use autopsy samples in environmental tobacco smoke research. However, the study's authors state that none of the subjects in the study died of diseases related to cancer. The researchers say they looked at lung tissue samples and observed cell changes they believe "may be lung cancer risk indicators" or were "possibly precancerous lesions." But the significance of the cell changes is unknown. Furthermore, the individuals were not interviewed for this study before they died to determine if they ever had been exposed to smoking or what other environmental influences they may have encountered in their lives. This study, like much of the environmental tobacco smoke literature, raises many more questions than it answers and adds little to the debate. In the end, most Americans will continue to reject extreme appeals to banish smokers and will instead favor sensibly accommodating smokers and non-smokers. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON IF BASEBALL IS AMERICAN PASTIME: GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., Phil Tower, 28, talk show host: Yes, because of the fact that I can take my wife - who is not a great baseball fan - to Wrigley Field, and whether or not you are a fan, you are awed. The ivy on the wall, people coming by shouting, "Hot dogs, peanuts." It can be very romantic. VISALIA, Calif., Lali Moheno, 44, manager: I grew up with it, but I'm not so sure it's the great American pastime. Now all these different sports' schedules overlap. I just watch the Oakland A's, but I'm changing teams because they let Jose Canseco go. The squabbling and money seem to be dominating. ATLANTA, Ga., Maggie Hayes, 31, artist: It is a great American pastime, but I'm hoping the arts will replace sports as the great American pastime. I'm excited about the Braves being in the playoffs; it's good for the city. But on the nights when there's not a playoff, people should go watch a play. PITTSBURGH, Pa., Jude C. Pohl, 47, theatrical producer: I live and die with the Pittsburgh Pirates despite the unions, agents and all the things people do to kill the game. When I was 3 or 4 years old, my dad took me to games. My mom bought me a uniform, and I wanted a No. 4 on the back so I could be Ralph Kiner. EVERETT, Mass., Mac Singleton 39, baseball coach: Yes. More people attend baseball games than any other sport because they have more games. In all sports, though, the players are getting too greedy. They should go back to when they weren't paying them as much, and tie salary to their performance. Issues & Debate Editor: Ed Kelleher. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM