Smoking Regulation
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1997-07-13
Guests: Keith Haugen (teacher, Star of the Sea School; professional entertainer (25+ years); public radio personality; President, Hawaii Smokers' Rights (per page)); Bob Speck (retired IBM engineer (32 years); Hawaikai Neighborhood Board; Hawaikai Marina Committee); Tom Jones (general manager, Kiotaru Hawaii; Board of Directors, Hawaii Restaurant Association); Julian Lipsher (Head, Tobacco Prevention and Education Project, Hawaii State Department of Health (since 1973))
Duration: 1:09:03

[0:00:02] Randall Roth: Aloha, this is Randy Roth, host of the Price of Paradise show. We're broadcast live Sunday mornings on KHPR and KKUA and then rebroadcast Sunday evenings beginning at 8:00 on KIFO. Everyone who works to bring this program to you is a volunteer who believes in the importance of lively and informed public dialogue. We believe the brightness of any community's future is directly related to the level of activity in its marketplace of ideas. Our topic today is the regulation of smoking by state and local governments. With me to discuss it are Bob Speck, Keith Haugen, Tom Jones, and Julian Lipsher.

[0:00:38] Julian Lipsher: Julian has been with the State Department of Health since 1973, and for the last 6 years he's headed up his tobacco prevention and education project.

[0:00:47] Randall Roth: He's with us by phone, and I'm going to begin this conversation by asking Julian to just real briefly, tell us what is the law in Hawaii right now with respect to smoking in public. Julian?

[0:00:58] Julian Lipsher: Good morning, Randy.

[0:00:59] Randall Roth: Good morning.

[0:01:00] Julian Lipsher: The state law that is part of a foundation of laws that was passed in the late 1980s, states that if you seat 50 or more patrons, then you have to offer a non-smoking seating section that's proportionate to the number of users, which means this is a consumer-driven law, that the restaurant owner or manager gets to set the number of non-smoking seats based on the marketplace.

[0:01:29] Randall Roth: And that's the law, that's the law in the state of Hawaii.

[0:01:32] Julian Lipsher: That's the state law, the only difference is that since counties can enact stricter ordinances, um, the the Big Island dropped their threshold from 50 seats to 40 seats because they have lots of smaller restaurants.

[0:01:47] Randall Roth: Okay, and I want to get to Honolulu County in just a second, but still talking about the state law, what about outside of restaurants? What about in office buildings and other places where people gather?

[0:02:00] Julian Lipsher: Most recently, the Honolulu City Council passed Ordinance Number 9720, which went into effect June 15th, which virtually prohibits uh smoking in all enclosed workplaces.

[0:02:15] Randall Roth: Okay, now that's Honolulu. Um does that mean that smoking is permitted in workplaces in other counties of Hawaii?

[0:02:24] Julian Lipsher: Uh, that's correct, that there's no county ordinance in the counties of Kauai, Big Island, or Maui uh that have enacted ordinances that relate to smoking in the workplace.

[0:02:36] Randall Roth: Okay, so tell me a little bit more about this relatively strict law and its relative compared to the other counties in the state, this relatively strict law that we have in Honolulu County, that's that's really quite new.

[0:02:48] Julian Lipsher: Well, the landscape uh for uh clean indoor air and secondhand smoke changed in 1992, December 92, when the US Environmental Protection Agency uh came out with its report, finding that secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke was a Class A carcinogen, which means it's a direct cause of lung cancer in humans. It was put in the same cancer-causing category as other hazardous substances like radon, benzene, and asbestos. And as such, um once the science changes, the standard of care changes and public policy and legislation follows. So, uh for a number of years actually, uh both the state legislature and the Honolulu City Council have debated this issue, and most recently, uh the City Council uh enacted a piece of legislation that particularly addressed uh indoor workplaces, but excluded bars, restaurants, and nightclubs.

[0:03:50] Randall Roth: Okay, and then one last question, at least during this initial round. It's my understanding that that the law is a a little bit complicated, but basically, if if you're indoor and it's a place where other people are around you, then smoking is absolutely prohibited and the exception as you mentioned earlier is in the case of restaurants and bars and nightclubs.

[0:04:12] Julian Lipsher: Uh, that's correct.

[0:04:14] Randall Roth: Okay. Thanks a lot Julian, we'll be back to you in in just a minute. Our next guest, Bob Speck, retired 6 years ago after 32 years with IBM. Currently, he's active in community affairs, serving on the Hawaikai Neighborhood Board and the Hawaikai Marina Community Association. He's also president of Hawaii Smokers' Rights. And I know from his article in this morning's newspaper that he thinks smokers are getting a bum deal. Bob, good morning.

[0:04:37] Bob Speck: Good morning, Randy.

[0:04:39] Randall Roth: Um, just real real briefly, why are they getting a a bum deal? What's what's the problem here?

[0:04:46] Bob Speck: Well, it is based on the report uh of the EPA that came out in January of '93, um, which was mentioned by Julian earlier. Now since that time, that the EPA report has been has been pretty much discredited, particularly by a report from the Congressional Research Service. They were asked to look into the into the smoking question and the EPA report by the Congress.

[0:05:12] Randall Roth: Okay, so you're saying, um secondhand smoke now is not necessarily bad for you, that this EPA report has been misinterpreted or misused or something like that?

[0:05:24] Bob Speck: It uh, it was not good science. See, in fact, they changed the goalposts for their study. Uh the EPA report would be better described as political science rather than science.

[0:05:36] Randall Roth: Okay, so you're saying that and and Julian mentioned a little bit ago, a lot of this recent legislation is more or less something that that was started back with the issuance of this report. You're saying that the report was was more or less flawed or or misused, more political science than than real science, and as a result, we're getting what you would consider overly restrictive legislation and that it's impinging on the rights of smokers like you, that you're not allowed to smoke as freely as you ought to be able to?

[0:06:05] Bob Speck: Yes, and uh, you know, the EPA report was that uh, it had uh had stated that a non-smoking wife who lives 20 years with a husband who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day, has a risk factor of 1.19 or 19% more chance of getting lung cancer than a wife who lives with a smoker. In that study, the EPA used a 90% confidence interval, a a which is a measure of scientific certainty. Whereas the standard confidence interval used by practically all scientists, including EPA scientists, is 95%. A confidence interval is lower than 90% are much less reliable, so scientists don't use them. That's why I said the EPA changed the goalposts for the study to get a a predetermined result.

[0:06:51] Randall Roth: Okay, and so you feel that that the foundation for this new law is is flawed, and you're feeling discriminated against, as a result, you're feeling as though your smoke really isn't adversely affecting people or at least not to the degree that government should get involved and and prohibit you from smoking?

[0:07:10] Bob Speck: Yeah, and if I could add just one other thing there on that uh uh, the uh there there was an article that appeared in the in the New England Journal of Medicine, where they quoted the EPA, uh which had done a study on the uh on the hazardous of on the hazardous effects of electromagne magnetic field and the EPA said in that study, a risk factor of less than 3.0 is not statistically significant. So doesn't that render a meaningless their 1.19 risk factor for secondhand smoke?

[0:07:43] Randall Roth: Okay, that's Bob Speck, and now we hear from Keith Haugen. Keith is a teacher at Star of the Sea School in Waialae and for more than 25 years has been a professional entertainer. Public radio listeners will recognize Keith as the founder of K Ahu Lama, the Hawaii Language News program, and also the Hawaiian Word of the Day and the new On the Air Record Reviews. And Keith this gets a little bit uh old, you're doing so many things down here at public radio. Also a show called A Hawaiian Sunday with Keith Haugen. It's a 3-hour Hawaiian music program that airs on KIPO right after our show each Sunday. A lot of times as I'm leaving the building Keith is just getting started with his show. Keith, I know you don't see things the same way that that Bob does. Real briefly, um where are you coming from?

[0:08:31] Keith Haugen: I'm coming from the standpoint of one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. That's quite simply how I feel about it. And I have no problem with people who want to smoke, that's their right. I have a problem when they smoke in an area where I'm forced to breathe that smoke.

[0:08:47] Randall Roth: But what if Bob is right? What if secondhand smoke isn't uh dangerous, what if it doesn't harm your health, what if it's just annoying, as a lot of other things can be annoying. What about that?

[0:09:02] Keith Haugen: Well, if it's annoying to me, I think he's offending my rights. I think I have the right to breathe clean fresh air and not to breathe his smoke. And so even if he could prove to me that I wasn't going to get cancer from it, which I doubt, I still think that it's a violation of my rights. I deserve to be able to breathe clean fresh air if I choose to.

[0:09:21] Randall Roth: Okay, now tell me what you think about the law in Hawaii generally so far as smoking in public is concerned and then real specifically this relatively new, relatively strict law in Honolulu County?

[0:09:44] Keith Haugen: Relatively is a good word there because strict in the sense that it banned smoking in areas where people work except restaurants, bars, and lounges, where thousands of us work and are forced to breathe smoke because it's not against the lot to smoke there.

[0:09:48] Randall Roth: Now, what do you say to somebody who says, Keith, you don't have to breathe that, you can go work someplace else?

[0:09:53] Keith Haugen: I've been told that. If you don't like to work in a place where smoking is permitted, you can work somewhere else. But if all restaurants are under this same law and smoking is allowed in all restaurants, a few have already decided to ban smoking, and some of those don't have entertainment of course, but that would seriously limit the places that entertainers, bus boys, waitresses, waiters, hostesses, everybody else uh would have to work. We'd have a very limited place that we could go to work.

[0:10:21] Randall Roth: So and I know you're concerned about more than just restaurants, but because you work in those sorts of establishments, you feel strongly that the owners of those restaurants should prohibit smoking completely, and if they don't do it voluntarily, then you think government ought to step in and do it for them?

[0:10:37] Keith Haugen: I do. Basically, I'm against a lot of government interference and regulation, but in this case, the workplace has not set the standards that I think are proper and because of that, I think government interference is necessary.

[0:10:50] Randall Roth: Okay. Our fourth guest this morning is Tom Jones. He's currently the general manager of Kiotaru, Hawaii, and as such is responsible for the Kiotaru and Columbia Inn restaurants in Hawaii. He also is a member of the Board of Directors of the Hawaii Restaurant Association. Tom, I've heard Bob Speck on what I'll call one side of this issue, Keith Haugen on another, and uh as fate would have it, right here in the studio, you're sitting between the two of them. I'll bet you feel as though you're between uh uh people on this issue as well.

[0:11:21] Tom Jones: Uh good morning, Randy. Uh yes, I'm in a a position where I have to think about our um guests' needs, our employees' needs, and also we have investors that we have to be concerned about. We're in business and we need to uh try to make money. So we have to try to juggle all these varied interests and um come up with solutions at our restaurants that we think will uh benefit everyone.

[0:11:42] Randall Roth: Well, let me begin by asking you, what have you come up with thus far? Can people smoke freely in the Columbia Inn and in the Kiotaru restaurants, or how are you approaching it right now?

[0:11:54] Tom Jones: In our four restaurants where we have smoking, you know, uh sections or sit-down dining, uh we do have smoking sections. Uh they're divided only by uh uh tables so in some cases we don't have actual walls uh in between those areas. And um we allow smoking and adjust the smoking sections based on the the business needs of each day.

[0:12:16] Randall Roth: Do you have any kind of special ventilation or is there some attempt to give non-smokers smoke-free air?

[0:12:22] Tom Jones: Up to this point, we haven't uh done that. No.

[0:12:25] Randall Roth: Okay, if there wasn't a law, would you even have a non-smoking section? What what's the market telling you?

[0:12:31] Tom Jones: Well, the market is telling us to have smoking sections and our customers uh do in some of our restaurants express concerns about being subjected to smoke and we're listening very carefully to that. I think that uh our concern about uh the City Council, you know, passing this legislation and and trying to force us to uh follow one rule is uh putting us in a difficult position. Now that we've been excluded as restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, uh we have I think an opportunity now between now and possible further legislation to uh to uh step up our own efforts and and address these needs.

[0:13:03] Randall Roth: So you would rather that the government just stay completely out of this and give you a totally free hand as to whether it's all smoking, no smoking, or as is currently the case, smoking section and a non-smoking section.

[0:13:15] Tom Jones: Yes, that's my personal uh opinion. Our company's position is that if uh legislation were enacted, that it be uh unilateral and effect uh all restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, uh without any exceptions and preferably at the state level so that even the uh, you know, the um county of Oahu would not be uh adversely affected.

[0:13:34] Randall Roth: One more question again during this initial round. I listen to Keith Haugen and I read his piece in this morning's paper and I get the impression that the restaurants that have gone smoke smoke-free are doing better than the restaurants that still allow smoking. Am I misreading what he's saying or do you just disagree with what Keith is suggesting?

[0:13:54] Tom Jones: [unintelligible — audio glitch]

[0:15:08] Randall Roth: Okay. That's Tom Jones. In case you tuned in late, my name is Randy Roth, and this is the Price of Paradise Radio Show. Our topic this morning is the regulation of smoking in Hawaii. We'd like to hear from you. If you have a question or comment, our number is 955-8821. If you're on a neighbor island, the number is 1-800-955-8821. If you tuned in late and would like to catch the show in its entirety tonight on KIFO 1380 AM, you can do that. The show begins at 8:00. Well, we're talking about the regulation of smoking, and now the conversation is wide open and I'll go to Keith Haugen.

[0:15:47] Keith Haugen: I'd like to comment on what Tom said. First of all Tom, thanks so much for making that Columbia Inn smoke-free because I I dine there quite often and it always is a problem. To begin with the restaurant smells bad. But uh the problem that you're addressing there is a problem of customers and an owner of Roy's out of Hawaii Kai for instance said the reason they banned smoking completely in the dining area is because, and I quote him, we have to do what the customer wants, and fewer and fewer people smoke. But what about the employees who are forced to go into smoking areas in a restaurant and breathe the smoke even though they might not be smokers and might want to have clean fresh air to breathe.

[0:16:26] Randall Roth: Now Tom, I should have warned you that people used to having their own radio show just kind of take things over. Uh because we've got so many voices and they all happen to be male this morning, I want to make sure everybody understands who's talking. Tom Jones is now going to answer Keith's question.

[0:16:41] Tom Jones: [unintelligible — audio glitch]

[0:17:43] Randall Roth: Okay. Well let's take a call and and we've got some open lines yet, so if uh you got a question or a comment, the number is 955-8821. We go to Steve in Waikiki. Good morning Steve.

[0:17:54] Steve: Hi, I have a very quick question. This is for your representative of the Smokers' Rights Association. He um said that he felt the um report on which the law has been based was bad science and that the numbers didn't add up statistically. My question is, if a report came out that met his standards for quote good science, one with a p of less than 5% and that this report demonstrated that secondhand smoke was indeed harmful, would his position change?

[0:18:38] Randall Roth: Steve, let's let's ask him the question and I'll come back to you. Bob Speck, would you change your position if science came out in in a statistically significant way showed that it is unhealthy?

[0:18:51] Bob Speck: Well, that's very speculative. I'm I'm just arguing what the facts are right now. Uh I I really don't want to going to get into speculation on what might or if and maybe and those kind of things.

[0:19:05] Randall Roth: You're not going to let him cross examine you? Is that the case?

[0:19:08] Bob Speck: Steve, I I think that the that the facts speak for themselves right now.

[0:19:13] Randall Roth: Okay. Steve.

[0:19:13] Steve: Well, you're saying the non facts don't speak for themselves right now and I think you weaseled out of it and I think it's typical of the of the kind of position that's taken by people who try to defend smoking that you won't get a straight answer. We've had 20 or 30 years of lying from the tobacco companies and support groups will not give you a straight answer.

[0:19:31] Bob Speck: Steve. And I think we do need one because I think it points out the moral vacuity of his position, which is that I will not talk about what happens if it turns out what I'm doing is hurting people.

[0:19:40] Steve: And I'm saying that's it's a very easy question answer. If I do something that hurts people I should stop and I think if he's not satisfied the science and science comes out. Any position he takes on the radio, in public, which is other than if it hurts other people, I will stop it is one which will destroy his own position.

[0:19:58] Randall Roth: Steve, you've made your point. Stop, stop. You've made your point and you made it very well. I appreciate it. We go to Lynn in Mililani. Good morning, Lynn.

[0:20:07] Lynn: Good morning. You're on the air. Well, I was just wondering, I have never heard, I have always been taught and the science has supported it that smoking is not good both for the smoker and for the people around him. Uh, what kind of message are we sending to our children? We promote being drug-free and nicotine is an addictive substance. So if we allow it, then we're speaking out of two sides of our mouths, how can we expect our children to be drug-free?

[0:20:41] Randall Roth: Lynn, stay on the line. I want to come back to you. I'm going to first go to Julian Lipshur. Uh, Julian is, uh, with the State Department of Health. Julian, are you there?

[0:20:50] Julian Lipsher: Absolutely.

[0:20:51] Randall Roth: Um, I got really a couple questions. Certainly, Lynn's question needs to be answered, but also what was your reaction as you were listening to Bob Speck earlier talking about the science with respect to secondhand smoke, which he described as more political science than science. Do you basically agree with him, basically disagree? Where are you on that? And then we'll come back to Lynn's question.

[0:21:14] Julian Lipsher: I Bob's position is one uh, which has been echoed by the tobacco industry for 34 years now, since the first surgeon general's report in 1964, which is basically to quibble with the numbers. Um, back in 1964, the industry said, oh no, smoking and lung cancer are not related and they stuck to that position ever since.

[0:21:38] Randall Roth: But on on secondhand smoke is is the evidence conclusive or just where are we on secondhand smoke?

[0:21:44] Julian Lipsher: I think the the EPA report is good science. If if, um, Bob is telling us that, um, secondhand smoke is is not harmful, um, I fail to see substantial difference between, uh, direct smoking, which kills 419,000 people in this country annually and in Hawaii, it kills uh, over 1100 Hawaii residents, accounting for 16% of the resident deaths. It's our number one cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. If something I I would be uh, amazed, you know, and and uh, very surprised if secondhand smoke breathing secondhand smoke is uh, risk-free and smoking uh, has this enormous risk to it.

[0:22:36] Randall Roth: But the numbers that he gave earlier aren't necessarily wrong. In other words, you wouldn't quibble with those numbers, you would simply suggest that that they don't establish

[0:22:45] Julian Lipsher: Oh, I'm not going to agree with Bob's numbers. Uh, I think that for the radio audience and uh, Bob's not a scientist, um, that the numbers, the numbers show that there is a risk for breathing secondhand smoke. The risk, um, you know, you don't want to spend your program saying these numbers are true, these numbers are false. Uh, the the same journal that Bob reported, uh, saying that the numbers were, said that the secondhand smoke was okay also reported that in California during a survey of, uh, an occupational survey, of people that women who worked in restaurants had three times higher risk of lung cancer because they were exposed to someone else's involuntarily exposed, uh, tobacco smoke, for shifts of 8 hours or longer.

[0:23:36] Randall Roth: Okay. So so we'd work, we got just total disagreement between you and Bob as to whether the science says that secondhand smoke is a health risk or not.

[0:23:46] Julian Lipsher: How much risk do you want to accept?

[0:23:48] Randall Roth: Okay. Okay. Well I want to come back to to Lynn's question and and Keith is are you wanting to respond to Lynn's question because she pointed out that at at a minimum it it is an addictive habit and most people I think feel that we would rather, kids especially, but people generally not smoke and she was concerned about the message that's being sent. Um, give me a response to Lynn's concerns.

[0:24:12] Keith Haugen: To begin with, our children don't have to smoke. They can just go to restaurants, and they get all the smoke that they need right there. But I'd like to also mention that our federal government kind of lets down in that area because of what they require tobacco companies to put on the packages. And a recent, uh, example written up by Aviation Medical Bulletin pointed out that in Canada, Canadian warnings on a package of cigarettes say, "Smoking can kill you." And in the US, of course, you know how watered down that is. They did a survey of nearly 2500 US and Canadian children who were shown cigarette packages from the two countries. 83% remembered the Canadian warning, only 6% remembered the watered down American warning. So, we're giving children uh, not only the wrong message by saying it's okay to smoke, but we're also addicting them by the millions every day.

[0:25:00] Randall Roth: Okay. Bob Speck, what would you say to Lynn? And then I'm going to go back to Lynn because I kind of got off the point that she made. What would you say to Lynn about the message that we're sending to kids and I think she's suggesting that by prohibiting smoking, for example in a restaurant, one of the messages that's sent to the kids now is don't smoke. It's not good for you. You shouldn't do it.

[0:25:20] Bob Speck: Uh, I don't think we should live our lives by, uh, saying that the kids have to or we have to set an example for them in everything. Uh, I didn't want my kids to smoke and, and and they don't. But uh, I uh drink. But I don't want my kids to drink. There's a lot of things that we do as as adults. Sex, for example. We don't want our kids to do that either. So, I think it's uh, kind of ridiculous to say that we have to say "don't do what I do," because as an adult, there are things I can do that you as as a child cannot do.

[0:26:02] Randall Roth: Okay. Lynn, did did what you heard from Julian and and Keith and Bob, did did any of that help or or we just missing your point?

[0:26:14] Lynn: Well, I agree with Julian and uh, Keith. Okay. I cannot accept what Bob says at all because I know how important it is to set a good example as a parent, and I have changed my own behavior to set a better example for my children. I don't want to be a hypocrite.

[0:26:33] Randall Roth: Okay. Well you've made your you've made your point then. Um, and I appreciate your calling this morning.

[0:26:38] Lynn: Finally, one last thing. I hate paying good money to go eat in a restaurant and not be able to bite down into my food because somebody else's cigarette food, cigarette smoke is in my mouth, and it taints the flavor of my food.

[0:26:55] Randall Roth: Okay. Lynn, thank you for calling this morning. We go to Andrew in Makiki. Good morning, Andrew.

[0:27:00] Andrew: Good morning. Um, just a couple comments here. Um, if they're worried about employees so much, just make it a condition of employment before they start, like, hey, we have people that smoke, you want the job or you don't. But one that sings, if he doesn't want to sing there, quit. Andrew, Andrew, I mean, he gets paid. Andrew, I know you've got other points. Hang on, I want to get Tom Jones' reaction as a restaurant tour, his reaction to your first point.

[0:27:23] Tom Jones: Um, actually on our employment applications we're going to be adjusting them to clearly state our smoking policy. We already have other policies regarding wearing safety shoes, parking, uh, things like that, so that when employees do apply for employment with an organization, uh, they're aware of all of our important policies that they may take exception to, so we will be doing that. Um, the the, that's in the works right now.

[0:27:50] Randall Roth: And I guess Keith Keith, you would say that's that's better than nothing, but not as good as just prohibiting smoking.

[0:28:05] Keith Haugen: Okay, Andrew, uh, I interrupted you. Uh, you had some other points.

[0:28:10] Andrew: The other point I wanted to make was, I ride a motorcycle and sometimes I get caught in traffic and I'm getting second hand carbon monoxide, which we know kills, from like city buses. Now should I be able to take this, my civil rights are being violated by having this pollutant come into my lungs and being able to split lanes or just drive ahead of everyone and maybe drive on the sidewalk? I know it's bizarre but you know, that's where we got to take this stuff.

[0:28:37] Randall Roth: I was going to, I was going to take that as a comment and move on, but Keith Haugen has a response.

[0:28:41] Keith Haugen: I do as a former motorcyclist, I've got to tell you, I I share your feelings. And I think city buses should be required to exhaust their fumes up at the top of the bus and away from us instead of down against the road and bouncing up in our faces. Thank you.

[0:28:55] Randall Roth: Okay, thank you, Andrew. Um, Bob Speck, you've got a thought on that.

[0:28:59] Bob Speck: Uh, yes. Tom uh uh said that uh that their new hiring po policies that they'll be instituting in at the restaurants uh they hope to wind up with the less smokers. Does that mean, Tom, that you're going to discriminate against smokers in hiring?

[0:29:16] Tom Jones: Uh, I don't think so. What we were trying to do what we're trying to do is, um, allow employees who are applying for employment with the organization understand exactly what our policies are and then they can make the decision themselves.

[0:29:26] Randall Roth: But Bob, I think you're implying that it's going to have the effect of discriminating, it's going to be pushing away from that place of employment somebody who smokes who feels that maybe they're not going to be as comfortable there.

[0:29:39] Bob Speck: Well, one of the concerns I have is that there are a lot of companies right now that have a policy that they will not hire employees that smoke.

[0:29:48] Randall Roth: I see. And to to I'm I'm surprised that that's never been tested in the courts. I think it will soon.

[0:29:55] Keith Haugen: I work for a company that refused to hire smokers. And I can appreciate that that they have rights of employment also. But also some of the restaurants that are the most successful and are totally smoke-free do have employees who smoke because you see them go outside to have a cigarette and then come back in. Lost time on the job as far as I'm concerned if they have to go outside because of an addiction and then come back into work again, that's time that they shouldn't be paid for.

[0:30:21] Bob Speck: [unintelligible — audio glitch]

[0:31:04] Keith Haugen: I think that's a good compromise by the way because we dine upstairs at Roy's so that we don't have to smell the smoke from downstairs. Now, we're not supposed to have commercials on this show, so I'm going to move on to Larry from Kapahulu. Good morning, Larry.

[0:31:11] Larry: Oh, good morning. Uh, thank you for uh, uh, taking my call. Uh, this is uh, this is not too much on, uh, second hand smoking, but, uh, this is uh, regarding civil rights and things like that. Uh, smoking is not uh, illegal. Uh, Bob, is there any way we smokers can do to reduce these unfair taxes imposed on us smokers by both levels of our government?

[0:31:35] Randall Roth: [unintelligible — audio glitch]

[0:32:28] Bob Speck: [unintelligible — audio glitch]

[0:38:00] Speaker 1: When Hader came along and uh things changed. And um we're the only country it seems uh that is Europe hasn't followed along and the Asian countries, and people uh are spreading this um, well, organic thing. Uh it's really organic because uh, in my jobs in the past, uh you had to hide your head if you didn't smoke, and if the management smoke, chain smoke especially, uh everyone deferred to them. And now, we defer to people, we walk out of buildings and their little smoke um gauntlets that we have to run through, and little piles of butts everywhere and they seem to congregate in little groups of um uh you know, narcissists of difference, who who seem to to actually prefer people who smoke and and uh ostracize people who don't. And I think it's great.

[0:38:59] Randall Roth: [unintelligible — audio glitch]

[0:39:06] Speaker 1: The point is they don't seem to realize that it's uh, well, it's become political now as well as organic.

[0:39:14] Randall Roth: Okay, let me get a reaction to that real quickly. Bob Speck is is it political? Does how the smokers are more or less pushed together by having to go outside the building to have their smoke over in the area that's you know, accepted and becomes the spot to smoke, is it political? Does it then affect the work relationships?

[0:39:33] Bob Speck: I think the whole thing, the whole issue has become extremely political. I think if you're outside on a smoke break, you see somebody smoking, you have a natural affinity for them and you're more likely to start up a conversation with them.

[0:39:48] Randall Roth: Okay, Alba, thank you for your call. I really appreciate it. Let's go to Jim in Mckoli.

[0:39:54] Jim: Yes, good morning. Good morning.

[0:39:55] Randall Roth: Uh, this is for uh, Keith the singer. Okay, that's Keith Haugen.

[0:39:59] Jim: Yeah. Uh, did you drive to uh uh to the station today?

[0:40:04] Keith Haugen: Yes, I did.

[0:40:05] Jim: It it seems to me that you probably put out more gunk in in into the environment driving to the station today than Mr. Speck could put out in a lifetime of smoking uh uh tobacco, which is organic. Uh it's basically a vegetable.

[0:40:24] Randall Roth: Let's get a reaction from Keith.

[0:40:26] Keith Haugen: Uh, not being a scientist and not expert in these things, I couldn't tell you, but I agree with you when you're talking about what we're polluting the air with because a couple of years ago, I sold my car and we have only one car family now, and I ride the bus, figuring that if enough of us ride the buses, it'll cut down on that pollutant as well. But I I should tell you that there are 4,000 chemicals in second hand smoke, including benzene, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and things that I don't want to breathe. And, uh, I don't want to breathe the exhaust from cars either. I'm with you.

[0:40:55] Randall Roth: Jim, thanks for your call. We appreciate it. Let's go to Kevin from Manoah. Good morning, Kevin.

[0:41:00] Kevin: Good morning.

[0:41:01] Kevin: Yeah, I was wondering about um, with the new uh settlement in the tobacco liability cases that's about to occur. The now um, it's been widely admitted that tobacco in fact causes a whole host of diseases. And that in effect is transferring the liability from the tobacco companies to companies as well as the public sector. For instance, um, at the airport for instance the other day, I was walking to a gate and it's impossible to get to a gate without walking through a long line of smokers in certain parts of the airport. And since I have asthma, this actually caused an asthma attack for me. And I'm wondering, is the state liable in that situation for instance, because it's a preventable situation?

[0:41:46] Randall Roth: Um, It's a really good question, and and I think I'll go to Julian Lipsher, who's with the State Department of Health. Julian, what are the implications so far as as legal responsibility of employers and building owners and that sort of thing?

[0:42:01] Julian Lipsher: Uh, first I'll make the disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer. Se- second that uh, the it's a proposed tobacco settlement that has to go through Congress. What the settlement does in part is pay for a lot of old medical bills. These are public monies that have uh been used for many years to treat tobacco related illness. The same illness that uh other people in the program thought uh you could smoke or breathe people smoke, and it's harmless. The second thing that the settlement does is uh provide some authority to the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates food, drugs and cosmetics to regulate nicotine as an addictive substance, which finally the tobacco industry after many years of uh disinformation has admitted. Um, what this compels uh both the public and the private sector to do is reduce the risk of exposure. Uh, the state of Hawaii has been um progressive, very progressive in uh, for example, this new city and county ordinance that protects non-smoking workers from being involuntarily exposed. The state has increased uh cigarette excise taxes to predominantly not persecute smokers. I mean, these are adults who've made a decision, unfortunately, long ago, many of them before the age of 18 as minors. But the the excise taxes are meant to discourage children from starting in an addictive habit. And every day in this country 3,000 uh minors, teenagers, start smoking and a third of them will have their life shortened as a result of a lifelong addictive smoking habit. The role of government is to both protect and promote the public's health, and that's what we're doing.

[0:43:49] Randall Roth: Okay. Let me ask Keith Haugen, because Keith, I know the the longer version of your article, they always get edited down to fit the space. You mentioned something about workers' comp claims and how people who are subjected to secondhand smoke would probably have a great opportunity to make a claim. Tell us just a little bit about that.

[0:44:10] Keith Haugen: First, since the item of of dollars and cents came up, uh, we've been told that studies in Hawaii show the total economic impact on smoking in Hawaii is $325 million a year. That amounts to $4,600 per year per in per smoker that employers have to stand. And uh, we can't assess those costs to the smoker, so we all pay it. But the the comment that I want to make about the uh worker's comp thing was spelled out by Dr. Spangler, the president of the Hawaii Medical Association, who points out that the Hawaii worker's compensation law includes a presumption that an employee is correct when the employee claims he or she has been injured on the job. And he said you would an employer employee would never be able to find a physician who could say that the employment did not contribute to the employee's ill health if he's working in a place where smoking is permitted. Because the law is written that way, uh, employees whose condition worsens or who acquire a new illness that's related to smoke uh, could very easily uh, win cases in uh in the court of of worker's comp.

[0:45:17] Randall Roth: Our employer in the room has has just turned quite pale. Uh, Tom Jones of uh uh the restaurant business. You employ a lot of people, workers' comp, obviously is a reality for you. Uh is there some concern about what Keith is describing?

[0:45:33] Tom Jones: I imagine that's a possibility. I don't think that that has been tested yet. Uh as I mentioned earlier, we're concerned about our employees, you know, safety and well-being uh at every, you know, opportunity in our organization. Again, the safety shoes, the different things that we do to reduce our workers' comp bills. Workers' compensation is definitely one of our our major uh cost control concerns. And uh again, that's one of the reasons why we've, you know, uh started to get our our figures here together and make policy changes at our restaurants.

[0:46:00] Randall Roth: I'm sometimes criticized for having too many lawyers as guests and and here we are we need a lawyer today and we don't have one except for me, and I'm the moderator. We go to Bob Speck.

[0:46:08] Bob Speck: [unintelligible — audio glitch]

[0:47:01] Randall Roth: Well, I think what you're calling the outside area, I think of as an inside area. I don't know.

[0:47:05] Bob Speck: I think that was part of the airport too, Bob, and I experience exactly what he talks. Every time I go to a flight, you have to run the gauntlet through those open areas where everybody's smoking. And a smoke-free airport is a smoke-free airport like Los Angeles where they have one little room that all the smokers go to and their smoke is confined there, so that it doesn't pollute the rest of the airport.

[0:47:22] Randall Roth: And and I guess this was part of the initial confusion about the new law in the County of Honolulu. And that is when you start talking about open walls, and whether it's a window or an open area, and that sort of thing. But, uh, out at the Honolulu airport, depending upon whether you define it as indoor or outdoor, there is an area that you have to walk through where where people are smoking. In case you tuned in late, this is the Price of Paradise radio show. My name is Randy Roth. We're talking about the regulation of smoking in Hawaii. Uh, we're getting down to the last 15 minutes or so of the show, and we've got some people who've been waiting patiently, and we are going to get to them for sure. Uh, but if you haven't yet called in, there probably isn't going to be time to take any more callers. Our guests are Tom Jones, who's the general manager of Kyotaru, Hawaii, and as such is responsible for the operation of Kyotaru and Columbia Inn restaurants here in Hawaii. He's been working in the food service business ever since he took a part-time job at an ice cream stand in New Jersey at the age of 14. He's worked as a dishwasher, bus boy, kitchen help, and cook before attending the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, New York, where he became a chef. He's a member of the Board of Directors of the Hawaii Restaurant Association. Also, we have Keith Haugen. Keith is a school teacher at Star of the Sea school, former writer and editor at the Honolulu Star Bulletin, and something I didn't know until just the last few days, Keith, a former state director of Information. For more than 25 years, he's been a recording artist and an entertainer performing in Waikiki. He's also well known to Hawaii public listeners as the founder of K, What's that?

[0:48:58] Keith Haugen: Oh, he's he's saying that's enough.

[0:49:00] Randall Roth: Well, let me tell you, he's done a lot of things down here at Hawaii Public Radio, including the Hawaiian Language News program, the Hawaiian word of the day and the three-hour program that follows ours each Sunday morning called a Hawaiian Sunday with Keith Haugen. It's on KIPO, that's 89.3. If you haven't tuned over to 89.3 after our show any Sunday morning in the past, you should consider doing so every Sunday morning in the future. We also have in the studio Bob Speck, who's retired from IBM, did so six years ago after 32 years of service. Currently, he's active in community affairs, serving on the Hawaii Kai Neighborhood Board, the Hawaii Kai Marina Community Association, and the Spinnaker Isle Homeowners Association. Before joining IBM, he worked for the Public Health Service and the U.S. Information Agency in Washington, D.C. He also heads up a local a local smokers' rights organization, Hawaii Smokers' Rights. And with us by phone, we have Julian Lipsher, who's worked for the State Department of Health since 1973. During that time, he's been a community public health educator on Maui, project coordinator for the Health Education Risk Reduction project, and project director of Hawaii's health objectives for 1990 and beyond. Since 1991, Julian has served as project coordinator for the state's Tobacco Prevention and Education project. Again, this is the Price of Paradise radio show. We're talking about the regulation of smoking in Hawaii. We're down to about 13 minutes and we've got a couple people who've been waiting very, very patiently. Let's go first to Al from Hawaii Kai. Good morning, Al.

[0:50:34] Al: Oh, good morning. I have a question for Bob Speck. I wonder what his reaction is to the retirement of Joe Camel for from advertising cigarettes to reduce smoking by the younger generation.

[0:50:48] Randall Roth: Yeah, I guess Joe Camel bit the dust, uh, Bob Speck.

[0:50:51] Bob Speck: Actually, Joe didn't retire, he was fired for incompetence because 80% of the kids smoke Marlboros, only 4% of the kids smoke camels. So if Joe was supposed to entice the kids to smoke, he sure wasn't doing his job that. So he was fired.

[0:51:10] Randall Roth: Al, thanks for your call. Let's go to Paul from Waikiki. Good morning, Paul.

[0:51:14] Paul: Hi, thanks for putting the show on. Uh, first of all, I'd like to state I'm a reformed smoker. Uh, I do not go to bars or nightclubs here in Waikiki because I cannot stand the stench and the stink in my clothing, my hair and so forth when I get home. So you can see where I'm coming from. But I have a question of economics uh for the smoke uh uh, the people in favor of smoking. Uh, if in fact the the bulk of our visitors were not from Japan and were smokers uh like the 5 million visitors that we do get or 2 million visitors that we get from there, what if there were two and a half million visitors from an area like California where we know there are many, many, many non-smokers and where they have stringent non-smoking laws regarding restaurants and bars. Uh don't you think the Restaurant Association would change their tune and wouldn't they then be in favor of not smoking in restaurants and bars?

[0:52:03] Randall Roth: Uh let's go first to Tom Jones and and Tom, I think a lot of our listeners realize that as a society, the people in Japan smoke a lot more than the people in the United States right now, and we have a lot of visitors from Japan. And Paul has asked I think a question that a lot of people are wondering about, what do you think?

[0:52:21] Tom Jones: [unintelligible — audio glitch]

[0:52:32] Randall Roth: So, so what Paul's saying, if if your customers were non-smokers and they wanted a non-smoking environment, you would gladly provide it?

[0:52:50] Tom Jones: Absolutely, and we'll be doing that at some of our restaurants. So we have four different restaurants, you know, I manage four restaurants that have smoking sections in them. Each one of those restaurants has specific needs to that particular restaurant, and there are thousands of restaurants in Hawaii. Each restauranteur needs to have the opportunity to evaluate their particular situation, their facility, and then do the best that they can do to um, you know, help their customers and their employees, and then let the marketplace decide.

[0:53:16] Randall Roth: Keith, I get the impression that in a perfect world, that's what you would want too, because you think that if customers really thought about it, that they would make those demands and the restaurants would be smoke-free. But you're saying that might not happen in the world in which we live and so government ought to intervene.

[0:53:33] Keith Haugen: The reason I think that's probably right is because 88% of us don't smoke. However, I think that the total ban was the solution. When I worked for Mid-Pacific Airlines and all three inner-island carriers banned smoking on all flights, everybody told us the Japanese will not fly to the neighbor islands if they can't smoke. Truth is, of course, they flew to the neighbor islands in ever-increasing numbers in the succeeding years. And I think if smoking were banned in restaurants, the Japanese smokers who are giving up cigarettes for nine hours to fly from Tokyo to Honolulu, would give up smoking for an hour to go dine in a fine dining room, too.

[0:54:07] Randall Roth: Let me ask Bob Speck. Bob, you fly to the mainland, I'm sure from time to time and have to go without a cigarette for five to to nine hours, and you make it just fine. Um, why not one hour eating a meal in a restaurant?

[0:54:21] Bob Speck: Well, first of all, uh let me say that to compare uh inter-island flights which are only 20 minutes uh with not going without smoking for an hour and a half in a in a restaurant is a poor comparison at best. They're two entirely different situations. If I fly, it's because I have to get someplace. If I go out to eat, it's a social experience. It should be a pleasurable. If it's not pleasurable, I'm not going to go out. In response to your question, what do I do when I fly to the mainland? What I do, let me say first of all, it's hell for me. What I do is when the stewardess comes by to take the drink orders, I order I order four martinis. The last flight, I ordered five. I want to go into oblivion. So, I go to sleep, and when I wake up, the flight's over and that's how I handle it.

[0:55:15] Paul: God, man. Can I make a comment?

[0:55:17] Randall Roth: Go ahead. This is Paul from Waikiki. No, it's a tragic that Bob Speck, a person who believes in smoking, has to do that in order to go from point A to point B. Imagine being that addicted. Good luck, fellas. Thank you for putting it out there. Thank, thank you, Paul.

[0:55:31] Keith Haugen: I hope all the children heard that so they know what smoking can do to you.

[0:55:35] Randall Roth: That that was Keith Haugen. Well, we're down to the last But those martinis are good. We're down to the last seven or eight minutes, and I want to give each of our guests a minute or two to add what needs to be added, to correct what needs to be corrected, or elaborate on on whatever requires that. Let's start with Julian Lipsher, who's with the State Department of Health. Julian, what have we missed?

[0:55:56] Julian Lipsher: Well, to emphasize the point that uh, I think we all have seen and proven that smoking is a horribly addictive uh, nicotine is horribly addictive substance and smoking is a horribly addictive behavior. Smokers should be treated uh with understanding and compassion uh on the one hand, and the other, um, the point that that Keith made earlier, that individuals who do not smoke and do not wish to breathe other people's smoke should not be involuntarily exposed. I think it's been clear that the employer needs to provide a clean, safe, healthy working environment. It's government's role to protect public health and we have seen uh, literally an a a social revolution in regards to smoking over the last 30 years. Whether we should immediately go to ban cigarettes, uh we're headed in that direction, uh to protect people's health. Uh, the smoking and restaurant issue is one where

[0:57:00] Julian Lipsher: Clearly, you're protecting the worker who has the greatest exposure, and I might add that whether you hire smokers or non-smokers, uh, you can't smoke in the kitchen. That's public health sanitation law. Uh, and so in the food preparation area, whether you have a smoker or a non-smoker as an employee, uh, doesn't make all that much difference, except if the smoker has to go outside, uh, periodically, you know, you lose productivity.

[0:57:29] Randall Roth: Okay.

[0:57:30] Julian Lipsher: So I I think that, uh, people should not be involuntarily exposed. I believe the science is correct, and I believe that uh policies from business and legislation from uh from government, uh will catch up to the science.

[0:57:46] Randall Roth: Okay. Julian, thank you very much. That was Julian Lipsher from the State Department of Health. Tom Jones, you've been in the middle of this all day, and I know it kind of boils down to you believing that the market ought to decide, that if people want smoke-free, they're going to get it from people like you. If they don't, then they won't. What else do you want to tell our listeners?

[0:58:05] Tom Jones: Well, I believe that, um, along with uh the rights that we enjoy in the United States, we also have responsibilities, and that applies to the customers, it applies to the employers, it also applies to the employees. Um, everybody has decisions they have to make and, and people with severe respiratory problems need to seriously consider where they're going to, to work at, and also where they're going to go and dine. Um, the employers need to take a good look at at the, you know, the needs of their customers and the needs of their employees and make, uh, you know, responsible decisions in that area as well.

[0:58:37] Tom Jones: Um, but the with respect to restaurants, the smoking in the uh public areas is a technical problem that can be solved through um mechanical, uh, you know, ventilation uh and so forth. And so we're going to be doing those things in our restaurant, decided to try to solve the problem uh in everyone's best interest.

[0:58:55] Randall Roth: Okay. And that's Tom Jones, who is a restaurateur here in Hawaii. Bob Speck, you've got about two minutes to tell us what we need to hear.

[0:59:04] Bob Speck: Okay, I I will repeat the point I made that uh secondhand smoke is is not dangerous for you. Much is being made of the report that came out from the EPA. Uh the report of the EPA has been pretty much discredited by the Congressional Research Service. My question to Julian and others would be, why don't you give equal weight to the report from the from the Congressional Research Service, a division of the library of of Congress? They're even more respected than the EPA. In fact, a lot of people would tell you that the EPA really isn't that respected anymore because of a lot of other things.

[0:59:44] Bob Speck: As far as working in the restaurants, I I believe I mentioned earlier that uh that a worker in a smoke-filled restaurant gets the equivalent of 1/8 of a cigarette during an eight-hour shift, and that's not going to hurt anybody. Uh, I have a son who works as a waiter. Uh, he likes to work in the smoking sections because the tips are better. Smokers drink more, therefore they tip more.

[1:00:13] Randall Roth: Tom Jones is nodding. Yeah, I guess that's, uh, is that industry uh truth?

[1:00:17] Tom Jones: I've heard that from some of our employees.

[1:00:19] Randall Roth: Okay. Bob, you got a few seconds yet.

[1:00:21] Bob Speck: Okay. As far as the Japanese go, I want to point out that uh there was a survey done at the airport by a company that publishes something called the the Japan report. Of the people surveyed of the Japanese that were surveyed, 70% of the males said they do smoke, 65% of them said they are opposed to a restaurant smoking ban. And when the uh uh person who put out this report was asked at a city council hearing, uh, would the Japanese go somewhere else for vacation if they couldn't smoke here? He said many of them would.

[1:00:55] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, Keith Haugen, you've got uh two minutes. Don't waste a single second, and then, folks, he's going to run from this studio over to 89.3 FM and you can move your your dial over and catch him for the next three hours. Keith Haugen, you got about two minutes.

[1:01:11] Keith Haugen: I I don't disagree with many of the things that have been said in in favor of rights because I'm a strong believer in everybody having a right to do what they want. And Bob, I respect your right to smoke. Uh, I'm an ex-smoker too. And at one point, four of our five children smoked, and we bribed them all with money to get them to quit smoking and it worked. We now have a smoke-free family. And we can choose where we dine, and I think that the marketplace will ultimately decide it.

[1:01:36] Keith Haugen: I'm concerned that it's taking too long for the marketplace to decide it. We have several hundred restaurants on the island right now that ban smoking, and I applaud their efforts and and Tom, I thank you for making the Columbian and Whyly Avenue smoke-free because it's one of my favorite places to dine. But I don't know how long we can wait for that. I hope that I don't get cancer during the time that I'm waiting. Uh unlike Bob, I disagree. I think the statistics are correct, and that 53,000 Americans die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke. In California alone, their own EPA survey showed that 4,700 non-smoking Californians die each year from secondhand smoke.

[1:02:19] Keith Haugen: And I'm I'm convinced that that's true and for that reason, I don't want to breathe it. It's also very uncomfortable. It smells bad, it makes me smell bad. Uh it bothers my asthma. Uh my wife and I have chosen to perform for the past 25 years in mostly open-air places where we're not going to be confined.

[1:02:35] Keith Haugen: But we have been required to stroll into areas where smoking is permitted and that bothers me, and so we often have to skip areas where the smoke is so heavy and pass those people and not entertain them the way we do in the non-smoking areas. I feel badly about that because I think they should all have the same treatment. But my feelings and I'm not an expert, I'm not a doctor, I'm certainly not a scientist or a lawyer, boils down to what I opened and and closed my article with in this morning's paper. And that's that I think your rights end where mine begin.

[1:03:06] Keith Haugen: I have no problem with you smoking. I just don't want you smoking and blowing it into the air that I breathe.

[1:03:12] Randall Roth: Okay, there you have it, folks. That was Keith Haugen. You also heard from Bob Speck, Julian Lipsher, and Tom Jones. Um, the Price of Paradise radio show is produced by Suzy Roth. Our technical wizard this morning is Ryan Kampuspo. You've been listening to the Price of Paradise radio show. I'm Randy Roth. Aloha.

[1:03:25] Randall Roth: You've been listening to the Price of Paradise radio show. I'm Randy Roth. Aloha.

[1:03:31] [music outro 332s]