Focus 580; The Tobacco Industry and the Safety of Tobacco Use

Good morning welcome to focus 580 This is our telephone talk program. My name is David Ensor. Glad to have you with us as we begin another week this morning in the first part of the program we'll be talking about the débâcle industry and the safety of tobacco use among other things. And my guest with this program is Dr. Jeffrey Weigand. He is perhaps the most highly placed former industry official to come out to talk publicly about the industry what they knew and when they knew it. And as a matter of fact if you saw the film The Insider that came out last year you saw a dramatic version of his story and what happened to him. He was for a number of years employed by the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company. That's from December of 88 through March of 1903 before that. He worked in some other health care companies including Johnson Johnson and Pfizer after his falling out with the Brown and Williamson and I'll tell you about how that happened. He went on to cooperate with the government investigating the tobacco industry.

He also came to national prominence in 1995 when he went public with what he knew. In an interview with CBS that was taped for the program 60 Minutes and fact it probably got much more attention and much more play because of the decision by CBS not to use the interview they did because the network was afraid that it would be sued by Brown and Williamson eventually that story got out. And the piece ran he was sued by Brown and Williamson because of his public disclosures about the industry. Eventually the lawsuit was dismissed as a condition of the tobacco settlement between the attorneys general of 40 states and the industry. Now he continues to travel around the country talking about smoking and tobacco and also working with an organization that he formed called smokefree Kids Incorporated. And as the name would suggest the idea is they're trying to find ways to prevent kids from smoking.

He's here visiting the campus of the University of Illinois and was good enough to come spend some time with us and we're pleased to have him here. The number if you'd like to call in at some point like to ask questions we welcome that 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5 and all we ask of callers is people just try to be brief so we can accommodate as many different folks as possible but anyone is welcome to call. Well thanks very much for Good morning. Thank you thank you for not arranging snow. Well you may just have dodged it you never can tell this part of the country. I know and I know you live in Charleston. So yeah we do. Well actually the eastern coast of North Carolina did and didn't dodge us that either. Well I've been in South Carolina in the summertime and I don't envy you at that time of year maybe other times of year. Yeah I mean July and August just you know stretched me just a little bit but it's from air conditioned home ec edition card to something. And are you still teaching. I'm still teaching it. Well mainly I spend my time with K through six kids so I'm not teaching in the traditional sense of being in the same classroom teaching the same subjects every day.

When I teach children mainly K through six is enabling skills that help help them make healthier responsible choices and recognize the. The tall getting of it in this read it gets 3000 kids a day addicted and is giving them a competency of understanding what goes on in the movies is real and real. What is subliminal manipulation versus what is fact. How the industry behaved then also at the same time gendering in them the opportunity to become activists and fight for social change. Well want to give people a chance to hear sort of the basics of what happened to you if they're not familiar with the story. Let me ask first when you were when you went to work for Brown and Williamson. Why you took that job. Why go to work for tobacco company after having worked in the health care field elsewhere. Well I I mean I spent six months of interviews with Brian Williams and its parent company B 80 industries which is the second largest tobacco concern in the world. Pretty diversified bridleway Emsam Is

this the nation's third largest. And they originally started out with them approaching me and asking me if I could use my scientific skills that I had mass for 25 years into the health care arena to address a product when use intended kills four hundred thirty thousand people a year. And I guess at the six months of interviews I believe that I would have the opportunity to apply my science of my background. To a product that I believe people will continue to use as adults and that I can make it safer that is reduce the risk by but also recognize there's no such thing as a safe tobacco product. I would be doing something that I believe was making a difference in socially relevant. And so I left the health care industry that environment that I'd worked in and joined them. In Jackson Lee January 1999 and left precipitous Lee in March of 1993 with and there were lots of things that I saw during my tenure in the company that gave me

considerable pause for thought the safer cigarette product was can project was canceled and shifted overseas like many other things that went on because of the consumer concern about unraveling there. The fundamental tenants by which the industry survived five decades of litigate of actions of one there is no. Causal office process between smoking and health something that they generated controversy over and that smoking was an addictive and that it was a free choice and what I saw was basically an attempt to force that that by generating controversy in science by not pursuing a safer cigarette which would said that everything they said before was what was fundamentally a lie and that the whole idea of going from a high tar to a light product the Monica meeting some aspect of health safety a live reduce risk was also a mischaracterization and in the broadest sense so

many things led me to do what I did. I mean I was also paid well I may not be very honest with I was paid extremely well I was paid well over $300000 a year in salary which is something more than I had been traditionally making. But not you know I don't jump automatically into a six figure salary. I had some personal issues that were addressed like two young children two months old and two years old. And I want to move on from the New York City metropolitan area to an environment that was a little bit more or less risky in that way. And also my ex-wife was from Louisville Kentucky and her her parents were there and I felt wow that's a great opportunity that my children also have interactions that grandparents. I was paid well I thought I would be making a social difference it was a unique technical challenge and I believe I could have done it and so I put it all together and ultimately in December of 98 I chose the to accept the job. So it sounds like by the time then that you left there you were you were disillusioned really unhappy

with the company you were you were ready to leave but were. But while you were technically speaking you were fired right. Technically speaking I was fired yes. And it was I mean there are many many incidents over that time period I was there. I mean first of all I mean it didn't take me about 10 months to see some of the things that really caused me pause pause for thought. That is I mean we attended a meeting for four and a half days of all the scientists throughout the industries to address how to make a safer product how to make a fire safe product how to reduce the addictive quality of nicotine deal Environmental to spackle small genetic engineering and the testing associated with measuring some degree of safety and how to address that moving the product from outside to the main of any. Regulatory to something that ultimately would probably be regulated by the FDA and the minutes clearly reflected the enunciation of what was a contra you know

the consistent conscious mantra within the company where we're in a nicotine delivery business and tars a negative baggage and that nicotine is addictive. But outside nicotine was there for taste and this meeting really addressed this issue we could make a safer cigarette using X than technology. There was a capacity change nicotine's addictiveness and it all reflected in some 15 pages of minutes. And when these minutes were circulated through the senior management they ordered an attorney who did not participate in the meeting to change the minutes of the meeting so they would not be discoverable in a court of law. And that really gave me real pause for thought. And. Then it was followed up by a process by which lawyers were put in every facet of science they were editing vetting choosing which science was read by the scientists which documents were read and it became pretty oppressive in that way. I chose at the time though because I had a family and mortgage and I had a daughter who also was

weak. Needed consistent as well as daily medical help that I could not afford to at least at times put my family in harm's way so I basically stayed there continue to get the salary continue to do what I thought was changing things from inside and ultimately ran into a real buzz saw with the use of an additive that had been removed the cigarettes in the 80s because it was shown to be have had a toxic in dogs and mass followers and the Kentucky company continued to use it as pipe tobacco. Irrespective of being removed from the FDA GRAS list but continue to use it because they don't have to disclose of the government. And I had taken it out of cigarettes and it was shown to be a long specific carcinogen in laboratory testing of mice and rats by the A.P. program. And when I went to the same officer of the company that was my boss that ordered the change of the minutes of the meeting from 12:00 to half 14 pages down to two and a half pages of an hour he told me go back to the laboratory and find a substitute that he was going to

take it out because it affects sales and profits. And I guess that was the rubber that really hit the road for me at that time and you know I had trouble enough dealing with some of the things I had learned and observed and saw plus my own kids who were coming home from private schools that I was able to afford were ask me why I was killing people with a job I did. So I mean I had a really kind of Waterloo or I mean I coming for the day. I don't know I can't quite. I mean Anyway there's a significant Fleck the guy I debated with was Tommy Santa who was the president's chief operating officer. I would say is probably a little bit stronger than a debate because I believe that there was enough duty of care to be demonstrated here that when it was incrementally real risky why continue to use ultimate He became the new CEO. Several months later and I was summarily fired. And that's the way it ended. Let me at this point just reintroduce for anybody who might have tuned in here.

We're talking with Dr. Jeffrey Weigand former chief scientist at Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation who as I mentioned beginning came to national prominence. He his story became a national story about five years ago when he became the industry's highest ranking former executive to publicly talk about health and smoking issues. He was featured in a segment of 60 Minutes that initially was produced put together with him in it. Then CBS decided they thought they'd be sued by Brown and Williamson. They pulled him out. But eventually word got out of what CBS had done caused great embarrassment to CBS News to 60 minutes. Then they actually ran the piece. Well I think it's a little bit more complicated than that. I mean I think. Maybe I should just characterize the environment CBS and give you a little bit of a different texture to this. CBS Well first of all ABC in August of 1990 5 apologized to Philip Marrs during an acquisition of ABC by

Disney and that was that there was a 10 billion dollar lawsuit on between Philip Morris and ABC day one for saying that nicotine was addictive and that film are spiked cigarettes with nicotine. That was a little lawsuit based on libel film are slewed ABC. That during the acquisition of ABC by Disney ABC apologized and withdrew part of its statement about spiking apologized to Philip Morris for not accurately depicting properly using the proper where they probably shouldn't say the word spike. They probably should use the word manipulate but they apologized first time ever. Well on August 5th 1905 I recorded with CBS 60 minutes my interview which basically dealt with the issue of the CEO's lying in front of Congress manipulating nicotine using chemicals to manipulate it and a whole myriad of other issues. And part of my agreement with CBS why that it was they would provide me.

Or give me opportunity and I would maintain custody to troll the taping until such time as I found a lawyer because I could find a lawyer in Kentucky before and I had some form of physical security for my family because we already had two death threats against my children because I started cooperating with Congress as a vest a Geisha and one thousand one hundred ninety four with the Waxman committing on tobacco matters. And so I was real concern about going public without having some sort of a safety net so to speak. But at the same time CBS interviewed me they were being acquired by Westinghouse and this is something that doesn't come out to much in the media but and that there was a significant opportunity for those who were in CBS major corporation or corporate to make substantial amount of money based on the equity and their stock and should there be any detractors from the balance sheet that would affect people's earnings.

Number one number two is the owner of CBS and it's his brother. We're under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for perjury in front of Congress. Well that's kind of strange for a CBS executive on a vest case for perjury Well the problem is is that not only he was the owner through Lowe's corporation of a tobacco company called Lorillard which is also something not. Well known outside the movie and the media and the third thing that really puts it makes it very more more interesting is that Brown Williamson a former point was in negotiating with Lorillard Tobacco Company for the transfer one hundred million dollars worth of product life to Lorelai. And now they have the lawyers within CBS BlackRock are evaluating should they add this controversial how to deal with the issue of the perjury with their tissue and how how to deal with an unfettered balance sheet and how to make it culminate the transfer of product from Brad away Emson to Lorelai.

Well someway magically Brown Williamson learns of the interview. And threaten CBS during this acquisition process with a 15 billion ish lawsuit that would have great impact on the acquisition and would just spotlight a lot of things. CBS Blakroc lawyers were involved in all these elements chose to kill the interview with me. Under the threat of brown wimps and suing them under a specious legal principle called tortious interference that is the news agency. It enticed me to break my confidentiality agreement to give them the news. Well I've never heard that's what a news agency does anyway. In October 1995 CBS CBS News canceled the interview and acceded to the threat as well as I think some other issues here that probably as well

as some greed I think and canceled the interview. That was fine. I mean but that's not all what happened somebody within CBS also then wound up leaking the. The complete transcript of the August 5th interview to The New York media. And then of course you know bedlam broke out. I was sued immediately. Ex parte in a Kentucky court I was enjoying. And the fireworks began I must say that CBS did on a part of their agreement with me at the time they did provide me my family with with physical security. But that didn't I mean the whole issue broke out. And it wasn't until after well so CBS canned the program they acknowledged nothing in the terms of the program. Then in November 1995 I gave us one deposition in Mississippi which is the same under oath the same thing I told CBS on August 5th. That was under seal by order of the Supreme Court of mislead of us that be at the request of brown and Williams and I want to cooperate that deposition.

Well one fellow under lots of threats of going to jail for contempt in Kentucky court cetera. And it was sealed. I mean nobody could read it in the public until or unless you had the right of visibility of that deposition through a court order or because you are involved well somewhere you know that deposition sealed deposition made its way to the Wall Street Journal and The Wall Street Journal chose on that also the same threat to publish it. And they published it in January of 1996. Not only that published on the front page of The Wall Street Journal which one would not expect the Wall Street Journal to do. Who's sort of the purveyor of corporate and business publish under the threat and they also loaded up on the Internet in February 1996 CBS. Then when the threat of tortious interference was removed then aired the August 5th 1995 interview Interview with you. So finally aired the piece as they had originally had planned to do this and it was. I mean I think

if one reflects back on that it is not a great day for journalism and a halt in that sense and I mean if you look at all the very complicated peripheral issues and some of the issues there of not only can this industry intimidate not only individuals but now can they go past and intimidate another major corporation by using its legal power and its as it is has been 600 million dollars a year in legal fees outside its own walls to make sure that it is continues the controversy continues. Escaping from the bar of justice now has effectively intimidated a company and an industry to think that has had a stellar reputation for Vesta gaited hard reporting particularly CBS 60 Minutes one of things that I wonder about is if they get this one of those sort of what it's going to be if after you had left run away

MSN if they you hadn't felt they were threatening you. And that and that perhaps your your life and the lives of your family were endangered whether you would have gone as far in coming out publicly as you had say it's safe to come just for imagination that if the company had just left you alone would you have done what you did. Wow. Yeah. Probably so but I mean there was a whole pattern of intimidation I mean first of all they sued me in September of 1993 after trying to get them to honor their severance agreement. That to be my severance agreement revolved around two things I needed some money to continue to keep my family afloat. Well I got a new job. And two is I was very intimately to my health care benefits particularly for one of my children who was born with spina bifida. And so I couldn't have that. I just couldn't do that and they were not of their original agreement. I could get a lawyer in Kentucky and I finally when I left in March I finally ironed out an agreement in June of

1993 without a lawyer. In September 1993 they sue me stop my health care benefits stop my salary until I signed a more onerous draconian type secrecy agreement which basically said I couldn't talk about tobacco without first talking to them first a lawyer present etc. etc. and by any standard this was most draconian by the tobacco industry and of course what I did is I signed it. I could not let my family go in harm's way. And then I got involved with CBS in January 94 about the fire safe cigarette and the ability of the industry to make a fire safe cigarette and I saw documents that really kind of disturbed me that they had the capacity to make a fire safe cigarette and in June of 1986 they chose not to do it because it was the legislature. There's between 12 or the 15 lives lost each year because of fires created by cigarettes and they didn't introduce the law to the technology because there was no laws or regulations. They called it Hamlet to burn and not to burn. And that bothered me that bother me then to watch the seven CEOs get up in front of Congress and all

swear that nicotine was addictive and smoking was no more dangerous than Twinkies and that bothered me and then I got the see through Stanton Glantz a professor at UC San Francisco the complete chronology and history of the from the 50s through just shortly before he joined brought away I'm sort of things I asked to see when I was in the company on nicotine addiction and talking and all that stuff that one would act like to see as the head scientists and a vice president research and development was what I was. I got to see for the first time. And you know that combined with my own moral compas my children what I thought was the right thing to do what the public needed to know. I chose to do it. Now if they didn't push me what I've done it and the same events happen if they don't push me I suppose and most likely my moral compass would have made me think that was the right thing to do and probably would have done it was a complicated with lots of other events yes it was. I mean CBS made

its own events Philip Morris made part of its events the congressional investigation the f the A's investigation the death threats the bullet in the mailbox I mean all this stuff contributed to the the final lies ahead. These were solution but a final end of of what what happened here I mean to have bodyguards teaching high school is not what I would consider fun. You just made reference to the fact that a lot of industry documents had previously been been secret had come out and this was another there was another guy by Remember the story right it was a guy who was working as a legal aide who merrily house the stuff he found it was horrified he made copies of all the stuff and he was the guy who sent it to was it it was a he who sent it to Stan glance. Now I mean isn't it. I don't think the pathway is pretty. I mean Meryl we as Williams took the documents which was a very noble thing when he did it really should shone the light on about five decades

of of lawyer manipulation science generate controversy generate about the science the ception et cetera. And he brought a fella but his his initial was was to try to extort money from him which was the wrong thing to do. Congress wouldn't touch the documents because it was stolen. Lawyers wouldn't touch it because it was stolen and they still but they finally made it and Stan Glantz and at UC San Francisco chose to make them public he put them up on. He put my money in a net and he wrote a book about it he published seven papers in the Journal of American Medical Association. And it wasn't without threat I mean they went out there to try to enjoin him they've tried to take his research grants away from him because he shone a light on the truth. If it wasn't for those documents I think I mean each piece of this puzzle has a certain part in forming the whole image. But with one make the difference to the other. If I didn't see the documents would it be different. Yeah I saw those I said God that's the same thing that I saw and now I am the

credible. I have credible knowledge I had the facts I was a witness to this. Well if they I guess the thing of that I was curious about when you were working as a side is for Brown and Williamson. Did you did you know that that existed but you couldn't see it or did you say you know have we done research on this and the company said no. I guess I'm just curious about. Or do they just say to you oh yeah we have this stuff but you can't see it. Well first of all I mean there was stuff I asked for that I thought was the normal What would be the normal background information that you would assume that would be existing in the files of the of the product. I mean I spent years doing product development and product innovation and I knew what the base information should be. When I asked for it they said it didn't exist yet I would go to meetings and I listen to people talk about things that said well where does this come from. And I never saw I mean even I asked to see it. I was told it didn't exist and then to see it three years later.

It was the exactly the things I asked for the exactly same thing and the manner in which they were sequestered vetted kept away from the public domain information it had been shared with the 64 surgeon general's report. Information that should have been shared with consumers so they knew how they were manipulating nicotine and why they had additives to it to facilitate it diction. I think is information that should been shared with the public that they knew clearly in the fifties that nicotine was addictive and they were in a covert pharmaceutical business yet they would swear not only in public but it also included legal proceedings including that it wasn't addictive. We're a little bit past the midpoint here. I get a caller here I want to try to get to and I think again I should introduce our guest I'm talking with Dr. Jeffrey Weigand. He's a former chief scientist of the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation who became the highest ranking industry official to go public with what he knew about the industry. About tobacco he came to national prominence in 1995 when he taped an interview which then as we've explained was later

aired for 60 minutes. And if you saw the film The Insider came out last year. That was a dramatic version of the story but one that he says essentially is the way it was very accurate. And if you have questions we'd be happy to hear from you 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5 Here's caller in southern Illinois and on our toll free line how you know I know I'm glad that you had the courage to do that and I hope you can go on encourage others in other industries because you know there are other industries as well harming. Public people as well as the tobacco industry and I want to make that point I want to ask you a question and that was how long is it that the there the settlement is expected to take the payoff is like 10 years or something like that before that before they're done paying in the state. All this money that's back going to St.. Well they the industry and the state attorney generals and lawsuits reached an agreement in June 20 of 1997 which only four states

participated Mississippi Florida Texas the Minnesota there's a separate agreement that covers the reason remaining states in November of 1998 which was mounted two hundred forty six billion dollars paid over 25 years to the states for compensation of health care costs that were were caused as a result of smoking that the state paid. That money has basically been recoup by the industry by passing on immediately after that a price increase on cigarettes which will realize that 246 billion being covered within the first five years and the result in 20 years would be cash flow to the industry. That settlement funds have been a source of what I would say to me is a severe disappointment because the spirit intended by which the Attorney Generals entered the lawsuit was not only to recover the financial issues but also to make a better brighter future for 3000 kids a day. This industry tossin addicts 90 percent of today's smokers are all slaughtered before the age of 18.

That's exactly what I want to get to it after they've paid their their dues. They're you know they're not going to lower their prices and they're just going to be making that kind of money then on top of what that so in a sense we know is as they raise the price of cigarettes and tobacco products the acceptability and the access to the younger set is dramatically decreased for every 10 percent increase in price we see a four tenths of a percent decrease in youth on the age of 18 ability to purchase the product. So price is one way of putting it out of the reach not only of kids but also make it a much more expensive addiction. Well I know a family and I'm trying to encourage my friend to quit smoking and you know not not because of the price but because of his health but also because of the price because as much as he smokes he can almost make his mortgage payment and Sigrid payment and his child is without in some cases. But the one thing I want to say and I hang out let somebody else have a chance.

And and that is I see the alcohol industry. And just the same thing is there is many people getting killed and it contributes to more violence than than the cigarettes do and you know and these drugs that are illegal you know alcohol just as equally contribute obal to that violence I think in my mind as being a recovering alcoholic I can testify to that. And I think what you need to look at is just the numbers are four hundred thirty thousand people die of tobacco related diseases. You'll find out there are tens of thousands of people die from alcohol alcohol related diseases. And I'm not going to say dismissed alcohol but I would say in terms of priorities and what I would like to think people would like to address is how do you help those four and 30000 people by preventing something that's thought as a pediatric disease. Kids can't go in and buy. Alcohol legally can go in they can get tobacco products and get on Gateway products and start and get hooked early on and we need to be doing something about that not only through education but also through legislation. I appreciate the calm of the caller and I got somebody else here. I want to get to the gist.

I wondered to pick up on that for a second. I think you made the point that a lot of anti-smoking advocates make one thing that you can do to try to keep kids from smoking is to make the cigarette make the product more expensive so it's harder for them to afford and enforce the law. And here in this state for example you've got to be 18 18 and you can do that. But you know also I guess the bottom line should be that you ought to be able to persuade kids this is not good for you. It's bad for your health. So do it and yet that seems like that's the hardest part that's the hardest part and I mean what I try to do and what a lot of other is is create through cognitive processing is science changes in attitude behavior which is basically giving the children the right knowledge so they're not duped manipulated by the advertising. What I mean to advertise with 13 year old girl who's developing enough physical appearance becomes a preeminent in our life that if you have a cigarette rather than a sweet you a lot. And what is the message there. And then the cigarettes then and then have the models that what

13 year old girl is not going to succumb to that. And then the process of becoming part of a group the group that smokes and then being in that group and then choosing not. But this is an industry to dupes and manipulates children with image and then hooks them with an addictive substance. So there's a whole myriad of things that need to be done to really make a better brighter future for our children. One is price two is compliance three is education. Force a sation and lots of things that we need to do that we know that work in Florida. I mean FARs got a 54 percent reduction in smoking it says about middle and high school kids because of a program of investing the funds Mississippi 18 percent California double digits and now is seeing some of the facts of California's longstanding program in lung cancer. And there's lots of states of Massachusetts Arizona that have really embraced making changes in the process by educating our children to be much more. Capable and

able to make good cognitive healthy decisions not base by intimidation are going to die based on being manipulated duped and tricked at an early age and addiction when that leads ultimately to horrific statistics. I mean as not there are more people who die from tobacco each year related disease than wars AIDS suicide homicide lead the disease combined. And we tend to treat it as a non vector of travesty. Let's talk with the cold here in herb Anna Line want. Hello good morning. I was just thinking that you probably helped save hundreds of thousands of lives. Yet your salary it sounds like has dropped below six figures and. An analysis Kevin Starr's old law firm Brown and Williamson continue to rake in the money. Just so

you know it's really pretty corrupt and it's wonderful that you were able to resist the kind of corruption that rails seem to fall prey to. I have two questions really won and I was wondering if you followed the widder career Archer Daniels Midland thing closely that you know resonate with you and you think it hurt your cause in that anyway. I haven't followed it quite frankly and I had just had not been involved and I could probably could I am vaguely aware of it but it's not something that really is on my radar screen and quite frankly I work with kids every day in my issues and my dedication is to giving kids a better brighter future by giving them enabling knowledge today that affects their choices. And the question I had was I was wondering if. Is there anything you could say about the way Brown and Williamson finds

unselect. Executives such that they're the sort that won't rock the boat. I guess what I'm asking is if you see any common traits or maybe history among the top executives that perhaps the schools they went to are other attitudes or whatever. Well I mean the industry generally hires people that who are presumably qualify for one they pay a very substantial premium price. They're also in the science functions there are many silos of information that don't are not shared across many of the participants in the various areas. It's very I mean I came to the industry not after 25 years in history but a totally different perspective. And I think people in the industry become very insensitive and believes of as right of free choice and to making jobs and it's an call cation a culture that in many ways is. Is absence of some cultural responsibilities. I mean I don't know the way to say it

but up. So it's a place that really I think it's the the environment the economics the belief in social that the right of free choice. And it's a it's a mantra that's built from the day you walk into the day. Plus the people are very economically why when you make forty fifty thousand dollars when the average income environment is 11000 you have real pause for thought. Thank you Have you have a family. Thanks for the call you mean. You know addition to having a dress of drastic drop off in your income your entire life was was sort of laid open to public inspection. Your marriage got wrecked. You went through an awful lot and in that in that interview that you did with Mike Wallace was on 60 Minutes Yes yes something like you know also if you had to do it over again would you and I think you gave a pretty honest answer that said well you know I don't know. Sometimes I'm not so sure. And now having you know having gone through everything that you went through you

do you still sort of say well you know some days I guess I'm not so sure. You know I mean I think my answer today is much more concrete than it was at that time I mean that was in August and 95 many of the things that were going on at that time had not happened yet today I mean I have a pretty different perspective much more information and data. I mean I have no regrets. I would certainly do it again. It's made my pillow easy to put my head on at night. The mirror is clear. If my marriage was one that was solid and would not without some. It was through the storm and been better. Those that's a regret I have but and I don't know if I could change that. I mean I have is a remarkable chemistry of what's happened or alignment of stars that led all of us I mean I should make it very clear that there was lots of support for this one hundred fifty three kids I was teaching every day. The attorney

generals of various states. My own daughters my family they gave me a tremendous amount of unwavering support so lots of help and I have no regrets. I mean I really don't. And whether it's three hundred thousand dollars a year now or thirty thousand dollars a year now it doesn't really matter to me. Surprisingly at my tender age I just I'm not cranked with that. I mean I mean I feel very comfortable in what I'm doing. I believe what I'm doing has social relevance. It's something that I have believe I can make a difference and I will continue making a difference one day at a time. One kid that time every day and I will continue to do that and hopefully engender in other people the same fire to go out and do the same type of work. And it's really directed towards making our children have a better brighter future particularly some at risk kids. We have about 10 minutes left. Our guest is Dr. Jeffrey Weigand former chief scientist at Brown and Williamson tobacco. He as I mentioned here a couple of times and achieved some

national prominence about five years ago when he became the industry's highest ranking former executive doc publicly about health and smoking. I did an interview with the folks at CBS that eventually aired as part of 60 Minutes and his story a version of his life story presented in the film came out last year. The insider questions are welcome three three three W I L L toll free 800 1:58 W while I'm all just been handed here a news bulletin coming off the Associated Press and a victory for George W. Bush the US Supreme Court has overturned the Florida Supreme Court decision extending the deadline for certifying the presidential election. That's all we have right at the moment. We'll have news for you from National Public Radio at one minute past the hour. And I'm certain throughout the day here we'll have more on this story at the point that we go to NPR for all things considered if not a little bit sooner but again this was based on the arguments that took place last week in the United States Supreme Court. The court overturned the Florida Supreme Court decision extending the deadline for certifying the presidential

election. And again we'll have more on that later. I did just want to ask you here. You know in front of the microphone because I did ask her before we got talking here about your reaction to the film which I admit I had just I because I know how to talk about it ran out and rented it so I could watch it. And it's at the end of the movie there's some statement something like you know for dramatic effect events may have been change or something like that but you're what I asked you about it you said essentially that's pretty you know when you look at the essence of it that's pretty much the way that it was. I mean the movie is a drama. It is not a documentary or a docu drama. It's about five years of many people's lives condensed into two and a half hours. It has the social relevance of all the movies that is probably on Palin like all the President's Men. The psychology the philosophy the emotional aspects of it. Or all expired on a very accurate

there is juxtaposition of the chronology of certain events that were used for dramatic effect. I mean was I ever followed to a golf course like it was. No. Was i followed by an ex FBI agent paid an employee of Brown and Williamson. Yes because that scene captured that emotional aspect of being followed and violated I think it does. I mean but I have a prison that's somewhat different than a lot of people but those who choose to read the historical background and then see the movie find Wow it's a little bit too eerie and close to reality for being a drama but it is it has. I think the movie has. Well I had nothing to do with it. Think about it Claire. In terms of making her what came out of it. Has tremendous social relevance. It is the movie has shone a light on how this industry or an industry will intimidate and will breach the trust that we believe there is in the first amendment of freedom of the press. So and for you other than this being in a sense also some some vindication.

Did you did you get anything out of it now doing anything other than write you a jack or anything no not check to Jeff I guess. I mean it is a vindicate is the ultimate I think in a long line I mean everything I have said over the last five years has been corroborated multiple times by the documents from the within the company I work for as well as within the industry. So that to me was a vindication. This movie was sort of like icing on the cake. An additional fin the occasion has also raised my ability to do what I believe to do. I want to do to a different level. I mean I get out them see many more kids and as a result of that we have several callers who will try to get in the Gulf as many as we can first line Warner Bana. Well you're mentioning that you your choices were somewhat were affected by may want to make sure that your kids had health care coverage. I think is an interesting point and I think that there are probably a lot of people out there who are making struggling with their

conscience because we don't have universal health care coverage and. You can't afford to make waves at your job. If you see something going wrong because you would lose your health care coverage you can't start new coverage because it's an existing condition someplace else. And I think that's something else we should be thinking about and listening to what you have to say. I'm finding your conversation very interesting. Thanks Tony. Thank you. You're welcome. Let's go again to another urban a person line too. Hello. Hi. First of all I guess I really just want to thank you for a wash you've done in the last six years. I remember watching the Senate hearing about six years ago and being really amazed at what I consider a bold faced lie. And I pur also quite feel vindicated because there's been a great deal of lung cancer in my family. And so that's really great. But what I really want to know is if you're really hopeful for future tobacco regulation where do you see this going.

Well I think the American people as well as congress and senate have a charge from the U.S. Supreme Court in January of this year to regulate a product when use is intended kill so many addicts so many. And the ball sits with the Congress in the Senate of the United States and you're you're part of that process of electing these people to make sure that they promulgated laws and regulations that that bridal this industry for the first time. How do you recommend that. Pencil and paper pencil and paper write a letter to your senator your congressman in the federal government and urge them to respond to regulating this industry making sure that the ads that disclose the deliveries of this close the monikers of light melted lighter or changed and lots of things that make this industry much more socially responsible to the to the people the addict. Thank you. Right and two champagne line three Hello. Hi I'd like to ask something about the genetic effects of smoking. Some years ago I was I was involved in getting a lot of

background on indoor air pollution and I ran across a report of an article and unfortunately I don't remember too many of the particulars if I had known I was never going to see it again I would have been more careful about documenting it. But this was a some research which purported to show that children are smoking fathers had 50 or 60 percent more cancer of all kinds than children of nonsmoking fathers. When children are smoking mothers had two two and a half times as much leukemia and lymphoma as other people. Yet we clearly know that smoking both smoke and secondhand smoke is a Class A carcinogen. We know that it has dramatic effects particularly on developing biological systems of children and children who are suppose exposed to environmental tobacco smoke become smokers earlier that much force is much more fierce that is SLE addicted and it's truly a health risk for children. And it's also the health

risk for those that are adults that also have asthma and respiratory diseases. Their genetic link is not I think it probably choosing the wrong word here. I think it's an environmental exposure to a carcinogen. Just as just as toxic can. As a as a specimen some benzine secondhand smoke so smoke free environments is has a lot to do smoky moms and dads have a lot to do. Twenty five percent of our pregnant population in this country continue to smoke even though the the outcomes for pregnancy of a woman who smokes is is dramatic in terms of low birth weight and respiratory illness and issues. We have lots to do and I think you're right what some of the things you've said but I think there's a lot more to this picture now that one needs to shine a light on. Well I'm sorry to say that is what we're going to stop because we're out of time. For people who are interested in reading some more about our guest about his organization smoke free kids about this whole issue of tobacco and health one place you might start is with his own website which is w w w dot Jeffrey Weigand. So all is one word

dot com. And I'm sure there's lots and lots of other information there on the web but that's one place that you might go. Good place to start. Well thank you very much for being. Thank you very much. The racially ordered some time.