The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, crude oil prices rose sharply after a tentative agreement by OPEC to limit production. George Bush denied having made a decision to cut Medicare to reduce the deficit. A top Iranian official said Iran would help free American hostages in Lebanon if the U.S. would do the same for Iranian hostages. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we look first at the OPEC decision to cut oil production, next a documentary report on the pluses and minuses of steroids. Then a debate over the newest product from the tobacco industry, the so-called "smokeless cigarette". Joining us on the pro side from R.J. Reynolds are one of the developers of the cigarette and a company attorney. And on the con side an official of the American Medical Association, and the head of an anti-smoking consumer group, and finally essayist Roger Rosenblatt remembers John F. Kennedy.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Crude oil prices rose today on overseas markets after members of OPEC reached tentative agreement to limit production. The 13 nations in the oil producing cartel meeting in Vienna agreed to limit production to 18 1/2 million barrels a day for the first six months of 1989. Recent production has been estimated at about 22 million barrels. The Iranian oil minister returned to Tehran to get his government's approval. In London, futures prices for benchmark crude rose by as much as $1.65 a barrel, bringing the price to more than $14 a barrel. OPEC ministers predicted that prices would eventually reach $18 a barrel, but industry analysts were skeptical that OPEC members would obey the agreement. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: President-elect George Bush today brushed aside news reports that he has begun to make decisions about cuts in federal spending, including as much as $5 billion from the Medicare program. The Washington Post reported today that Mr. Bush would go along with Medicare cuts expected to be recommended by President Reagan in his outgoing budget proposal in January. The President-elect, who is vacationing at his seaside home in Kennebunkport, Maine, denied such newspaper reports that suggest budget decisions have already been made. In other news about the economy, the National Association of Realtors reported today that sales of existing single family homes fell last month as further evidence of an economic slowdown. Home sales declined in three of the last four months and analysts predicted the trend would continue.

MR. MacNeil: A NATO alliance appealed to Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev to match his words with deeds in negotiating conventional arms reductions in Europe. NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner released a new assessment of Soviet and Western conventional weapons, saying it was a challenge to Moscow to produce its own estimate. Woerner said the figures showed a massive Soviet bloc numerical superiority, a point echoed in a parallel news conference in Washington by Assistant Secretary of State Rozanne Ridgway.

ROZANNE RIDGWAY, Assistant Secretary of State: The Warsaw Pact countries have a substantial superiority and conventional forces on the ground in Europe comprised largely of a massive forward deployment of Soviet armored forces organized and equipped for rapid large scale offensive operations. I think it's very clear from the language of Soviet spokesmen over the past months that they recognize that there is an asymmetry, and I believe it's quite clear that they know that that asymmetry is in their favor.

MS. WOODRUFF: Legislators in the Soviet Republic of Armenia today voted to reject political changes being asked for by Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev and they demanded the annexation of a part of neighboring Azerbaijan. The vote came in the aftermath of this week's violence in Armenia, the result of a territorial dispute between the two republics. Earlier in the week, Soviet forces took up positions in Azerbaijan. We have a report from Tom Brown of Worldwide Television News.

TOM BROWN: The presence of Soviet troops has brought a forced calm to the streets of Baku and Azerbaijan. The Kremlin is apparently growing tired of the unrest in the region, politely calling it a threat to good neighborliness. Rioting in Azerbaijan this week has left scores of people dead and injured in the worst outbreak of ethnic strife since February. The unrest has shut down health centers and other public institutions in the region, severely disrupting everyday life. The troops are here to protect Armenians from Azerbajanis angry over what they see as Armenian claims on their land. More than 2,000 Armenians have fled Azerbaijan for neighboring Armenia to escape the violence that saw three Soviet soldiers killed earlier in the week. In the Armenian capital, Yurevan, Soviet troops have taken up positions on street corners to ensure the Armenian push for annexation of Nagorno- Karabakh doesn't get out of hand. But Moscow's intervention has not softened Armenia's demands for annexation of the region. The Republic's Supreme Soviet today voted to continue its efforts against the advice of the Kremlin.

MS. WOODRUFF: In Yugoslavia, the Parliament today adopted constitutional amendments designed to pave the way for radical economic changes and to streamline the country's communist political system. The changes are aimed at giving more power to the central government and making Yugoslavia more of an open market economy, permitting full foreign ownership of Yugoslav companies and banks for example.

MR. MacNeil: In Tehran, the speaker of Iran's Parliament, Hashami Rafsanjani, said his country would use its influence to help free American hostages if the United States would do the same. Speaking at Friday prayers, Rafsanjani referred to three Iranians reportedly kidnapped by right wing Christian Phalangists in Lebanon in 1982. He said, "If you are interested in having your people held hostage in Lebanon released, then tell the Phalangists to release our people -- " Iranian officials have made similar statements in the past. In Southern Lebanon, Israeli war planes attacked two bases operated by Palestinian guerrillas and Lebanese militiamen near the port of Sidon. Police said five people were killed and fifteen wounded. The Israelis said their planes destroyed a large ammunition depot. It was Israel's twenty-third air attack in Lebanon this year.

MS. WOODRUFF: South Korea was again hit with student demonstrations today against former President Chun Du Wan. About a thousand so called radical students and Buddhist monks threw firebombs at riot police and demanded that Chun be arrested two days after the former President made a nationwide television address apologizing for the corruption and abuse of power under his regime. The students also accused the current President, Noh Tay Woo, of trying to protect Chun.

MR. MacNeil: In this country, a study published today stated that mood altering drugs are being overused in many nursing homes. The study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association said the drugs may be used because of inadequate staffing or lack of knowledge by doctors. The chief author of the study, Dr. Mark Biers, told the Associated Press that inappropriate use of psychoactive drugs meant that elderly people might be considered less functional than they actually are or more demented than they actually are.

MS. WOODRUFF: That wraps up our summary of the day's news. Just ahead on the Newshour, the OPEC decision to cut production quotas, the controversy over steroids, the smokeless cigarette, and Roger Rosenblatt on John F. Kennedy. FOCUS - OPEC - OIL DEAL?

MR. MacNeil: First tonight we focus on the OPEC agreement to set up a new quota for oil production. Despite a history of internal divisions, the 13 member nations agreed to a new production of 18 1/2 million barrels of oil a day. OPEC's daily production levels have been running at somewhere near 22 million barrels, well beyond the cartel's previous quota of 17 1/2 million barrels a day. Here to tell us what the new agreement will mean to American consumers is Philip Verleger, Author of "Oil Markets in Turmoil". He joins us from station WVIZ in Cleveland.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Verleger, first of all, what brought these warring OPEC members together?

PHILIP VERLEGER, Oil Expert: Well, I believe it was the fear of $5 oil. Saudi Arabia had steadily increased production above its quota beginning in July and threatened to literally flood the market with oil and discussions have been held that the price might fall as low as $5 a barrel. That led eventually to the members to agree to cut production and to try again to limit output.

MR. MacNeil: Now the Iranians in reversing themselves and agreeing to the same limit as Iraq, which they've resisted before, the Iranian Oil Minister has gone back to Tehran, is there any, any question that the Iranian Government will give them the permission to sign on to this deal?

MR. VERLEGER: There is a good deal of question. As you said at the beginning of the Newshour, the agreement is tentative, however, Iran has been put in to a very uncomfortable position. If they were to not go along, it would be on their heads that the agreement failed and prices fell. Further, a decline in the price of oil to $5 would cut their revenues from oil to approximately 2/3, so they have a great deal to gain by going along.

MR. MacNeil: Now let's suppose that the agreement takes and holds for the six months they've projected it, the first six months of 1989. How much could crude oil, could the crude oil price rise?

MR. VERLEGER: It's possible that the price could rise by as much as $6 a barrel. That would take the OPEC crudes back to $17 a barrel from their current level of $11 a barrel. It's more likely, however, that the price will go up to about $15 a barrel for OPEC and about 16.50 or $17 for Brent, the crude you spoke of at the beginning of the Newshour that rose by $1.40 today.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. If it goes up by what you're saying, what are the consequences? First of all, how much are American drivers going to pay more for gasoline prices?

MR. VERLEGER: By next summer, American drivers will probably be paying 15 cents a gallon, maybe 20 cents a gallon more for gasoline partly due to this agreement and partly due to localized conditions. Another impact though to this agreement is going to be to worsen the trade deficit and to complicate President-elect Bush's problems in the first few months of the administration.

MR. MacNeil: Let's take a figure of $17 a barrel oil. If the U.S. goes on importing oil at the rate it has been, how much could that worsen the trade deficit?

MR. VERLEGER: Probably by about $9 billion or $750 million a month. That's only 7 1/2 percent of the trade deficit but at a time when we're trying to cut it, it's a major blow, perhaps almost a fatal blow.

MR. MacNeil: I see. What about the effect on the oil industry states in this country, where there economies have been so depressed because of the low price of oil?

MR. VERLEGER: I think the answer there is that they are better off a little, but they escaped really a total disaster that might have occurred had prices plummeted to $5 a barrel. The savings & loans, particularly in Texas and Louisiana, have already had major problems and the situation could have become quite critical had the price plummeted to $5 a barrel.

MR. MacNeil: So in other words, they've had an interest, just like the Iranians and others, in seeing this price go up?

MR. VERLEGER: Oh, absolutely. The states of Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska, have a great deal at stake at seeing the price go back to $17 and I'm sure that they would like to see it much higher.

MR. MacNeil: Now if it went to $17, is that an incentive for American oil producers to get to start expanding their operations again, getting more drilling rigs operating and that sort of thing/

MR. VERLEGER: I think we will see a pick up in drilling, not a large pick up initially because there's a great deal of skepticism that this agreement, in fact, will hold. As you know the last several OPEC agreements have eventually failed and there's some doubt that this one will last perhaps longer than five or six months. But should it hold through the summer or should prices remain in the 15 to 17 dollar range through the summer, we will begin to see more drilling and a pick up again.

MR. MacNeil: What about non-OPEC producers like Mexico with their huge debt problem and everything, will they rise their price to the OPEC price, or will they try and undersell OPEC, or what will happen?

MR. VERLEGER: Oh, no, Mexico will follow OPEC up. Mexico and the Saudi Arabians and most of the OPEC countries now sell their oil on a market related basis. That means they really tie their price of oil to spot market prices, to Brent, the North Sea crude, or to the West Texas intermediate crude which is traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

MR. MacNeil: So this is a boon to some Third World countries that owe a lot of debt to the West?

MR. VERLEGER: Oh, yes. It means that Mexico will not have to come to us for another $3 1/2 billion loan at least immediately. This will be quite an assistance to Mexico, assuming they can keep production up, and continue output at current rates.

MR. MacNeil: Do people who watch the oil industry and all the political ramifications of oil in this country, do you think that raising, having OPEC raise the price and making oil imports more costly and having the effect on the trade deficit you mentioned, what will that do to the political climate for the agitation for an oil import fee as a way of reducing imports and raising tax revenue in this country?

MR. VERLEGER: Well, I suspect that the cuts in production which should push up prices will reduce substantially the agitation for an oil import fee. The outcries or the calls for an oil import fee seem to increase every time prices plummet. We saw them particularly in 1986, when the price fell towards $10 a barrel, and we were beginning to hear it again, so I think that this may reduce calls for an oil import fee and I think that those calls probably would be resisted any way, given the meetings in Montreal for the General Agreements for Trade in December.

MR. MacNeil: And finally suppose this works and OPEC sees it working, why wouldn't they want to do it again and push the price up a bit higher?

MR. VERLEGER: Well, the OPEC countries have learned a lesson I think that if they push price too high they trigger a great deal of conservation, they will also possibly trigger a recession -- the world economy is growing very rapidly -- and they will stimulate other production, non OPEC production, and so essentially drive themselves out of the market. I think they're getting much more sophisticated and will try to hold the price at a level which allows them to hold a market.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Philip Verleger, thank you for joining us from Cleveland.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the Newshour, the debate over smokeless cigarettes, stopping steroids in sports and a remembrance of John F. Kennedy. FOCUS - PUMPING POISON?

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight the intensifying war on drugs in the sports world. Yesterday officials from more than a hundred companies endorsed a plan to fight the use of performance enhancing drugs such as steroids in sports. Among other things, the plan calls for a panel of experts who would be able to test athletes in any country at any time. The use of these drugs has attracted much wider attention since Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal in this summer's Olympic Games. Our Correspondent, Kwame Holman, looks at the problem.

KWAME HOLMAN: According to law enforcement officials, this is typical of the process by which athletes get steroids, a sale at a local health club, this one in Denver, where steroid buyer meets steroid distributor. But this buyer is an undercover U.S. Customs agent, and this videotape is evidence against six people in Denver charged with smuggling steroids to Denver from Mexico. Denver body builder Robert Shine was one of those arrested. He was charged with buying smuggled steroids.

ROBERT SHINE, Body Builder: Bad timing. I was there in the wrong place at the wrong time. You know, and I was just buying for myself, you know, I'm not distributing them, and they just got me.

MR. HOLMAN: The charges against Robert Shine eventually were dropped, but his arrest did not deter him from using steroids. Shine says none of the legal chemicals he used worked as well as steroids to build the muscles he needs to compete as a body builder.

ROBERT SHINE: I gained 30 pounds in nine weeks. Yeah. I put on some really good weight. And after I got off my cycle, I probably kept 15 of it. Probably 15 of it was water weight, I'm sure, but i did get some excellent gains, strength, size. Yeah. It was good.

MR. HOLMAN: Shine says finding steroids on the black market has never been a problem.

ROBERT SHINE: There was access to them everywhere. You know, if you looked like you were a serious competitor, guys that were selling them would come up to you say, hey, do you know anybody or do you use them yourself, I can get them for you.

MR. HOLMAN: Steroids can be used legally as healing aids, and only when prescribed by a doctor, but athletes and scientists agree the drugs work to build muscle when combined with vigorous exercise. The desire for bigger, more muscular bodies has created a $100 million a year business in illegalsteroids. Users include everyone from World Class athletes to junior high school football players. U.S. Attorney Mike Norton's Office will prosecute the steroid smuggling case in Denver.

MIKE NORTON, U.S. Attorney: These are violations of federal criminal code and it's my duty and responsibility to enforce them. In a sense, we serve as a conscience of the community. The community is outraged at the drug problem in our society. Steroids is a part of that problem and it is appropriate and, indeed, I think mandatory for us to do our duty in that regard.

MR. HOLMAN: If some parts of society oppose steroids as part of a larger drug abuse problem, others place a higher value on strong bodies. At Gold's Gym just outside Denver, the desire to build a muscular body is demonstrated every day. Gym owner Kent Bordor says professional athletes and body builders aren't the only ones who use steroids.

KENT BORDOR, Gym Owner: Some of them never intend to compete in any way, shape or form, be that power lifting or building their bodies, whatever, they don't intend to compete, but they're interested in looking good. It means so much to them to walk into a restaurant and be noticed, or to get out of their car to buy gas and be noticed, or go to a bar or a nightclub and be the biggest, toughest, meanest looking dude there, whatever.

MR. HOLMAN: Perhaps most disturbing to opponents of steroid use are reports the drugs are used by young people in high school, even junior high school. The man charged with operating the alleged steroid smuggling ring in Denver was a part-time physical education teacher at this and other Denver area high schools. Federal authorities say they are sure the group sold steroids to high school students, possibly here at Adams City High. Adams City football coach Wes Roesler says his team is free of steroids but he worries about steroid use among students who aren't involved in organized sports.

WES ROESLER, Adams City High School: We really have to worry about the high school student that comes down, lifts weights, and does some exercising for an hour, and then spends another two, three hours there after school when we have the weight room open, and this young man doesn't even plan on playing any sports. All he really wants to do is look good to his peers, to his girlfriend.

MR. HOLMAN: Coach Roesler says he works hard to discourage use among his players but team members admit the steroid short cut is tempting.

LEWIS SPROWL, Student: You want to be big; you want to be huge. It's just like, I don't know, women like you more.

RAUL MARQUEZ, Student: The growth is so rapidly and you know, you don't have to work as hard, it seems like. It's just there. You only have to do it for such a little time and you build up into, you know, a rock.

MR. HOLMAN: High school athletes say they are lured to use steroids in part because they know professional football players use the drugs. At the Denver Broncos' training facility, Lineman Greg Kragen claimed few, if any, of his teammates use steroids, but Kragen says use is common throughout the National Football League.

GREG KRAGEN, Denver Broncos: It's really hard to say an exact percentage, but sometimes you can just look at guys and really tell the way they're ballooned up, that type of thing, and if you see in a case where they've gained 30, 40 pounds over say a year or two, it's really obvious sometimes.

MR. HOLMAN: After tests last summer, the National Football League said only 6 percent of players tested positive for steroids. Some players say closer to 50 percent use steroids. Next year, players who test positive to steroids will be subject to the same penalties as players found to use cocaine or amphetamines, suspension and possibly banishment from the league. High school coach Roesler says a crackdown in the professional ranks will help him discourage his young athletes from using steroids.

MR. ROESLER: If the NFL is going to stop -- or test these people so that they can't take anabolic steroids and that these young kids can say that hey, there's no sense in taking it because if you work hard, you do have a chance of making it and do it the fair way I guess you'd want to say. And I think it's going to help everybody at every level.

MR. HOLMAN: But pro players, including Denver Lineman Kragen, suggest steroid use may be too rampant for the NFL ban to work.

MR. KRAGEN: So many of the big people could be gone from the game if that's what they decide to do, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

MR. HOLMAN: But the steroid controversy involves more than athletes gaining a physical advantage through drugs. For years, coaches and others throughout sport have preached against steroid use on the grounds the drugs cause long-term health damage to users. Athletes are told steroids harm the liver and kidneys, lead to heart disease, sterility. But while permanent physical changes in women and stunted growth in children who use steroids have been documented, long-term health problems in men haven't been proven. Dr. Charles Yesalis says the scientific community risks losing credibility with athletes when it overstates the health risks of steroid use.

CHARLES YESALIS, Penn State University: People are saying we know these drugs cause liver cancer, that we know that they cause sterility, and we know they cause heart disease, I'm just saying based on the data we have that they're over speaking.

MR. HOLMAN: It is accepted that steroid use can cause psychological problems, perhaps even psychological addiction. Many steroid users report becoming more aggressive when using the drugs. That was the experience of Rick Perea who used steroids when he played pro football. Perea says he stopped using steroids last spring. He says the drugs made him so aggressive he once chased down a driver who cut him off in traffic.

RICK PEREA, Former Pro Football Player: I chased her in my car and with not even thinking of the end result, what am I going to do when I catch her, am I going to hurt her, what am I going to do? I wasn't even thinking of it. I was just thinking she confronted me, she challenged me. She will not win. I will win. There's no doubt in my mind, not whatsoever, that the steroids were the reason that made me go into the rages that were uncontrollable.

MR. HOLMAN: Would you agree with those who say that steroids do make a person more aggressive?

ROBERT SHINE: Yeah, they do. Yeah. They sure do. You learn to control that too. I felt like I could have done that many a times, just gotten really teed off for nothing, but I control it. You learn to control it.

CHARLES YESALIS, Penn State University: Of the large number of people I've talked to that have used the drug, the large majority report increased feelings of aggressiveness. I've actually talked to some people that say, you know, I get so mad that I want to rip somebody's head off.

MR. HOLMAN: Don't you have a problem in keeping young people away from these drugs when you cannot prove finally that they're actually damaging themselves?

RICK PEREA: Yeah. It bothers me. But what can you do? What can you do to speed up the process so we can do these studies, so we can get some concrete evidence that it does harm the liver or the heart? I don't know. I wish I knew the answer to that question and then maybe we could make a faster assault on this problem of steroids.

MR. HOLMAN: Steroid opponents hoped the Olympic disqualification of sprinter Ben Johnson for steroid use would discourage people from using steroids. Ironically, the Johnson scandal may have had the opposite effect. Gym Owner Kent Bordor.

KENT BORDOR: The day after Johnson was busted I think we had six phone calls. How can that be? Six phone calls asking if they could get drugs here, it's not very logical is it?

MR. HOLMAN: What does that say to you?

KENT BORDOR: People are prepared to pay almost any price for notoriety, for fame, whatever, any price.

MR. HOLMAN: If it could be proven that say if you did steroids for three or four years you definitely would have impaired liver function, that your risk of heart attack would go way up, would you then stop using steroids?

ROBERT SHINE: I think so. I think so. In fact, I would, yeah. That's scary. You know, heart attack; I sure wouldn't want to be driving down the street and my heart stop on me, no. But I have never heard of anybody having a heart attack or having these kind of damages to themself. Until they can prove it, I'm going to have to say I'm going to take them as long as I have access to them.

MR. HOLMAN: Robert Shine says he would like to be able to use steroids legally and under a doctor's supervision. For now, Shine and some of the half million to a million steroid users in this country seem to believe the benefits of taking steroids outweigh the risks. FOCUS - BURNING ISSUE

MS. WOODRUFF: Last month the RJ Reynolds Company began test marketing a new non-burning cigarette. Called Premier, and billed as the world's cleanest cigarette, it has no tar, no ashes, no smell, and produces very little smoke. Critics, however, including the American Medical Association, say it is not a cigarette but a nicotine delivery system, a harmful drug that should be regulated by the Food & Drug Administration. So far, Premier is on the market in only two states, Arizona and Missouri. Recently, the Arizona Board of Pharmacy asked RJ Reynolds to stop its test marketing until the FDA decides if it should regulate the new product. But the company refused, saying the final judges of Premier should be its smokers. This controversy raises both health and legal questions which we recently took up with four key people. First, the health issue. Sam Simmons is a Biochemist and Director of Scientific Research for the RJ Reynolds Company. He worked on the development of the Premier cigarette. Joining us from Chicago was Dr. James Sammons, Executive Vice President of the American Medical Association. I asked Mr. Simmons to describe how this new cigarette works.

SAM SIMMONS: Well the Premier is not a non-burning cigarette. It doesn't burn tobacco. There is a heat source. It's a small carbon chip which when ignited and the smoker uses it, he pulls air through it, the air is warmed and then passes over the tobacco and extracts flavors and nicotine from the tobacco.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you do light it? I mean, you have --

SAM SIMMONS: Just like a cigarette that burns tobacco, you light it and use it exactly the same way.

MS. WOODRUFF: But the difference between this and a cigarette is that obviously a cigarette, there is tobacco there, the tobacco is burning.

MR. SIMMONS: By providing a heating source which does not burn tobacco, this is a cleaner cigarettein many respects, that is, there is no ash, virtually no side stream smoke --

MS. WOODRUFF: You inhale smoke though, is that correct?

SAM SIMMONS, RJ Reynolds: You inhale an aerosol smoke. There is a smoke produced, but not off the lid into the cigarette. The smoker gets smoke which is, in fact, essentially a glycerol aerosol.

MS. WOODRUFF: Which is what?

MR. SIMMONS: Which is -- it has all the appearance --

MS. WOODRUFF: It's different from smoke from a cigarette.

MR. SIMMONS: Much simpler chemistry. In other words, the components in this smoke are essentially glycerol, water, and flavoring components and so forth, so it's a much simpler smoke.

MS. WOODRUFF: And you're saying it's cleaner from what standpoint?

MR. SIMMONS: Well, obviously, you have no ash, it does not burn back and leave an ash, so it's cleaner in that respect. There's no side stream smoke. It's cleaner in that respect, and the smoke that the smoker gets when it's exhaled, that is, the secondhand smoke, dissipates extremely rapidly.

MS. WOODRUFF: And what was your purpose in developing, designing this new product?

MR. SIMMONS: Well, we have, as you're well aware, the controversy over smoking and health has raged for a number of years and we're very sensitive to the criticisms that have been leveled at us. A number of tests have been done using different biological systems for testing cigarette smoke. Now while these tests have never demonstrated conclusively that cigarette smoke or causes ultimate pathology, biological activity has been reported in these animal tests. So we use --

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean biological activity?

MR. SIMMONS: Well, some response to inhaled smoke. In other words, you measure some change in the test system as a result of inhaling the smoke. Now these tests provided for us our objectives in developing a cigarette. We've said, all right, the tests have been done, we will now try to develop a cigarette that minimizes biological activity in the tests that have reported biological activity, that provided us with our objectives.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Sammons, in Chicago, let me bring you into this. Why -- why should you have any concern about this product that we've just heard Dr. Simmons describe?

DR. JAMES SAMMONS, American Medical Association: Because it's still terribly unsafe, as Dr. Simmons very well knows. RJ Reynolds in their own papers refer to it as a "drug delivery activity", and that's precisely what it is, and the drug is nicotine, and nicotine is addicting. Nicotine is habituating and nicotine is dangerous.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you saying that it is even less safe -- are you saying that it is not as safe as -- and that's not the right way to put the question -- but are you saying that it is more unsafe than a cigarette, is that what you're saying?

DR. SAMMONS: No. I'm saying that in both the case of the typical standard cigarette, the inhalation of that smoke and so on, carries nicotine in a vaporized fashion. The inhalation of the smoke that comes from this so called cigarette also carries with it the inhalation of nicotine in a vaporized form, and neither one of them is safe. And all of the things that Dr. Simmons has said about cleanliness and this and that, fortunately he never used the term "safe", because he knows it isn't safe too. Nicotine is not safe, and one of the great objections to this new product, this new drug delivery system that RJ Reynolds has developed, is that because they did, and I give them credit for the fact that they did remove a great many of the contents of tobacco from this product, they also have, indeed, reduced the lid end of the cigarette smoke, all of which gives the impression to young people, people who are not now smoking, people who don't know what the difficulties of tobacco are, that this is a safe product, and it is not a safe product. Nothing that delivers nicotine to the human body is a safe product, and because it is a drug delivery system, it clearly should be under the control of and the regulation of the Food & Drug Administration. And it's only by a quirk of history that cigarettes, themselves, were not under the Food & Drug Administration, because when they started making cigarettes, we didn't have all of the scientific knowledge we have today and we didn't have the FDA as we have it today, and this product needs to be controlled by the Food & Drug Administration. That's their statutory responsibility.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Simmons, let's come back to you on some of the points Dr. Sammons just made, No. 1, that it is not safe, that it is a -- you heard what he said -- a nicotine delivery system.

MR. SIMMONS: Well, what Dr. Sammons was implying by our saying that it's, not saying that it's safe, is that we're saying that it's unsafe. We're not saying that. We're saying that that issue is unresolved on cigarettes and on Premier. Premier is a cigarette. It will carry the Surgeon General's Warnings label just like every other cigarette. We're making no health claims with it. What we have done is responded in our biological testing to the criticisms that have been made about traditional cigarettes.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right, and what about that?

DR. SAMMONS: The one thing that they have not responded to, and that is that all cigarettes, all tobacco products carry with them dangers. A thousand people a day die in this country as a result of tobacco-related deaths, and a significant number of those people will continue to die if they use this product or any other tobacco product, because of the cardiovascular aspects of the inhalation of nicotine. This is not a safe product, it may not be simple. It may not smell as bad, but it does have with it the possibility of attracting young people and people who do not now smoke on the belief that somehow or another, this drug delivery system is not going to impact on their health. And that is absolutely untrue.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let's move now to the legal questions that are involved, and then we can broaden this out and look once again at both sides. Looking at the legal argument, we have joining us Richard Cooper, who is an Attorney for the RJ Reynolds Company, and John Banzhaf, who is Executive Director of Action on Smoking & Health. It's a non-smoking advocacy group and he is also a Professor of Law at George Washington University.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let me come to you first, Mr. Banzhaf. What is the key issue here from a legal standpoint?

JOHN BANZHAF, Action On Smoking And Health: Well, there are two key issues. The question obviously is whether this is a product which should be regulated by the Food & Drug Administration. It can become so under one or two criteria. No. 1, if it is making or they are made on their behalf, medical or health type claims with regard to the product, secondly, if it can be shown that it is intended to affect the structure or functioning of the human body in any way. Those are the two criteria. Now he says he's not making any health type claims, but when they talk about a cleaner cigarette, when their pack, in fact, states that it substantially reduces many of the controversial compounds found in the smoke of tobacco burning cigarettes, it's pretty clear what a lot of people are going to think about when they talk about controversial compounds. These are the ones that are causing people to worry about a health problem. We now know, which we didn't know four or five years ago, that the nicotine is not only a drug but it is a deadly addictive drug. The Surgeon General's 600 page report very clearly establishes that, so under either criteria we join with the AMA in believing that the FDA should regulate it, we shouldn't trust RJ Reynolds to tell us whether this product is safe or not.

MS. WOODRUFF: And you're asking, you've asked the FDA, urged the FDA --

MR. BANZHAF: We along with a number of consumer groups and the U.S. Surgeon General.

MS. WOODRUFF: And we should say the FDA has not announced yet when or if they will make a decision.

MR. BANZHAF: No. But the FDA has sent a letter similar to the one sent by the officials in Arizona, asking them either to not market the product or telling them their marketing it only at their own risk and contemptuous as they are of authority as they are continuing to market the product, without getting pre-clearance as the Nicorette people did when they tried to market their nicotine chewing gum.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Cooper, let's come to you now, with the RJ Reynolds Company. What communication have you had from the Food & Drug Administration on this?

RICHARD COOPER, RJ Reynolds: I'm sorry to say Mr. Banzhaf has misstated the facts and the law. The company has not received from FDA any letter asking it to withhold the product from the market or to withdraw it from the market. It received a letter from Commissioner Young with the Food & Drug Administration in September in which he commended the company for its full cooperation with FDA, told the company, as he has told others, that the petitions to ban the product are under consideration, and that by going forward into the marketing, Reynolds will not affect the decision that FDA will reach. And in that sense, the company is marketing it at the risk that FDA will eventually make a decision adverse to Reynolds. The legal issue is not quite what Mr. Banzhaf said it is. It is not enough to make a product a drug or a device within FDA's jurisdiction for some kind of health statement to be made with respect to it. The product becomes a drug only if its manufacturer or distributor claims that it has a positive therapeutic benefit. If I market a sugarless chewing gum, for example, and say that it will not cause cavities, I have not made the chewing gum a drug, FDA has so determined. If I say that an artificially sweetened soda that does not have saccharine, if I put on my label that it does not have saccharine, and therefore does not present the bladder cancer risk associated with saccharine, I have not made my soda pop a drug, and Reynolds is not making, has not made, will not make, any claim of the sort that would give FDA jurisdiction over it.

MR. BANZHAF: Let's not deceive people for a minute. The definition in the statute says "a substance other than a food", so all of your analogies which are food or food type compounds do not apply. Secondly, the official transcript of a hearing that your company had with the U.S. Surgeon General and officials at the U.S. Public Health Service shows your representatives making health claims for this product. There are several people who have testified to it, although of course you all deny it. The question is not whether in some scientific sense they're making a claim. The question is what is going to be the impression on the average person, when these kinds of products are marketed, when they talk about controversial compounds? Why is a compound controversial?

MS. WOODRUFF: Let's give Mr. Cooper a chance to respond.

MR. COOPER: Once again, Mr. Banzhaf has misstated the facts. There was no transcript of the meeting to which he refers. There was a memo prepared much later than the meeting, weeks and weeks after the meeting, in which someone opposed to smoking attributed a statement. It's been denied. There has been no testimony under oath that I am aware of that the statement he refers to was ever made.

MR. BANZHAF: Have there not been three witnesses, sir?

MR. COOPER: No, there have not, sir. There has been no effort by Reynolds to direct this product to young people. There's no reason to think that this -- and there's no evidence that this cigarette will appeal to young people any more than any other cigarette does. Reynolds' position is very clear that smoking is a practice for adults, not for children, children shouldn't smoke, period.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let me just come back and ask you a question again that you've probably already answered. Why do you think the FDA should regulate this product? What is it about this product that gives the FDA, puts the FDA in the business of regulating it?

MR. BANZHAF: Two factors. First of all, I think they are making explicitly and impliedly, health type claims, that is claims that many people are going to take you saying this is a safer cigarette because it does not have the so called controversial compound. Secondly, it is nothing more than a device for ingesting nicotine. This is what it looks like. This is what it is inside of it. This is not a cigarette. In two recent situations, the FDA looked at two different products, both of which delivered nicotine, one was a gum, which didn't even have the carbon monoxide, they said that is a drug, we will let it on the market but only under stringent controls; another one looked almost exactly like this, you sucked on it, you got nicotine in, they said, that is a nicotine delivery system and it shouldn't be on the market until we regulate it and determine that it should be.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Cooper, do you respond to those two points?

MR. COOPER: Sure. This product is a cigarette. If Mr. Banzhaf were to go further with it, he would show you that there is tobacco in it, unless he's removed it. There's tobacco in the cigarette.

MR. BANZHAF: Why don't you go ahead and open it and show the people what's in it. The fact that it contains some tobacco doesn't mean that it's a cigarette, because tobacco is --

MR. COOPER: May I finish what I was --

MR. BANZHAF: -- an optional ingredient.

MS. WOODRUFF: Please let him respond to your points.

MR. COOPER: Mr. Banzhaf, I won't interrupt you if you don't interrupt me. This product contains tobacco. It contains a flavor capsule that has spray dried tobacco in it. It also contains a tobacco paper filter which is a third source of tobacco. All of the tobacco in this product is functional, it is essential for the tobacco taste and smoking pleasure which Premier provides. The other products that Mr. Banzhaf referred to bear no similarity to this product. He referred to a chewing gum. FDA has actually dealt with two chewing gums, one which was marketed for the purpose of helping people to stop smoke -- FDA treated that as a medical claim, regulated that product as a drug due to the claim that it was making. FDA evaluated another chewing gum to which tobacco had been added, treated that product as a food, did not regulate it as a drug, even though tobacco with nicotine had been added to it. The third produce, the other one that Mr. Banzhaf referred to, is a product called Favor, which had no tobacco, it was simply a hollow tube with a plug of nicotine at one end, you didn't light it, there was no smoke. The company called it a nicotine delivery device, did not pay cigarette taxes as Reynolds is doing, didn't put Surgeon General's warnings on it as Reynolds is doing. This product is a cigarette.

MR. BANZHAF: If it's a cigarette solely because it contains tobacco, then the people making Favor could come back, put a little bit of tobacco in theirs and claim it's a cigarette. It doesn't become one because you call it one or pay taxes on it. And to clarify one thing, Judy, I don't think we're so concerned with what category it falls under. I think as far as ash is concerned, it may be the AMA. If this is regulated as a medical device, if it is regulated as a drug, whatever category it is regulated under, at least there will be some agency standing before the public and saying they have studied this, they have determined that it is safe enough to allow it on the market. Now all we have is the word of RJR, and these guys won't even admit that their own cigarettes cause death and disability. Why are they going to admit this/

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let's give Mr. Cooper a chance.

MR. COOPER: RJR is not the only one to have looked at the testing that was done on this product. At Emery University, a group of independent scientists, not particularly friends of RJ Reynolds Company, indeed, including scientists who have been very critical of the cigarette companies over the years, gathered, were presented with the data that have been developed by Reynolds and independent laboratories, and in the scientific report that Reynolds has published, there is a letter from these scientists, including two members of the National Academy of Sciences, who evaluated the data that Reynolds had developed and concluded that Reynolds had met the product development objectives that Dr. Simmons referred to. So this has been --

MS. WOODRUFF: And I'd like for Dr. Sammons to come back in --

DR. SAMMONS: -- because the basic point's getting lost here in a lot of floo flaa. And the real basic point is that this is a drug delivery system that is delivering a very powerful drug, nicotine. It is a fact. The Surgeon General's Report clearly identifies it. It is habituating, it is addicting, it is deadly. This product does not have all of the compounds that are found in tobacco removed, although I compliment them on their efforts to do so. There are still compounds there, still carbon monoxide there, there's still going to be cardiovascular disease produced, there is still going to be respiratory disease produced, they know all of that. There is no excuse for not letting the FDA regulate this product.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you saying there is no place for this product, period, in your view?

DR. SAMMONS: We don't believe, we don't believe that there is a place in the American life-style for tobacco products, we make no bones about that. We do not believe the tobacco has any social redeeming graces whatsoever --

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Simmons, do you want to respond to those points?

MR. SIMMONS: Yes. To start with, there are a lot of things that Dr. Sammons said that I simply do not agree with. In the first place, we do not agree that it is a powerfully addicting drug. The evidence will not support that. Forty-one million people have stopped smoking in this country alone. Other scientists around the world have --

MS. WOODRUFF: You don't believe regular cigarettes are addictive, is that what you're saying?

MR. SIMMONS: I don't believe that nicotine particularly is addicting, in specific, nicotine. The evidence won't support that.

DR. SAMMONS: Oh, surely, surely, you don't mean that.

MR. SIMMONS: We are well aware that there are people around the world, scientists, the French have severely criticized that particular decision. The evidence simply will not support that. As a matter of fact, Dr. Sammons, if you will recall, the definition of addiction has changed rather dramatically since 1964, which is the only way that the Surgeon General could call this addicting. In 1964, it was labeled as habituating. And the definition contained the word "intoxication" which the new definition does not contain. So there's a dramatic change in the definition.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is this new product any more or less addictive in your estimation, from your research?

MR. SIMMONS: We do not accept that our products are addicting, that nicotine in our cigarettes are addicting. They're not addicting, and nicotine as handled in this cigarette is handled precisely like it is in a regular cigarette. There's no difference in the way nicotine is absorbed, distributed, metabolized or eliminated in the body with this cigarette as compared to a cigarette that burns tobacco.

MS. WOODRUFF: And what is -- Dr. Sammons.

DR. SAMMONS: The point though, Judy, is simply the point that, No. 1, I'm astounded that he would take issue with the Surgeon General's Report and I'm astounded that he is making the case that nicotine is not addictive and is not habituating. I don't know where he got all of that, but the fact of the matter is that this product is going to deliver nicotine. It doesn't make a hooch bit of difference what he calls it, the fact is it's a drug delivery system and that system is delivering nicotine and nicotine is deadly.

MS. WOODRUFF: We're going to have -- I want to try to bring this to a close. Let me ask both of you from RJ Reynolds -- what is the company's position at this point? You are waiting now for the Food & Drug Administration to make a determination, is that correct?

MR. COOPER: Yes. The product has been introduced into two test markets and we are awaiting a decision by the Food & Drug Administration. Our view is that this product should succeed or fail in the market place, that American smokers should have the freedom to choose between this brand of cigarettes and other brands, and there is absolutely no reason to ban this cigarette, to single it out for a ban from all other cigarettes.

MS. WOODRUFF: But RJ Reynolds for the time being is perfectly free to market the cigarette in those two states --

MR. COOPER: That's correct.

MS. WOODRUFF: The states that it's in now?

MR. COOPER: That's correct.

MS. WOODRUFF: And when do you expect a decision from the Food & Drug Administration?

MR. COOPER: We can't predict. Commissioner Young has said that it may take him a few months. That's the best information that's publicly available that we're aware of.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Banzhaf.

MR. BANZHAF: Even if it is not regulated by the FDA, there are many state level FDA organizations which are also now looking into it, the AMA has filed some of these petitions. So if the FDA rules nationally it doesn't have jurisdiction, it may very well be regulated at a state level.

MS. WOODRUFF: But your position is that at the very least, the FDA, is that what you're saying, that the FDA --

MR. BANZHAF: At the very least, nobody should be able to introduce a product which comes into intimate contact with people and which contains deadly chemicals like nicotine, carbon monoxide and so on, without some federal agency being able to say, wait a minute, either you can't market it, or you market it only under certain conditions. To sell this to kids through unattended vending machines with no controls I think is absolutely wrong.

MS. WOODRUFF: A quick comment.

MR. COOPER: New cigarettes are introduced all the time by cigarette manufacturers. There is no reason to single this one out for a ban.

MR. BANZHAF: Does this look like a cigarette?

MS. WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, thank you all very much for being with us. Dr. Simmons, Dr. Sammons in Chicago, Mr. Cooper here in Washington, and Mr. Banzhaf, thank you all for being with us. ESSAY - J.F.K.

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight we come to the end of our week long series of essays about the legacy of President John F. Kennedy. Our concluding thoughts are provided by our regular essayist, Roger Rosenblatt, Editor of U.S. News & World Report.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Is John Kennedy dead? The question was asked with alarmed disbelief on November 22, 1963. People eating ordinary lunches in restaurants, making ordinary conservation, suddenly looked up to notice that the TV was on on the bar, no sound but forks on dishes, then no sound at all, everybody stared. Is John Kennedy dead? Followed by those continuous replayed pictures of Dealy Plaza in Dallas, the word motorcade would never be said without wincing after that. When I went to look at Dealy Plaza four years ago during the GOP Convention, blinking at the silent sunny street, I felt I had been there millions of times. I had. Is John Kennedy dead? In November 1963, the curious, contorted face of a country braced itself for an unthinkable yes. But now, today, the question has an entirely different cast. Is John Kennedy dead? Meaning is the influence of that brief, luminous life finally dimming after 25 years? Look around and you might first ask what influence. The young President promised that the world would grow young along with him, but after Kennedy, the Presidents only grew older and the political temperament of the country turned on a dime. Yet, there were two ideas, two forces that Kennedy promoted that have not gone away, nationalism and altruism, a love of country and a hand to others. If those two forces are still alive, is John Kennedy dead? Nationalism first. In the name of America, Kennedy said --

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: Let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Then followed the catastrophic Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile confrontation, and the slippery, slow beginnings of Vietnam. Bear any burden? Support any friend? Not quite. We would rise to the occasion after the Soviets planted nuclear weapons close to home. But as for fighting in distant places, Kennedy soon warned that the nature of war was changing in the 1960's. No more grand World War II landings on the beaches. Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan who adopted the tune of Kennedy's nationalism was canny enough to pick his burdens carefully in Libya and Grenada and to allow others like the Contras in Nicaragua to oppose their foes on their own with only our material help. So nationalism grew practical, surgical in the past 25 years. Yet, it remains, it lives. As for the brightly lit Kennedy altruism, it seemed to wither after the 1960's. Remember the Peace Corps, the ideal of scrubbed, energetic American youth tromping in jungle villages with textbooks and guitars? The 1970's and the early 1980's seemed to replace all that with expensive automobiles and condominiums and the high, self-centered life. Yet, in the past few years, volunteerism has been on the rise again, and the Peace Corps has recently doubled its numbers to 10,000.

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: That idea too is made more practical these days in specialized projects around the world. Still, it lives too. To ask then is John Kennedy dead, is to ask what it would take to kill the two forces of nationalism and altruism that Kennedy bequeathed. Imagine America without them. Nationalism without altruism is tyranny and altruism without nationalism is powerless. Kennedy fully understood the necessity of the combination. He embodied the combination. The combination survives. It will outlive the images of the glittery people and of the Boston rich at play. It will outlive the memory of the Kennedy wit, the Kennedy voice, the Kennedy strong, sure face. Is John Kennedy dead? Hardly -- RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Once again, the major stories this Friday, crude oil prices rose sharply after OPEC countries tentatively agreed to limit production, George Bush denied that he has decided to cut Medicare funds to reduce the deficit, a top Iranian official said Iran would help free American hostages in Lebanon if the U.S. would do the same for Iranian hostages also reportedly being held in Beirut. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Judy. That's the Newshour for tonight. We'll be back on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.