PRESENTER: Hello, and welcome to this week's edition of "What's Up?". Well, following the latest controversy about the harmfulness of passive smoking versus smokers' rights, we have in the studio Dorothy Manning, ol the Action Campaign on Tobacco, or ACT for short, and Matthew Hopkins, of the Individual Freedom Society. Dorothy, Matthew ... welcome. Now, if I may begin with you, Dorothy - what does ACT aim to do? DOROTHY: We aim to abolish smoking in all public places and to raise awareness of the dangers of smoking - and of passive smoking in particular - in all enclosed spaces, including the home. What we want to do is to encourage a sense of personal responsibility, by educating people about the consequences of passive smoking. MATTHEW: I don't think anyone is unaware of the fact that smoking harms the smoker - do you really think we need more information on this? After all, everywhere we go we're bombarded with information on the subject. Statistics ... health warnings ... it never stops! DOROTHY: That's not exactly what I meant, Matthew - perhaps I didn't make myself very clear, Of course smokers are aware of the health risks to themselves, but what I'm talking about is the danger they are causing tn others who, like it or not, are breathing in their smoke. MATTHEW: I'm not sure how relevant that is, when you think that most of us live in cities, and must be smoking the equivalent of ten cigarettes a day in the form of carbon monoxide and countless other toxins in the air. DOROTHY: Absolutely. But that's just why it's important to campaign against passive smoking. It's something tangible, a situation we, as individuals, can control. Cigarette smoke leaves behind it over 40,000 toxins. Forty-three of these have been identified as carcinogens - causing cancer - and are found only in tobacco smoke, so they could be eliminated as a risk factor if smoking were to be strictly controlled. It's much more difficult for us to control what gets into the air in cities. MATTHEW: I'm still inclined to think the clangers are exaggerated. Especially when you look at all the countless other toxic substances we are exposed to. What about pesticides, 'Mad Cow disease' or even genetically modified foods? DOROTHY: I don't think so. The facts speak for themselves Babies are twice as likely to die (rum cot deaths - or 'Sudden Infant Death Syndrome' - if exposed to cigarette smoke than if not. Children are also more susceptible to ear infections when people smoke around them, as breathing in smoke lowers a child's resistance to certain viral and bacterial infections. They may suffer from respiratory infections, such as bronchitis and pneumonia, and exposure to second-hand smoke can make them more vulnerable to pulmonary diseases later in life, as their lungs don't develop as fully as they should, Passive smoking exacerbates asthma, and can lead to the development of asthma in individuals with no known history of the condition MATTHEW: Well, as a smoker myself, I can't see what all the fuss is about. I never smoke in an environment where it might cause a problem, and I certainly never smoke around my children. In fact, I'd go so far to say I'm an ideal smoker! What's more, I'm incredibly healthy! DOROTHY: Well, unfortunately, Matthew, you're rather the exception than the rule. Of course, I realise there are good and bad smokers... MATTHEW: But to return to the issue - you are taking away the individual's right to make choices. All cigarette packets carry government health warnings - it's up to the individual to decide what's best for them and their families, not you. DOROTHY: Well, I think it's rather naive to credit everyone with your responsible behaviour... PRESENTER: Dorothy, Matthew, thank you, but that's all we have time for...