147 



Calling smokers hard drug addicts tends to destroy those compo- 

 nents that are necessary to successful quitting. It makes smokers 

 feel like victims who must receive treatment to be successful non- 

 smokers. Calling smoking an addiction provides some smokers a 

 convenient external excuse for not initiating cessation or giving up 

 too easily. 



Perhaps of greater importance is the effect on young people of 

 the message that smoking is just like heroin and cocaine. Every 

 day they see smokers who are productive, sober and fulfill their re- 

 sponsibilities. They also see adults giving up smoking without 

 great difficulty, hospitalization or lifelong therapeutic support. 



To tell these young people that smoking crack/cocaine or taking 

 heroin will not affect them in a different way than smoking ciga- 

 rettes encourages experimentation with these hard drugs. 



Finally, does the addiction label frighten away potential smok- 

 ers? Actually it makes cigarettes more controversial and creates in 

 certain groups an invitation to defy authority by smoking. The pro- 

 posed addiction warning and the assumption upon which it is 

 founded are based neither in science nor fact, and will have unin- 

 tended harmful results. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I will 

 be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 



Mr. Waxman. Thank you. 



Mr. Slade. 



STATEMENT OF JOHN SLADE 



Mr, Slade. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the invitation 

 to being invited to speak at this hearing. 



I am an internist, a specialist in addiction medicine testifying on 

 behalf of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. My testimony 

 will present evidence that cigarette manufacturers intend to affect 

 the structure and function of the body. 



A couple of comments about the FTC method nicotine, sales 

 weighted averages of nicotine delivery. What I have charted on the 

 graph are the data from the Federal Trade Commission from 1968 

 through 1991 because on review of the Surgeon General's report, 

 it turns out that the data prior to 1968 aren't published, are not 

 in the public domain, and I can't determine whether the methods 

 used to measure tar and nicotine were the same as those used by 

 the FTC. 



Average nicotine levels are unchanged since 1981. As Dr. Kessler 

 mentioned this morning, the test does not accurately predict the 

 bioavailability of nicotine. People smoke quite differently from the 

 machine, and several studies in the literature, including one con- 

 ducted by a tobacco company, showed substantially more ingestion 

 of nicotine than the test predicts. 



In short, the FTC tests results don't predict nicotine levels in 

 smokers, and I believe the test is a fraud when looked at by a 

 consumer and should be abandoned in cigarette advertising. 



The next chart is taken from a Philip Morris patent in 1971 that 

 describes the way nicotine is controlled in cigarettes. In 1950, the 

 Federal Trade Commission found that cigarette manufacturers 

 were unable to control nicotine delivery with any great precision 

 because of the inherent variability in their raw materials. 



