159 



Now how does Schachter apply this theory to resolving the Nexbitt paradox? 

 There is no paradox, of coiirse, in the smoker seeking arousal when at the low end 

 of the arousal continuum, but why seek arousal through smoking when excited, as 

 is so often the case? 



I quote him: "As we all know, disturbing and frightening events are presumed to 

 throw the autonomic nervous system into action, epinephrine is released, heart rate 

 goes up, blood pressure goes up, blood sugar increases, and so on. Now notice that 

 many of these physiological changes are precisely those changes that we're told are 

 produced by smoking a cigarette. What happens, then, to the smoking smoker in 

 a frightening situation? He feels the way he usually does when he's frightened but 

 he also feels the way he usually does when he's smoking a cigarette. Does he label 

 his feelings as fright or as smoking a cigarette? I would suggest, of course, that to 

 the extent that he attributes these physiological changes to smoking, he will not be 

 frightened. And this, I propose, is a possible explanation for the strikingly calming 

 effect that smoking a cigarette had on the chronic smokers in Nesbitt's experi- 

 ments." 



There is a variant on the Schachter hypothesis that should properly be ascribed 

 to Frank Ryan, one of my psychologist colleagues at the Philip Morris Research 

 Center. 



Ryan suggests that arousal by smoking is perhaps a means of muting or damping 

 an arousal response to exciting or disturbing circumstances. There are limits within 

 which a person will operate on the arousal continuum. If pushed up toward the 

 upper limit by smoke inhalation, there is little room left for further arousal by ex- 

 ternal events. Thus the smoker can prep himself against the disturbing effect ef 

 anxiety or fear, or anger or whatever. 



This is the end of my presentation. If you have been intrigued by any of these 

 ideas, I recommend the recently published volume entitled "Smoking Behavior: Mo- 

 tives and Incentives", a compendium of papers presented at the St. Martin Con- 

 ference, published by V.H. Winston & Sons of Washington, D.C. 



Mr. Synar. Mr. Whitley, I would like to read you a portion of 

 this internal Philip Morris memo from 20 years ago. Let me read 

 it to you. 



Without nicotine, there would be no smoking and strong evidence 

 can be marshalled to support this argument. No one has ever be- 

 come a cigarette smoker by smoking cigarettes without nicotine. 

 Most of the psychological responses to inhaled smoke have been 

 seen to be nicotine related. 



Do you deny that memo of 20 years ago? 



Mr. Whitley. Mr. Synar, I have heard that memo referred to a 

 number of times in the past, and I assume it is authentic. 



Mr. Synar. Do you deny the statement within that memo, Mr. 

 Whitley? 



Mr. Whitley. I think the statement that is in that memo, if you 

 read the entire memo, represented the opinion of the person who 

 expressed that view. 



Mr. Synar. It is the position of the Tobacco Institute that this 

 memo is false? 



Mr. Whitley. No. I think that memo, to the best of my knowl- 

 edge and belief, is an authentic memo and it reflects the views of 

 the person who made that statement. 



Mr. Synar. Do you deny the merits of that statement; just yes 

 or no, Mr. Whitley? 



Mr. Whitley. Well, I don't — tell me what you think the merit is, 

 and I will answer your question. 



Mr. Synar. Mr. Whitley, in your written testimony you state that 

 H.R. 2147 would, quote, "produce an instant ban on tobacco prod- 

 ucts currently on the market," end quote. You later assert if the 

 bill contemplates that FDA must find current tobacco additives to 

 be safe before they can be used, "the result would be an instant 



