199 



IS 



in the deaths of millions of Americans since the first Surgeon Generals Repon 

 was released in 1964. 



Thus the Liggen decision must be reviewed in light of what has transpired since it 

 was decided in 1952. In Liggen. the court was confronted with the question of 

 whether or not cigarette products which claimed to be less irritating were 

 intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man. 



The court ruled that the FTC allegations that the product was a "drug" and 

 intended to affect function and structure of the body (Section 201(g)(1)(C)) were 

 faulty in that the claims focused on ihe cigarette being less "irritating" and thus 

 had non-adverse effects rather than having "beneficial effects. ' Claiming that 

 something is "less irritating," "better tasting," "smoother," or "soothing" is far 

 different from a claim that a product is safer, less addictive, and will have 

 beneficial effects toward the reduction of the health consequences of cigarette 

 smoking. (Consequences that were not yet known or accepted in 1952.) 



The court in Liggett further noted that: 



Anything that stimulates any of the senses may be said 

 in some perhaps insignificant degree, to affect the functions 

 of the b<xly of man. Consequently an article, which used in 

 the manner anticipated by the manufacturer thereof, comes 

 into contact with any of the senses may be said to be an 

 article "intended to affect functions of the body man." 



Sucely the legislaton did not mean to be as all-inclusive 

 as a literal interpretation of this clause would compel 

 us to be. 



The Commission asserts that the defendant alleges a 

 "soothing" property and that cigarettes are advertised 

 and bought with this soothing property in mind. But many 

 things soothe the troubled mind of modem man and I do not 

 feel that this is the type of effect which the statute 

 contemplates, (emphasis added) 



