209 



v;ompanies' effons to mislead and contuse the public regarding the health hazards 

 of smoking. In the Cipollone case. Judge H. Lee Sarokin stated that the jury 

 could reasonably conclude that "advertismg of the industry created a consistent 

 message of purity, health, safety, reduced tars and nicotine , .to create doubt in the 

 mmds of the consumer as to smoking dangers, and played on the weakness of 

 those who were either addicted and/or dependent, " and, further, that the 

 defendant cigarene companies "made affirmative health claims which were 

 untrue." (Id. at 8, 11-12.) In Haines . Judge Sarokin went even further stating: 



All too often in the choice between the physical health of consumen and 

 the financial well-being of business, concealment is chosen over 

 disclosure, sales over safety, and money over morality. Who are these 

 persons who knowingly and secretly decide to put the buying public at risk, 

 solely for the purpose of making profits and who believe that illness and 

 death of consumers is an appropriate cost of their own prosperity. 



The evidence from CipoUone . some of which is cited specifically in the petition, 



dates as far back as the 1960s. In March 1961 , Arthur D. Little provided Liggen 



and Myers with a "Perspective Review" of the problems and solutions facing the 



industry. The document began by stating that: "There are biologically active 



matenals present in cigarette tobacco. These are: a)cancer causing b)cancer 



promoting c)poisonous d)stimulating, pleasurable, and flavorful." This 



memorandum is revealing in that it sets out some of the basic challenges to the 



industry on the smoking and health issue which were to be pursued for thirty five 



years. Several points in the review are worth noting: 



There are many forces which continue to emphasize that L & M is in the 

 tobacco business not the pleasure business . Any shift from being in the 

 tobacco business will have to be accomplished by avoiding these major 

 pressures. A means is emerging - is it correct? Can it be accelerated? 



The use of C.T.S. not as a product but as a concept opens a way of having 

 a "tobacco" cigarene and at the same time exploring a great deal about 

 the "causative factors ' in cigarettes and at the same time not having to 

 face major opposition for not using tobacco. 



Are we not on the march to a "disassembled" tobacco cigarette that we 

 "reassemble" via the C.T.S. process to minimize the biological effect? 



