560 



"Reduce tar and nicotine." We lower those levels and they say, "It 

 doesn't matter, regulate those products as drugs." 



Let me cite just two examples. When Philip Morris introduced a 

 cigarette that was essentially nicotine-free, the Coalition on Smok- 

 ing OR Health called it, quote, "The most dangerous product put 

 on the market in the last 10 years." And they petitioned the FDA 

 to ban it. 



Several years ago our company test marketed a cigarette that 

 had virtually no tar and less nicotine than 97 percent of the ciga- 

 rettes on the market. It virtually eliminated second-hand smoke, 

 and was essentially fire safe. The response? The product and our 

 company were viciously attacked, and petitions were filed with the 

 FDA to ban the product. The bottom line is, in the eyes of the anti- 

 smoking industry, we can do nothing right short of firing our em- 

 ployees and going out of business. 



A good example is the recent use of scare tactics concerning the 

 ingredients used by the tobacco industry. Ingredients are added to 

 our product to enhance the flavor and aroma of our products. And 

 despite all the claims that have been made about our ingredients, 

 the fact is more than 99.99 percent of this Winston cigarette, and 

 all the cigarettes we make, 99.99 percent is tobacco and ingredients 

 that can be lawfully used in foods. The other 1/lOOth of 1 percent 

 are ingredients that have been approved by other governments for 

 use in tobacco products. 



In addition, all the ingredients used by the industry have been 

 thoroughly reviewed by a blue ribbon panel of experts, scientific ex- 

 perts, toxicologists, who have concluded that those ingredients are, 

 and I quote, "Not hazardous under the conditions of use." So let's 

 be clear about the fact that the anti-smoking industry's call for a 

 smoke-free society by the year 2000 is little more than a thinly 

 veiled attempt to achieve back door prohibition. 



If you don't believe that is the case, just look at how extreme 

 some of these efforts are, like trying to prohibit people from smok- 

 ing outdoors, in public parks, in their cars, or even their own 

 homes. And consider this, alcohol prohibition started with the anti- 

 alcohol movement, claiming that their goal was simply temperance. 



The American public overwhelmingly opposes prohibition wheth- 

 er it comes in through the front door or sneaks in through the back 

 door. So let's be clear about the fact that back door prohibition is 

 prohibition nonetheless. Raising taxes to force smokers to quit is 

 back door prohibition. Banning smoking in all public places, in- 

 doors and outdoors, including parks, work places, and outdoor sta- 

 diums to further stigmatize smokers is back door prohibition. 



Banning advertising so that new or better products can't be effec- 

 tively communicated and introduces is censorship and it is back 

 door prohibition. Forcing manufacturers to produce products that 

 smokers find unsatisfying or unacceptable is back door prohibition. 

 Attacking every attempt by the industry to respond to public and 

 smoker concerns is back door prohibition. 



And advocating that the FDA regulates cigarettes as a drug, 

 which would effectively ban cigarettes from the market, is clearly 

 back door prohibition. 



If any member of this subcommittee truly believed that ciga- 

 rettes are too dangerous to be sold, then stand up, vote for prohibi- 



