661 



Chairman Waxman 

 May 9, 1994 

 Page 2 



There is a great deal of literature regarding the pharmacological aspects of 

 nicoMne and smoking, and I would like to make dear that I did not intend my 

 testimony to be read as denying the existence of such liieratxzre or as denying 

 that certain research findings reported in the literature have led others to 

 conclude that nicotine is "addictive." In my view, however, the information 

 with which I am faa:UIiar does not support the conclusion that the nicotine in 

 cigarettes causes smokers to experience intoxication, pharmacological 

 tolerance, and physical dependence in a manner that would impair the 

 smoker's ability to exercise a free choice to continue or to quit smoking. 

 Thus, I do not beUeve that pharmacological evidence, viewed in light of what 

 I consider an appropriate definition of "addiction," supports the conclusion 

 that dgarette smoking is an "addiction." That was the thrust of my statement 

 that "there is no evidence that nicotine or dgarette smoking plays in any of 

 these definitions." As promised durizvg the hearing on April 14, 1994, Philip 

 Morris will be submitting references in support of the points that I have 

 expressed. 



Finally, I am not aware of research results obtained by Drs. DeNoble and Mele 

 while at Philip Morris, or any statements they made to management during 

 their tenure at Philip Morris, that would lead me to a different condusion 

 regarding the weight and sigruficance of the pharmacological evidence to 

 which I have referred. 



Sincerely, 



Cathy Ellis, Ph.D. 

 Director, Research 



PC The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley 



