751 



Mr. James Johnston. The facts are and the studies that are out 

 there suggest that nicotine and caffeine have similar — that they 

 are — in terms of effect and so forth on people — ^very similar in 

 terms of how they effect the central nervous system and the fact 

 that when you stop using the product, if you choose to do that, you 

 may experience some symptoms of withdrawal, almost precisely the 

 same ones from caffeine as from nicotine. 



But we get to these characterizations of nicotine being like co- 

 caine and heroin that are scary. They're scary because they may 

 actually mislead people as to what the 



Mr. McMillan. If nicotine has those characteristics of addiction 

 and there are people who are out there who are seeking to abuse 

 the public by marketing excess amounts of it or, as we do, argu- 

 ably, with respect to alcohol or other things, why isn't somebody 

 out there producing a high nicotine product specifically to take ad- 

 vantage of the fact that it's presumably addictive? 



Mr. James Johnston. If some of the suggestions that have been 

 offered in the days leading up to this hearing were seriously taken, 

 that's what we would all be producing. If we just chop up the to- 

 bacco and roll it into a piece of paper, the amount of nicotine then 

 provided to smokers will go up 300 to 400 percent. Yet, we have 

 this remarkable record of reducing nicotine and somehow we're 

 challenged about it. I don't get it. 



Mr. McMillan. I would say that if the other side succeeds in 

 banning the production and distribution of legal tobacco products 

 in the United States, then precisely that kind of thing is likely to 

 occur. It will go off-shore. It won't be taxed. It will find its way in 

 the market. It will create an enormous crime apparatus through 

 selling and distributing it, and it will probably have an extraor- 

 dinarily high, artificially high content of additives to make it more 

 appealing. 



Mr. James Johnston. There is some indication that just that 

 happened in Canada. When they went to very high taxes, not only 

 was the contraband issue overwhelming, which is why they re- 

 duced the tax recently by 50 percent, but they found people drifting 

 to higher tar, higher nicotine cigarettes because of the price. 



Consumers naturally moved that way, saying I can smoke fewer 

 cigarettes and that sort of thing. The crime element is what drove 

 Canada to bring their taxes down. It should not be the policy of 

 this government to say I will discourage you from smoking by mak- 

 ing it too expensive for you. 



That's the government knowing better than adults know. Let 

 them make their choices. Let them make informed choices. 



Mr. McMillan. I don't think we're arguing here about full and 

 adequate disclosure of what's in a cigarette or in alcohol. That's 

 something that I think we can all get behind. And, also, what is 

 above the normal terms of acceptable content. We allow extraor- 

 dinary amounts of alcohol by proof in the consum>;r products that 

 we sell. 



What's important is that consumers understand how to regulate 

 content. We come at that and deal with it in a different way. We 

 have DUI laws to deal with alcohol in terms of the way it can be 

 threatening to others. We don't have that driving under the influ- 

 ence of nicotine laws out there. 



