765 



Mr. Campbell. We do not choose it for its nicotine, no, sir. 



Mr. Bryant. See, you always qualify the answers and that is 

 why we get impatient and why we do what Mr. Horrigan does not 

 like, we jump in and cut you off. I have asked you a simple yes 

 or no question. It does not require a qualification. 



Do you sometimes choose a tobacco leaf with a higher concentra- 

 tion of nicotine than at other times in order to make a specific ciga- 

 rette? 



Mr. Campbell. I can tell you under oath we blend for tar, sir. 

 We do not blend for nicotine. I'm sorry. That's all I can answer. 



Mr. Bryant. Do you know which tobacco leaves have more nico- 

 tine than other tobacco leaves? 



Mr. Campbell. We know that from measurement, but we do not 

 blend for it. I'm sorry. I really can't answer any further in that re- 

 gard. 



Mr. Bryant. No need to apologize. Keep the microphone over 

 there. You do not need to keep leaning back. I have some questions 

 for you. You know some tobacco leaves have more nicotine than 

 other tobacco leaves. 



Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Bryant. Is that correct? 



Mr. Campbell. Our people know that, yes. 



Mr. Bryant. For whatever reason, do you occasionally decide to 

 use a higher nicotine content tobacco leaf to manufacture one 

 brand than you do to manufacture another of your brands? 



Mr. Campbell. That's the end result. As I say, we do not design 

 the product that way. We design the product for its category in the 

 market, which is generally a tar category. 



Mr. Bryant. Why are you concerned about the implications of 

 my question if nicotine is not addictive? 



Mr. Campbell. I think that this has been used extensively as if 

 we have been undertaking some kind of sinister practice. We really 

 resent that and we really have no sinister practices at all. We go 

 about blending our cigarettes in order to make them competitive in 

 the marketplace. And as I say, they^re blended for tar. 



Mr. Bryant. Well, if nicotine is not addictive and it has no harm- 

 ful characteristics in particular, why are you — or why is Mr. John- 

 ston — somebody, suing ABC for alleging that you are manipulating 

 the nicotine? If all you are really doing is manipulating it for the 

 purposes of flavor, why do you not just say so — what if we are, it 

 does not hurt anything. What is your answer to that? 



Mr. Campbell. The ABC charges are for the misrepresentation 

 that we are spiking our products with nicotine. 



Mr. Bryant. My point is why bother to refute them if all you 

 need to say is, well, so what, all we are doing is doing it for flavor, 

 which is what you are saying to us today. If you are only doing it 

 for flavor, why are you worried about the implications of that pro- 

 gram? 



Mr. Campbell. We were very worried about the fact that our 

 stock dropped the next day because there were some implications 

 that we were doing something sinister. 



Mr. Bryant. My point is why not simply say there is nothing 

 wrong? If you believe it, why do you not just say — there is nothing 



