139 



portunity to present our views on the issues raised by this panel 

 and to hopefully set the record straight. 



Mr. Chairman, if I may start by addressing several issues raised 

 by this subcommittee on April 14, 1994, and highly publicized in 

 the news media following those proceedings. 



First, my statement on the record of April 14 that I believe nico- 

 tine is not addictive. In a letter following my testimony, you, Mr. 

 Chairman, advised Brown & Williamson counsel that, "knowingly 

 deceived," this subcommittee because I stated my belief. 



I repeat, I do not believe that nicotine is addictive. I certainly be- 

 lieve that I am entitled to express my views even though they may 

 differ from the opinions of others. My opinion is based on my com- 

 mon sense understanding of the major differences between tobacco 

 and drugs in terms of the way people behave and how many people 

 have been able to quit smoking. 



You know, people use the addiction term very loosely. I'm sure 

 I have people in my company that use the addiction term very 

 loosely. Much as I believe, the Surgeon General did in 1988 report 

 addressing this particular subject. Based on that definition in 1988, 

 I would submit that the enjoyment derived from drinking coffee or 

 cola could also be considered addictive. 



In addition, if we were to rely on the scientific definition applied 

 by the Surgeon General in his report of 1964, cigarettes would not 

 be addictive. The Surgeon General at that time labeled cigarettes 

 as a habit. And I certainly agree with that. 



To put the enjoyment of smoking cigarettes on the same level as 

 addiction to drugs in my opinion defies common sense. If cigarettes 

 were in fact addictive like cocaine and heroin, as is currently being 

 asserted, there would be no way that 40 million American smokers 

 would have been able to quit smoking, 90 percent of them with 

 very little help at all, if any. 



I might add that the mere existence of old documents in the files 

 of a tobacco company doesn't prove addiction either. Scientific ad- 

 visers working in Brown & Williamson today advised me that none 

 of the research, I repeat none of the research which apparently 

 prompted the allegations that I see — that I deceived this sub- 

 committee establishes that nicotine is addictive. I've learned noth- 

 ing, nothing that would change my view. 



One final point relating to nicotine, and that is the allegation 

 that the level of nicotine in the cigarettes that we produce, or our 

 competitors produce, or manipulated, or that the cigarettes are 

 somehow spiked. 



I want to assure this subcommittee that we do not spike our 

 products, nor do we manipulate the nicotine in our cigarettes to 

 keep people hooked as the FDA alleges. In fact, over the last 40 

 years, the nicotine levels have been reduced substantially. Why? 

 Because that's what the marketplace wanted. That's what the con- 

 sumers said. Unlike drug addicts who require higher and higher 

 levels of the drug to attain satisfaction, smokers require less. They 

 asked for less and we responded. And that's a fact. 



Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly address three other issues: 

 The relationship of smoking to health, the regulation of the tobacco 

 industry, and the accusations of Dr. Kessler and the FDA. 



