Defendants Falsely Denied that Nicotine and Smoking Are Addictive

Defendants Falsely Denied that Nicotine and Smoking Are Addictive

¶Defendants have made and continue to make false and fraudulent statements about the addictiveness of nicotine and smoking.12 Fact and expert testimony, as well as Defendants' internal documents spanning five decades, firmly establish that Defendants have intended their statements about addiction to further the Enterprise's scheme to defraud by concealing what Defendants openly

¶The alleged Racketeering Acts relating to this component of the scheme to defraud are Racketeering Act Nos. 15, 25, 30, 56, 58, 60, 63, 71, 72, 74, 75, 79, 81, 103, 104, 109, 110, 114, 116, 132, & 133.

¶recognized internally – that smoking is an addiction driven primarily by the pharmacological effects of nicotine.

¶Defendants' internal research reflects their understanding that nicotine is the most important chemical delivered by cigarettes because it is what compels smokers to smoke. Their product research and development efforts had the overriding objective of harnessing and manipulating the power of nicotine and ensuring that their marketed products delivered enough nicotine to create and sustain addiction.13

¶By the early 1980s, the medical and scientific communities recognized that the results of clinical observations, laboratory research, and population studies together justified the conclusion that tobacco-delivered nicotine was addictive. Henningfield TT, 11/22/04, 6811:11- 6812:2.

¶In response to the emergence of a scientific consensus on this issue in the early 1980s, Defendants began making four types of public statements: (1) Smoking cigarettes is not addictive because some smokers can, and do, quit smoking on their own (e.g., "smoking is a truly personal choice which can be stopped if and when a person decides to do so" (no bates) (US 22727); (2) Smoking cigarettes is not addictive because it does not lead to physical "dependence" (e.g., "the claim that there is a physical dependence to smoking is simply a desperate attempt to find some way to differentiate smoking from other habits" (no bates) (US 85366); (3) Smoking cigarettes is not addictive because it does not induce "intoxication" (e.g., "Tobacco is not intoxicating, in direct

¶Indeed, to this day none of Defendant cigarette manufacturers publicly admit that nicotine is an addictive drug delivered in cigarettes. Defendants' current public statements on addiction avoid any mention of nicotine, let alone its role in addiction. See Findings of Fact Section V(B)(4)(j). Dr. Jack Henningfield and Dr. Michael Eriksen both testified that Defendants' current statements about addiction omit material information and are not fully consistent with the conclusions of the medical and scientific communities. Henningfield WD, 104:23-109:22; Eriksen TT, 5/16/05, 21248:20-21249:15.

¶contrast to any other substance that has been claimed to be addictive, from heroin and cocaine through to alcohol" (no bates) (US 23036); (4) Smoking cigarettes is not addictive because cigarettes are not like other addictive drugs -- rather, smoking is merely a pleasurable behavior (e.g., the "attachment" to smoking is in the same category as "tennis, jogging, candy, rock music, Coca-Cola, members of the opposite sex and hamburgers" (no bates) (US 65625) (CEO of Philip Morris analogized smoking to eating Gummi Bears saying "I don't like it when I don't eat my Gummi Bears, but I'm certainly not addicted to them," Morgan PD, Broin v. Philip Morris, et al., 4/17/97, 77:20-78:23).

¶As to the first category of statements, there is simply no evidence in the record to support the assertion that smoking is not addictive because a smoker can voluntarily quit. Not a single defense witness could provide any support, scientific or otherwise, for this proposition. See Dawson WD, 49:5-20; Rowell TT, 16678:21-16679:4; Keane WD, 22:9-14.

¶As to the second and third categories of public statements, Defendants cited to characteristics of addictive drugs – physical dependence14 and intoxication – as essential markers of addiction when they knew they were not and had not been considered so by the scientific community for decades. See Findings of Fact Section V(B)(2)(b). In making these types of statements, Defendants sought to distort the terminology of addiction by relying on criteria which are no longer recognized by the scientific community. Additionally, Defendants' public statements directly contradicted their own internal recognition that smoking could actually cause intoxication. See, e.g., Farone WD, 72:19- 74:3, 78:17- 80:14 (discussing basis for conclusion that Defendants understood smoking to be

¶"Physical dependence" and "withdrawal" are generally considered equivalent concepts. The occurrence of withdrawal symptoms upon removal of the dependence-producing agent is the marker for physical dependence. Rowell TT, 3/23/05, 16701:10-13.

¶addictive and Philip Morris's knowledge of nicotine's role in smoking addiction). Defendants similarly understood that smokers experience withdrawal symptoms upon cessation. 1000348671- 8751 at 8676, 8708 (US 20097) (1971 Philip Morris document stating that a realistic view of cessation would show "a restless, nervous, constipated husband bickering viciously with his bitchy wife who is nagging him about his slothful behavior and growing waistline").

¶Finally, as to the fourth category of statements, Defendants denied to the public what they recognized internally beginning as early as the 1950s: people smoke primarily because of the pharmacological effects of the drug nicotine. Defendants' own nicotine expert, Dr. Rowell, readily agreed that smoking cigarettes involves use of a drug and is not comparable to non-drug "habits" cited by Defendants in their public statements, such as jogging, playing tennis, or nailbiting. Rowell TT, 3/24/05, 16685:5-16687:19, 16633:24-1634:10. The Findings of Fact recount at great length and in great detail that Defendants knew smoking was addictive because of nicotine. See generally Findings of Fact Section V(B)(3). Indeed, documents consistently reflect that Defendants considered themselves to be in the "nicotine business" because nicotine is the "sine qua non" of cigarettes. See, e.g., US 22848 at 7837-7839 (Philip Morris in 1969: "We have then as our first premise, that the primary motivation for smoking is to obtain the pharmacological effect of nicotine. . . . [N]one [of the psychological motives for smoking] are adequate to sustain the habit in the absence of nicotine."); US 20659 at 5684-5685 (R.J. Reynolds' researcher in 1972: "Tobacco products, uniquely, contain and deliver nicotine, a potent drug with a variety of physiological effects. . . . [T]he confirmed user of tobacco products is primarily seeking the physiological 'satisfaction' derived from nicotine.").

¶Moreover, internal documents and testimony from former company employees affirmed that within their corporate walls, Defendants openly recognized the addictiveness of cigarettes. Dr. Farone testified that during his time at Philip Morris there was "widespread acceptance internally throughout the company – among executives, scientists, and marketing people" that nicotine was primarily responsible for addiction to smoking. Farone WD, 72:21-73:1, 74:10-23.

¶Defendants have intentionally maintained and coordinated their fraudulent position on addiction and nicotine as an important part of their overall efforts to influence public opinion and persuade people that smoking is not dangerous. By the use of this fraud, Defendants have kept more smokers smoking, recruited more new smokers, and maintained or increased revenues.