This is the famous Philip Morris (PM) document wherein William L. Dunn, principal scientist and leader of "smoker psychology" programs at PM, exhorts his colleagues to "Think of the cigarette pack as a storage container for a day's supply of nicotine...Think of the cigarette as a dispenser for a dose unit of nicotine...Think of a puff of smoke as the vehicle of nicotine..."
Dunn also summarizes the individual personality traits that distinguish smokers from nonsmokers, saying studies show that smokers have "greater anti-social tendencies, poorer mental health, greater reliance on 'external' than 'internal' controls, [are] more emotional, less agreeable, [have] poorer academic performance, higher incidence of prior hospitalizations...more auto accidents."
In perhaps the oddest part of the paper, Dunn cites psychoanalytic theory that refers to smoking as "pulmonary eroticism," saying in smoking "the lungs have become sexualized and smoking is but another form of the sexual act...."
TypeREPT, REPORT, OTHER
Stmn/Trial Exhibit P-18089
Stmn/Trial Exhibit P-2788
Eysenck, Hans Jurgen, Ph.D., Sc.D. (Psychologist, U of London; worked with RJR)
Kety, Seymour S. , Dr. (Harvard Medical School & Mass. Gen. Hospital (Boston))
Schachter, Stanley, Dr. (Columbia University, NY NY)
This document was selected as a Trial Exhibit in Minnesota.
You've heard many explanations for cigarette smoking...I think it appropriate that we list the more commonly proposed explanations here:
1) For social acceptance or ego-enhancement 2) For pleasure of the senses (taste, smell) 3) For oral gratification in the psychoanalytic sense 4) A psychomotor habit for the release of body tension 5) For the pharmacological effect of smoke constituents.
I might mention one other explanation, not because anybody believes it but as an example of how distorted one's reasoning can become when under the influence of psychoanalytic theory. Smoking according to this argument, is the consequence of pulmonary eroticism. Translated, this means the lungs have become sexualized and smoking is but another form of the sexual act.
If one asks the smoker himself why he smokes, he is most likely to say, "It's a habit." If he is intelligent enough, he might be more to the point and say either one of two things: "Its stimulates me," or "It relaxes me." And now we are already deep into our topic....
Most of the conferees would agree...the primary incentive to cigarette smoking is the immediate salutory effect of inhaled smoke upon body function. This is not to suggest that this effect is the only incentive. Cigarette smoking is so pervasive of life style that it is inevitable that other secondary incentives should become operative. The conference summarizer, Prof. Seymour Kety of Harvard, used eating as an analogy. Elaborate behavior rituals, taste preferences, and social institutes have been built around the elemental act of eating, to such an extent that we find pleasure in eating even when not hungry.
It would be difficult for any of us to imagine the fate of eating, were there not ever any nutritive gain involved. It would be even more provocative to speculate about the fate of sex without orgasm. I'd rather not think about it.
As it is with eating a copulating, so it is with smoking. The physiological effect serves as the primary incentive; all other incentives are secondary.
The majority of conferees would go even further and accept the proposition that nicotine is the active constituent of cigarette smoke. Without nicotine, the argument goes, there would be no smoking. Some strong evidence can be marshaled to support this argument:
1) No one has ever become a cigarette smoker by smoking cigarettes without nicotine. 2) Most of the physiological responses to inhaled smoke have been shown to be nicotine-related. 3) Despite many low nicotine brand entries into the marketplace, none of them have captured a substantial segment of the market. In fact, critics of the industry would do well to reflect upon the indifference of the consumer to the industry's efforts to sell low-delivery brands...The physiological response to nicotine can readily be elicited by cigarettes delivering in the range of 1 mg. of nicotine. I hope our English friends who are developing the synthetic nicotineless cigarettes are not going to be too disturbed by all this.
Why then is there not a market for nicotine per se, to be eaten, sucked, drunk, injected, inserted or inhaled as a pure aerosol? The answer, and I feel quite strongly about this, is that the cigarette is in fact among the most awe-inspiring examples of the ingenuity of man. Let me explain my conviction.
The cigarette should be conceived not as a product but as a package. The product is nicotine. The cigarette is but one of many package layers. There is the carton, which contains the pack, which contains the cigarette, which contains the smoke. The smoke is the final package. The smokers must strip off all these package layers to get to that which he seeks...
Think of the cigarette pack as a storage container for a day's supply of nicotine:
1) It is unobtrusively portable. 2) Its contents are instantly accessible.
Think of the cigarette as a dispenser for a dose unit of nicotine:
1) It is readily prepped for dispensing nicotine, 2) Its rate of combustion meters the dispensing rate, setting an upper safe limit for a substance that can be toxic in large doses. 3) Dispensing is unobtrusive to most ongoing behavior.
Think of a puff of smoke as the vehicle of nicotine:
1) A convenient 35 cc mouthful contains approximately the right amount of nicotine. 2) The smoker has wide latitude in further calibration: puff volume, puff interval, depth and duration of inhalation... 3) Highly absorbable: 97% nicotine retention. 4) Rapid transfer: nicotine delivered to blood stream in 1 to 3 minutes. 5) Non-noxious administration.
Smoke is beyond question the most optimized vehicle of nicotine and the cigarette the most optimized dispenser of smoke. Lest anyone be made unduly apprehensive about this drug-like conceptualization of the cigarette, let me hasten to point out that there are many other vehicles of sought-after agents which dispense in dose units: wine is the vehicle and dispenser of alcohol, tea and coffee are the vehicles and dispensers of caffeine, matches dispense dose units of heat, and money is the storage container, vehicle and dose-dispenser of many things.
So much for extolling the virtues of the rod...
- Philip Morris
- Dunn, William L., Jr., Ph.D. (PM Smoker Psychology Principal Scientist 1970s-80s)
Principal scientist at PM during the 1970s and 1980s, nicknamed the "Nicotine Kid." Supervised Victor DeNoble, Paul Mele, Carolyn Levy and others. Led "smoker psychology" programs for PM.
- Corporate recipient, Philip Morris
Participated in PM's 1972 conference on Motivations and Incentives for Smoking
Named OrganizationColumbia University
*Council for Tobacco Research-- U.S.A. Inc. CTR (Formerly Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC))
Created and funded by the tobacco industry to award grants to study of the link between smoking and disease. Part of a four decade effort to cast doubt on the links between smoking and disease.
*United States Public Health Service (use United States Public Health Service)
St .Martin Conference
SubjectEffects—Smoking Behavior (Effects)
smoking benefits (benefits to smoking as a subject for research)
research linking smoking to improving symptoms of Parkinson's and Alzheimers
Page 1: txy74e00
MO T Ii'1Z5 AN'O IYIr:'I i i1'CS I'1 CIGP'R'fi i; t Su(3KI,'1,G
William L. Dunn, Jr.
Philip Morris Research Ceniter
'-they showed a surprising, arad exemplary wil1ingness to apply human
reason. A French,man and a Dutchman were pTiaced' back to back on
'.the beach and to1id to walk along the beach cntil they met again on
Caribbean waters. Legend has it that in the 16th century, both the
,., . . .. .. _~;~..- . ; . . . .
Dutch and' the French lay claim to possession of this tiny boJy or
' . . .. .' . ..,.... _ . .. .
land' Rather than fight it out~as was' their wont in those days
: . . . ...~ . .,:. . ~ ~-
that string of isliands fluing out crescent-like across the blue
. . . . . ' ' ._ . . :i7`, . . , ~_ . ..
. There is a love'y littlie island lyi'ng about 150 miLes east
. . . . . , . . , .. ., ..,, . . .
of t!ie a;rgin Isl-ands. It is At the northern end of the Anti , lles,
the oppoisite side. They did so, and a line was drawn between the
"~~. ~ . . . . . , - :. .: . . . .
`points of start and finish, dividing the island i'nito the French
J s f
.hai'f ca1' led St. Martin, and the Dutch hal f ca11 ed San Marteen ,
,~ ..... .,~ .. -
It seems that the Frenchman walked faster than, the Dutchman,
. ....,,,.-.. . . . . r. - . . . ,
because the French got the biigger half. -Some say this was because
the Frenchman was drinking French champagne and the Dutchmanw'as
drinking Dutch -uhiskey. No,rever true all this may be,-: the two .ti
coloniiies continue to live peacefully under these 16th century terms
Page 2: txy74e00
- In January,, l9','.2, the Du::.h side of St. Martin was invaded
by an unlikely party of twen_y-fiye scientists. There were ahar-na-
co]ogists, sociot;,yis`.s, an:hropotogis-,s and a preaonderance of
psycho1ogists. They came from "rngland, Canada and tye United States.
Each brought with him a care':1.1y prepared scientific paper which
represented his best efforts at attacking~ the question "Why do
people smoke eigaret:es7"
. Inspired by the rare 16th cen:ury d'ispl'ay of human reason
shown by the French ahd Dutch colonists, and while not sunning an
the beach, they liste7ed to and reflected upon.each other's tdeas.
You've heard many explana:ions for cigarette smoking. These
were reviewed at th e St. Martin conference. I think it appropriate
that we list the more commonly proposed expTanations here:
. ,. . .
1) For social acceptance or ego-enhancement
2) For p11 asure of the senses (taste, smell)
,3)~ For oral gratification in the psychoanalytic sense
4) A psychmotor' habit for the release of body tensiom
' I might menti'on one other exp1anation, not because anybody
i. Y.ti« T i.._.. .. . .r'. .. a. . ... - ;r . .. , , ... .... ~.
believes it but as an examale of how distorted one's reasoning
can become when under the influence of psychoanalytic theory.
5) For the pharmacological effect of smoke constituents.
Smoking according to this argumemt, is the consequence of pulmonary
erotilcism. Translated, this means the lungs have become sexualized
and s-joking is but another form of the sexuaI act.
. ,. ' .
.. .. ~;.,
..+`..:` ....1-.' i "~.....~~ ...,. -
Page 3: txy74e00
If one asks the smoker hin.se1f why he smokes, he is ,nost
likely to say °Its a ha5i;." If he is inteliigent encu7n, he
might be more to the poi~nt and say either one of two things: It
stimu]ates me", or "It relaxes me". A n d now we are already deep
. . ,. - . . ., . - . , . . , . . . : . ..... -.
into our topic The polarity of these two observations has pTagued~
.. . , . . _ . . , ' .
investigators for fifty years. The challienge to any theory as to
why peopte s.;tcke iies in the theory's ability to resolve this
paradoxical dualify of effeca.
The St. Martin conference was called by the Counci'l for
Tobacco Resear:y, U.S.a., in an effort to goad thie scienti,fic-
comnuni*.y into having another go at the problem. And co at it
. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . _.~
they did. Much of what follows In this presentation comes from
. . . -. . . -. ' ... . . . . , .. ..
that St. Martin conference. /
- . -, , . . . . . .
Most of the conferees would agree with this proposition: . _ . . . . _ ~~ . ' : .
The primary incentive to tgarette snoking is the immediate salutory
effect of inhaled smoke upon body function. This iis not to suggest
. .. - - . . .,t~ . . . . ` _ . .
that this effect is the only tncentive. Cigarette smoking is so
pervasive of life style that it Is inevita5le that other secondary
i. _ . . ' - '
incentives should become operative. The conference summarizer,~- N
:..,. . ......:. . ,.,_
Prof. Seymour Kety of Harvard,u1sed eating as an analogy. ETaborateN
.. ..... .. . ~ ,:~t.. ., . _ . .. .. ;.~,. »~
behavioral rituals, taste preferences, and social institutions .
..,, . . ~ , . . . . .
have been built around the elemental act of eating, to such an LJ
: t, .
extent that we find pleasure in eating even when not hungry. ~,
it wouTd be difficu It
eating, were there not ever
for any of us to imagine the fate of
any nutritive gain
invoTved. It would
:~rr.,~ ~ .. . -;_-.~.-' ':, ,. ~. ~.' _.. .. ~ ... .
Page 4: txy74e00
be even more pro,ioca.'.re to speculate about the fate of sex NiJt
oryasm , I'd rat5er no: th:ink about it.
As with eating a^A corula;ing, so it is with smoking. The
physiological effect serves as the primary incentive; all' other
incentives are secondary.
The majorttf of the canferees would go even further and accep:
the proposition tyat nicotine is the active constituent of cigarette
smo,ke. Without nicot;ne, the ar;ument goes, there would 5e no
s."oking. So-,e stron, euidence can be marshalled to support this
1} "io one has ever become a cigarette smoker by smokin4
cigarettes without nicotine.
2) "iost af the physiological responses to inhal'ed smoke
have been shown to be nicotine-related.
Oespite many low nicot',ne brand entries into the market-
place, none of then have captured a substantial segment
of the market. In fact, critics of the industry would
well to reflect upon the indiffecence of the consumer
to the indus,ry's efforts to sell low-delivery brands.
, ., .,~, ..
941 of the cigarettes sold in the ll.S., deliver more than
I mg. of nicotine. 98.5% deliver more than .9' mg. The
, . .
physiologi'call response to nicotine can readily be elicited
by cigarettes delivering tn the range of 1 mg. of nicotine.
I hope our English friends who are devel'opi,ng the syntyetic
nicatineliess cigarette are not going to be too distuir5ed by alT thiis.
Page 5: txy74e00
Why then is there no: a market for nicotine per se, to be
eaeen , sucked,
the i nigen u1i ty
drunk, i'^;ec:ed',, inser.ed or inhaled as a piure
and I feel quite strongly a5out' t`ii's. is tha*_
is In fact amonc
the most awe-1nsp;riing exa,mpl:es of
. , . . . . .
of mani. Le*t me explain my conviction.
-< - . . . .
The cigarette should be conceived not as a product but as a
package. The product is nicotine..
packa ge i aye rs . There
The cigarette is but one of
which rontains the ci'yarette, whlich contains
is the final packaye. The smoker must s:rip
layers to get to that 'which he seeks.
.. ~ .
But consider for a moment what 200 years of
designing has brought in the way of nicotine packaging:
*,h~ink of, the cigarette pack as a storage
supply of nicotine:
1) It Is unobtrusively portable.
'2y Its contents are Instantly accessible.
Think of the cigarette as a dispenser for a
=on:xi.ns the pack,
smoke. The smoke
all these package
trial and error
for a day's
It !s readily prepped far dispensing nicotine
.,~.. . . . . ..- _ . .
Its rate of combu_s.ti'on meters the dis;ensiing
limit for a substance
that can be toxic in
Dispensing is unobtrusfve to most ongoing behavior.
an upper safe
Page 6: txy74e00
J. ..., ~_- . r 1 i rt i,.
Th:nk of a auI.r of s:no~Ke as t`,e
1') A conven'.en: 35 cc Mouthf-l
right amount of nico~ttme.
many other vehicles of sought-after agents
3) Highly aSsorbasle: 97; nicotine retention.
4) Rapid transfer: nicotine delivered to blood stream I
~ 1 to 3 minutes.
5) Non-noxious admi'nistration
Smoke is bey:.nd question the most optiniized vehicle of
nicotine and the cigarette the most Optinized d,ispenser of smoke.
Lest anyone be made unduly apprehensive about t`:is drug-li'ke
concep:~ali.zation of the c,garette, let me hasten to point out
The smoker has wide latit:rde in further cal'ibration:.
puff volume, puff interval, depth and durati'on of in-
halation. We have recorded wide variabili'ty in in:ake
a:mong s,-jokers. Among a group of pack-a-day s:nokers, some
will take-in less than the average half-pack s.moker, so~ne
wi11 take in more than the average two-pack-a-day smoker.
dispen.se in dose
., _ , . _...-
aicohol, tea and
units: wine is the vabicle and d'ispenser of
- . ._ .. .., .
coffee are the vehicles and dispensers of caffei'ne,.
dose units of heat, and money is the storage
veali'c';e of niico:;ne::
contains aa oroximate3y t,~e
container, vebicle and dose-dispenser of many things.
So much for extolling the virtues of the rod. Let us go
back now and pick up our discussiorn
of the moti'vationial aspect5 of
we acceo: the premise thlat nicotine is what the smoker
seeks , we've s tili l not aniswered t.`,e ques.ion "',1hy do people smoke
ke've mereTy reformuiated tt to read "Why does the smoker take
Page 7: txy74e00
n;co:'ne into h's syste,''~
Systematic researc'' on t~e question dates back some fifty
vears to~ ttie ti'me wntn A,:,eri'can Tobacco Co. fand'ed' the work of a
;ychologist later to bec:Te the Tost pro.minen: American psychologis;
. .. . .. ~ .
of nis ti,me. His name was Clark L. H'uil. Hiis questior+ then was
Mwherein lies the charm of tobacco for those accustomed, to its use?"
In order to review t"e data that has been aol'lected
these intervening fifty years, I have organized it under three
1) Differences between s:nokers and nonsmoKers.
2) Human PhysiologiGal responses to inhaled smoke.
3) Situaticnal variables related to smoking behavior.
First, then, let us quickly review what is known about the
d'i fferer es between s% :ers and nonsmokers .
BD;'1I+?UAC TRAI T S AND GnOUP C3A~RACTERIS ; ICS BY
NNICH A GROUP OF SMOKc.RS CAN SE 01STIyGJISitED
. FRoMA GROUP OF W'0NZMO1KZPS
More independent (Pflaum, 1965)
Greater anti'-social tendencies (Smith, 1970)
More ac.lve, energetic (ScSubert, 1959; Straits, 1965)
fiigher mean extroversion, ratinig (Smi th, I970i)
~~HaPPy-9o-lucky" (Smith, 1969)
yher mean measure of "ora l i ty" (Smr th , 1970
Page 8: txy74e00
poorer ne:^+~al heal:h (Smi'th, 1S20j
1967; Salber, 1962)
Less regild, less orderly more
impulsive (Smith, 1970)
on "external" than "internal" controls (Smith,
More chance-oriented (Stratts, 1963)
..-More emotional, (Smith, 1967)
*Type A" personality (More time-conscious,
. Less agreeable (Smith, 1969)
Less pstrength of character" (Smith. 1969)
Higher anxiety level (walker, 1969; Srole,- 1968; Thomas,- 19681
L-If: STYLE CHARACTSRISTICS
Poorer academic performance (Yeldman and 8own, 1969; Pumroy,
Mors business-oriented in occupation (Seltzer, 1964)
* .. . .
More users of alcohol (Higgins, K,j~elsberg,
, Li'lienfeld, 1969)
More users of coffee and tea (Lillenfeld,
. ~ . . _.. . ~ ~i ,
~ . ._ . . . . .. . .
''Proportionately higher frequency of
Religious service attendance less frequent
Straits and Schrest
-.~ More auto accidents (Ianni
More active participation in sports (Lilienfeld,
marriages and 3ob changes
, '.. .
Higher tncidence of prior hospitalizations (Ltlienfeld, 1959)
Higher incidence of smoking among parents (Salber and'Abelin,
., ;. .:/: .. . .
and~ 8oek, 1958)
b Metzner, 1967;
(Cattell , 1967;
Page 9: txy74e00
Higher h,eight/(cube root of weight) ratio (Damon, 1961).
Greater body wei:,!:t (Seltzer, 1963)!
Greater heignt (Selitzer, 1963; Baer, .1966)
Thinner (Higgins and KjelsSerg, 1967)
Thinner skin folds (triceps and subsea7ular) (Higgins and
Prorortionately more 25-45 year-olds (Public Health Servic'e
. . ..
. .w ..w,w. r .....
Lower mean socio-economic class (Salber and MacMahion., 1961)
Proportionately fewer college men (Hiiggins, Kjelsberg, b
Metzner, 1967; Li l ianfel d, 1959),
More urban residents (Higgins, K,;elsberg, &~te-zner, 1967)
~Hahy of these characteristics have little meaninig wi'thout
More men (?;,51ic Health Service P:,blication No. 1000 , 1!970),
ruu~ rbauiurn nv.
presen:ation. Suffice it to say that the list does summarizeour
state of knowledge on the smoker-nonsmoker differences. As for
considerably greater expl!anation than is appropriiate for this
hunches, but unfortunately, that is about as far as tt can take us. C
And I regret to say that the major effort of psychollogists has
the relevance of this knowledge to the question of motivation_in
smoking, I would say that it is a rich source of hypotheses and
been to search for these differences. Hulil warned us fifty years
ago that the difference approach was a primrose path, but only
recently have psychologists begun to appreciate Hull's warning.. ,
.. , :........ . .. ..
~' V ~MI Zfr~t~~/ ~~
Page 10: txy74e00
response to smoke. The 1is: in Table 2 again is a summary of our
knowledge. To be sure there are.other responses, some of which
have been noted tn the literature, some likely yet to be discovered,
The phar~acclo5;s_s ard' phys;o;cgi'sts have done muc-~i be:ter,
Nhi'c:i leads us to t.he se_or,d 5oCy of fact; the hiu:nan physiological
but those listed have been reaorted'by at least two non-related
RES2ONSES TO SMOKE INHALATION
'. 5. Increased blood flow in skeletal musculature
6. A reactive release of adrenalin
7. Alteratiorts in electrical potentia
involvi'ng alpha wave suppression
;-LU i..kf . ; t .
Elevated heart rate
Elevated coronary flow
Elevated b1ood sugar level
Lowered cutaneous temperature tn the extremities
8. Inhibition of patetTar reflex
Where these responses
been observed to have
patterns of the brain
have been plotted over time, they have
several minutes of smoke G7
. . ~
their onset within
inhalation,, and they are
short-1iived, having a decay function wi thoP
a half-life of about thirty minutes.
parallel the coincident plotting
(Isaacs & Rand, 1972}
Onset and decay roughly -' C4
of nicotine in the bloodstream.