Tobacco Documents Online

Subject to Claims of Privilege and Confidentiality: Produced Pursuant to Court Orders in State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al.

Topic: ~DDICTION Deposition of John Alexander Crowe in Green v. AT (11/2/59) at 31-32: Q Has there ever been brought to your atten- tion the fac= that nicotine causes addition in a person, that is ~o say, that after being exposed to the effects cf nicotine, then they find that they are unab!e to give it up? A I haven't had =ha: experience. Q Eas =here ever been brought to your atten- -~ion =ha t p.:o sons , after being exposed, to the e=fects_ of nicotine, have any difficulty in gi,~ing it up because of addiction? A I imagine people have difficulty changing most anything they do, eating or anything else. Q ~ am speaking about any scientific evidence that has ever been brought to your attention. A No. Q And you have no personal opinion that it does? A Personal opinion-- does? In other words, you don't believe that it A I don't think so. It hasn't affected me for over forty years, and I smoke about--sixty or eighty a day. O But you have never attempted to give it up, have you, sir? A No. Subject to Claims of Privilege and Confidentiality: Produced Pursuant to Court Orders in State of MinnesoCa, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al.

Deposition of Dr. ~arvey B. ~{aag in Gree..__~n v. A~T (i0/31/59) at 6-8: Q With respect to the possible effects of addition, and the use of tobacco, let's specific[c- ally say cigarettes, can you tell us what your opinion is in that regard, sir? A Well, tobacco is not an addicting drug. Q You do not feel it is? A Or an addic:izg su~s:ance, no. Q When yo'a speak of addiction, isn't it true that you can speak of either psychol_ogicat addi:tion or physical addiction? A Well, addiction would embrace both the psychological and physical dependence. Q Do you feel that tobacco has no addicting qualities insofar as psychological dependence, or inter-dependence? A It would have a slight effect in terms of a psychological response on stopping smoking, but that does not make it an addicting drug, or an addicting substance. Q Why would that be? A Because an addicting substance, that in- dicates that the individual becomes dependent upon the presence of that material in their body for the normal functioning. And when that material is with- drawn, then there are abnormalities, which we refer to as withdrawal phen~ena. And that is one of the criteria of an addicting drug. Q Have there or have there not been written studies in literature with respect to the addicting qualities in cigarettes and in tobacco? A There might have been. But I believe that they are probably speaking there of the psychological habituation rather than what we would call addiction. Subject to Claims of Privilege and Confidentiality: Produced Pursuant to Court Orders in State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al.

Q What do you mean by psychological habitua- tion rather than addiction? Psychological habitua- tion as opposed to addiction, ~ mean? A Well, all of us get accustomed to certain habits. The coffee break, for instance. If we do not have the coffee break we miss it psychologically. And cigarette smoking falls in the same class as coffee drinking, in that regard. Q Have you seen, though, studies, -- Are you aware of the fact that there have been studies with respect to the addicting qualities; I am speak- ing now no~ just with respect to jus: the psychological habit, but actual physiological addiction? A You mean now? Q Have you seen such studies or heard of such studies? A You mean now, whether there have been -- Are you asking about now, where there has been withdrawal phenomena as you and I recognize or -- O Such as in morphine addiction? A No. I amnot familiar with those. Q You have not heard of any such a thing? A No, ~ have not. k3. Deposition of Alfred F. Bowden in Green v. AT (11/2/59) at 62-63: "- Q ~as it been brought to your attention in any way that nicotine brings about addiction? D~ you know what I mean by addiction? That it is habit-forming. A Oh, yes. MR. DYER: I object to the form of the question, because it presupposes that that is true. Subject to Claims of Privilege and Confidentiality: Produced Pursuant to Court Orders in State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et

If you want to rephrase your question as to whether Or not there was some claim that it might be a factor, I might not object to that. MR. HASTINGS: Let me correct the question. THE WITNESS: Yes. Would you ask your question a~a!n, please. Q Let me ask you, sir: Has it been brought to your attention that there is a claim that nicotine is habit-forming or causes addlczicn? A That nicotine is ha~it-for~in~? Q or causes addiction. A Or causes addition (sic) -- : can't recall any specific claims. House Hearings - Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act (1982) (Statemen~ Of Edward A. Harrigan, Chief of T.I. Exec. Cor.m.) at 390: One other imoint raised in your question with regard to cigarettes, with regard to addiction. There is absolutely no proof that cigarettes are addictive and that was referred to in an earlier Surgeon General's report. Deposition of Robert K. Heimann in Green v. A_~T (i1/2/59) at 81: Q Has it everbeen brought to your attention that nicotine is habit-forming or brings-about addiction? A Has it ever been brough~ to my attention? Yes. A Well, i have read a great many things about nicotine,and I may have seen a statement to that effect somewhere. Subject to Claims of Privilege and Confidentiality: Produced Pursuant to Court Orders in State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et a|.

Q An4 have you investigated either the validity or non-validity of it or asked that it be investigated? A Well, it's not within my p=ovince to in- vestigate questions of that nature. I'm not a chemist. Q I mean, have you 4i:ected, shall we say, that such investigations be made, or do you know of anyone else tha~ has di:ec~ed it, in the company? A No. direc~icn. I can't -- I dcn't know of any such Subject to Claims of Privilege and Confidentiality: Produced Pursuant to Court Orders in State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al.