Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: Continued dependence on past views

Jack E. Henningfield, Christine A. Rose, Mitch Zeller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper reviews the tobacco industry's litigation strategy for addressing the addiction issue through trial testimony by its experts, and opening and closing statements by its lawyers. Despite the fact that several companies now claim to accept, in varying degrees, the conclusions of the Surgeon General concerning tobacco addiction, the tobacco industry litigation strategy pertaining to addiction is essentially unchanged since that of the early 1980s when the issue emerged as crucial. The industry uses its experts and the process of cross-examination of plaintiff's experts to imply that the addictiveness of tobacco and nicotine are more comparable to substances such as caffeine, chocolate, and even milk, than to heroin, cocaine and alcohol. Furthermore, the tobacco industry contends that the definition of addiction has now become so broadened as to include carrots and caffeine and hence that any concurrence that smoking is addictive, does not imply that cigarettes are addictive to the standards that drugs such as heroin and cocaine are addictive. Finally, the industry has continuously asserted that tobacco users assumed the risks of tobacco since they understood that quitting could be difficult when they began to use, and moreover, that the main barrier to cessation is lack of desire or motivation to quit and not physical addiction. These positions have been maintained through the 2004-2005 US Government litigation that was ongoing as the time of this writing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalTobacco Control
Volume15
Issue numberSUPPL. 4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2006

Fingerprint

Tobacco Industry
Jurisprudence
addiction
nicotine
Tobacco
industry
Heroin
Caffeine
Cocaine
Industry
Lawyers
Daucus carota
Expert Testimony
expert
Nicotine
Tobacco Products
Motivation
Milk
Smoking
Alcohols

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy
  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction : Continued dependence on past views. / Henningfield, Jack E.; Rose, Christine A.; Zeller, Mitch.

In: Tobacco Control, Vol. 15, No. SUPPL. 4, 12.2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Henningfield, Jack E. ; Rose, Christine A. ; Zeller, Mitch. / Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction : Continued dependence on past views. In: Tobacco Control. 2006 ; Vol. 15, No. SUPPL. 4.
@article{c58487c556224752bb3a4c512d106271,
title = "Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: Continued dependence on past views",
abstract = "This paper reviews the tobacco industry's litigation strategy for addressing the addiction issue through trial testimony by its experts, and opening and closing statements by its lawyers. Despite the fact that several companies now claim to accept, in varying degrees, the conclusions of the Surgeon General concerning tobacco addiction, the tobacco industry litigation strategy pertaining to addiction is essentially unchanged since that of the early 1980s when the issue emerged as crucial. The industry uses its experts and the process of cross-examination of plaintiff's experts to imply that the addictiveness of tobacco and nicotine are more comparable to substances such as caffeine, chocolate, and even milk, than to heroin, cocaine and alcohol. Furthermore, the tobacco industry contends that the definition of addiction has now become so broadened as to include carrots and caffeine and hence that any concurrence that smoking is addictive, does not imply that cigarettes are addictive to the standards that drugs such as heroin and cocaine are addictive. Finally, the industry has continuously asserted that tobacco users assumed the risks of tobacco since they understood that quitting could be difficult when they began to use, and moreover, that the main barrier to cessation is lack of desire or motivation to quit and not physical addiction. These positions have been maintained through the 2004-2005 US Government litigation that was ongoing as the time of this writing.",
author = "Henningfield, {Jack E.} and Rose, {Christine A.} and Mitch Zeller",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1136/tc.2005.013789",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
journal = "Tobacco Control",
issn = "0964-4563",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "SUPPL. 4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction

T2 - Continued dependence on past views

AU - Henningfield, Jack E.

AU - Rose, Christine A.

AU - Zeller, Mitch

PY - 2006/12

Y1 - 2006/12

N2 - This paper reviews the tobacco industry's litigation strategy for addressing the addiction issue through trial testimony by its experts, and opening and closing statements by its lawyers. Despite the fact that several companies now claim to accept, in varying degrees, the conclusions of the Surgeon General concerning tobacco addiction, the tobacco industry litigation strategy pertaining to addiction is essentially unchanged since that of the early 1980s when the issue emerged as crucial. The industry uses its experts and the process of cross-examination of plaintiff's experts to imply that the addictiveness of tobacco and nicotine are more comparable to substances such as caffeine, chocolate, and even milk, than to heroin, cocaine and alcohol. Furthermore, the tobacco industry contends that the definition of addiction has now become so broadened as to include carrots and caffeine and hence that any concurrence that smoking is addictive, does not imply that cigarettes are addictive to the standards that drugs such as heroin and cocaine are addictive. Finally, the industry has continuously asserted that tobacco users assumed the risks of tobacco since they understood that quitting could be difficult when they began to use, and moreover, that the main barrier to cessation is lack of desire or motivation to quit and not physical addiction. These positions have been maintained through the 2004-2005 US Government litigation that was ongoing as the time of this writing.

AB - This paper reviews the tobacco industry's litigation strategy for addressing the addiction issue through trial testimony by its experts, and opening and closing statements by its lawyers. Despite the fact that several companies now claim to accept, in varying degrees, the conclusions of the Surgeon General concerning tobacco addiction, the tobacco industry litigation strategy pertaining to addiction is essentially unchanged since that of the early 1980s when the issue emerged as crucial. The industry uses its experts and the process of cross-examination of plaintiff's experts to imply that the addictiveness of tobacco and nicotine are more comparable to substances such as caffeine, chocolate, and even milk, than to heroin, cocaine and alcohol. Furthermore, the tobacco industry contends that the definition of addiction has now become so broadened as to include carrots and caffeine and hence that any concurrence that smoking is addictive, does not imply that cigarettes are addictive to the standards that drugs such as heroin and cocaine are addictive. Finally, the industry has continuously asserted that tobacco users assumed the risks of tobacco since they understood that quitting could be difficult when they began to use, and moreover, that the main barrier to cessation is lack of desire or motivation to quit and not physical addiction. These positions have been maintained through the 2004-2005 US Government litigation that was ongoing as the time of this writing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845594181&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845594181&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/tc.2005.013789

DO - 10.1136/tc.2005.013789

M3 - Article

C2 - 17130621

AN - SCOPUS:33845594181

VL - 15

JO - Tobacco Control

JF - Tobacco Control

SN - 0964-4563

IS - SUPPL. 4

ER -