The New Straits Times, June 6, 1997
Recently I came across a news report where the president of tobacco company, Philip Morris Co., said in a sworn statement that 'tobacco is no more addictive than Gummy Bears candy'. This statement has caused confusion among my children. How true is this comparison?
The above comparison is indeed most unfortunate, especially when it is made by a top executive of one of the largest tobacco companies here. At this time when tobacco companies generally have been viewed with suspicion of hoarding and manipulating scientific information, such statements tend to confirm their condescending attitude. But this is to be expected since they are invariably placed in a very precarious position when faced with questions related to tobacco dependence. Many times, tobacco executive have dodged the question or denied them outright even during Congressional inquiries, but to no avail.
A month after the Liggett confession, for example, another top executive, this time, from RJ Reynolds Tobacco, when questioned by a Florida lawyer who has filed lawsuits against the industry, said that 'he does not believe tobacco is any more addictive than coffee or carrots.' Now they have added candy to the list. God knows what would be next. All these, however, go to shoe the level of seriousness that one could expect from an industry that has taken too many things for granted, for far too long.
Notwithstanding this, to make an objective assessment as to the validity of the sworn statement is rather difficult at this stage. This is because there is no "Gummy Bears candy' sold here for us to make a valid and reliable comparison. But the obvious criteria to go by is whether such a candy produces addictive effects similar to other drugs, like heroin, for instance. If so, then the comparison is totally justified and we should be thankful to the executive for pointing this out us. Otherwise, in all likelihood, it is yet another attempt to vindicate some of the wrong-doings by a once invincible industry.
In any case, should there be a need to make comparisons about the addictive nature of tobacco, there is nothing more appropriate than to compare it with drugs like heroin, cocaine, amphetamine and the like. All tobacco products are known to contain a substantial amount of nicotine, which is clearly an addictive substance. To understand this further, it is worthwhile to quote an excerpt from a World Health Organisation (WHO) authoritative document entitled Tobacco Use: A Public Health Disaster:
"Nicotine has been clearly recognised as a drug of addiction, and tobacco dependence has been classified as a mental and behavioural disorder according to the WHO International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 (Classification F17.2). Experts in the field of substance abuse consider tobacco dependence to be strong or stronger than dependence on such substances as heroin and cocaine".
Nicotine addiction is thus an outcome of long-term use (or rather abuse) of tobacco. It develops in the first few years of cigarette smoking, that is for most people during adolescence or early adulthood. Once a person is addicted, cessation of tobacco use is usually difficult. The same WHO document states: "Nicotine dependence is clearly a major barrier to successful cessation.' Moreover, like all drugs, when nicotine use is abruptly stopped (typically when one runs out his cigarette supply), withdrawal symptoms begin to emerge, ranging from restlessness to anxiety, from heart palpitation to craving.
Most of the symptoms reach maximal intensity 24 to 48 hours after cessation of tobacco use. Because of its addictive nature, nicotine is said to be able to control behaviour to an extent considered detrimental to the individual or to society. This fits well into the WHO description of drug dependence, namely 'a behavioural pattern in which the use of a given psychoactive drug (that is drug which acts directly on the brain, in this case, nicotine) is given a sharply higher priority over other behaviours that once has a significantly higher value.
In fact, as recent as April, Associated Press was quoted as saying that 'a panel of experts with the World Health Organisation has proposed that it review tobacco for possible classification under the International Convention on Drug Control.' The panel had recommended the proposal last October. This sums up the gravity of the matter.
One can be very certain that all these statements and descriptions about nicotine are not in any way applicable to 'Gummy Bears candy' (or for that matter 'carrot') as implied by the tobacco executive. It is not surprising therefore that many are outraged by such a simplistic if irresponsible statement apparently set to belittle the potential public health disaster of tobacco dependence, or otherwise simply to create further confusion in public opinions. The unfortunate analogy is especially 'galling', said New York Attorney General Dennis Vacco because of accusations that tobacco companies have targeted youngsters in their marketing strategy. In fact, according to Vacco, the executive's statement 'might border on perjury.'
It looks like we have to be doubly cautious over not only what the tobacco industry has to offer but equally so over what they have to say too! As the popular saying goes: Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools speak because they have to say something. Let's not be deceived anymore by the latter.
