Cigarette Industry: Self-Centered

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Daniel Oran recently made his case against the current law suit pending in Santa Barbara (November 27), recalling the classical notions of free will, necessity, and choice. He then stretched his argument to include the modern behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, concluding that inherent in the plaintiff's argument exists a contradiction. By that be surmised that tobacco companies should not be held responsible for their product's effects, if they were in fact knowledgeable of the cigarette's effects long before the Surgeon General was.

What Mr. Oran fails to recognize, is that the tobacco companies were not bound to withholding information from the public, like he believes; instead, they had a definited choice. The notion of make as much money as possible or bottom-up financially doesn't apply, when one considers the alternatives open to the tobacco industry.

These alternatives can best be illustrated by the example of the soft drink wars. When the American public became more interested in their health, less interested in sugary drinks, they turned to alternative liquids for refreshments. The soft drink companies had the choice of alternatives to pursue, and chose to respond to the needs of the people and search for a sugar substitute. Saccharin was found, but it was later discovered to cause cancer. The soft drink companies did not withhold this information from the public; rather, they began a search for another artificial sweetener, which led to NutraSweet. The soft drink companies needs were sympathetic to the changing needs of the American diet, and, as a result, solidified their position in the consumer industry.

What is remarkable, is that tobacco companies have remained callous to the needs of the public. While cigarettes that are lower in nicotine content and filters were developed they didn't substantially reduce the risk to a similar extent that the soft drinks were reduced. A simple filter could be casually compared to light beer a way of diluting the strength of the product, but not to the point of reducing health risks. If the tobacco companies were actually acting on good faith, they would long ago have developed a better product.

Why, you may ask, did the tobacco industry not find a necessity to reform their product? A distinet possibility is the nature of their product, that of creating addiction. The customers were addicted to the product and had no choice to change their habits. The consumer did not have the free will he had during the cola wars. Sure, soft drinks are addictive (through not nearly as addictive as cigarettes), but the soft drinks industry responded to this concern and came out with products which lacked caffeine. Regarding soft drinks, the consumer now has a choice for his consumption; regarding cigarettes, the consumer has no choice.

The cigarette industry has become self-centred about their own product while ignoring the needs of the consumers they serve. Only once they have become receptive to the American public, can they claim to have given the public its free will, and only then will they not be liable for their product. Mike Pahre '89