SMOKE/DON’T SMOKE

Philip Morris is trying to have it both ways. It spends billions of dollars enticing people to buy and use an addictive product that causes illness and shortens life. And yet, this past week, it spent millions spreading an anti-smoking message across the country in a lavish insert in major metropolitan newspapers.

What goes on here? The brochure seems to touch all the right bases.

On disease: “We agree with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases.”

On addiction: “We agree with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is addictive. It can be very difficult to quit smoking, but this should not deter smokers who want to quit from trying to do so.”

On quitting smoking: “To reduce the health effects of smoking, the best thing to do is quit.”

On low-tar cigarettes: “A smoker should not assume that brand descriptors such as ‘light’ or ‘ultra light’ indicate with precision either the actual amount of tar inhaled from any particular cigarette, or the relative amount as compared to competing cigarette brands… There is no such thing as a ‘safe’ cigarette.”

On youth smoking prevention: “As the manufacturer of a product intended for adults who smoke that has serious health effects, we have a responsibility to help prevent kids from smoking.”

On secondhand smoke: “Philip Morris U.S.A. believes that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places.”

There you have it, in the company’s own words. Who could ask for anything more? The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, that’s who. They have come out with a joint press release charging that “Philip Morris is gearing up to cash in on the more than $3.2 million in federal campaign contributions it made this past election (plus millions more in state elections). Philip Morris is trying to make it politically acceptable for elected officials, especially members of Congress, to be on its side.” They charged that the company is trying to kill the federal government’s lawsuit against the tobacco industry, enact weak Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco products to protect tobacco industry profits rather than the public health, and defeat public health measures at the state and local level.

Dora Mills, director of the Maine Bureau of Health, agrees with those charges and goes them one better: Philip Morris, while talking about preventing kids from smoking, continues to advertise in youth magazines. She says that the recent reduction in teen-age smoking results from other efforts, not from Philip Morris’ alleged campaign.

Philip Morris fired back, charging that the Tobacco-Free Kids press release “consists solely of unwarranted attacks on our motives, and doesn’t make any reference at all to the actual content of the insert itself.” On youth smoking, the company said, “While we may have differences with our critics on some issues, we certainly all share a goal of ensuring that kids don’t smoke and finding a way to reduce the harm to smokers caused by cigarettes.”

An old union song asks, “Which side are you on?” Which side is Philip Morris on, making money off of smokers or warning them about the ill effects and helping them swear off? The dollars it spends give the answer: billions for smoking, but only millions for anti-smoking.

Some more dollar figures: The annual health care costs in Maine directly caused by smoking: $470 million. Maine residents’ state and federal tax burden from government expenditures related to smoking: $576 per household. And those figures don’t count secondhand smoke.