In a sense, the tobacco industry may be thought of as being a specialized, highly ritualized and stylized segment of the pharmaceutical industry. Tobacco products, uniquely, contain and deliver nicotine, a potent drug with a variety of physiological effects. Related alkaloids, and probably other compounds, with desired physiological effects are also present in tobacco and/or its smoke. Nicotine is known to be a habit-forming alkaloid, hence the confirmed user of tobacco products is primarily seeking the physiological "satisfaction" derived from nicotine — and perhaps other active compounds. His choice of product and pattern of usage are primarily determined by his individual nicotine dosage requirements and secondarily by a variety of other considerations including flavor and irritancy of the product, social patterns and needs, physical and manipulative gratifications, convenience, cost, health considerations, and the like. Thus a tobacco product is, in essence, a vehicle for delivery of nicotine, designed to deliver the nicotine in a generally acceptable and attractive form. Our Industry is then based upon design, manufacture and sale of attractive dosage forms of nicotine, and our Company's position in our Industry is determined by our ability to produce dosage forms of nicotine which have more overall value, tangible or intangible, to the consumer than those of our competitors.
If nicotine is the sine qua non of tobacco products and tobacco products are recognized as being attractive dosage forms of nicotine, then it is logical to design our products — and where possible, our advertising — around nicotine delivery rather than "tar" delivery or flavor. To do this we need to develop new data on such things as the physiological effects of nicotine, the rate of absorption and elimination of nicotine delivered in different doses at different frequencies and by different routes, and ways of enhancing or diminishing nicotine effects and "satisfactions".
Before proceeding too far in the direction of design of dosage forms for nicotine, it may be well to consider another aspect of our business; that is, the factors which induce a pre-smoker or non-smoker to become a habituated smoker. Paradoxically, the things which keep a confirmed smoker habituated and "satisfied", i.e., nicotine and secondary physical and manipulative gratifications, are unknown and/or largely unexplained to the non-smoker. He does not start smoking to obtain undefined physiological gratifications or reliefs, and certainly he does not start to smoke to satisfy a non-existent craving for nicotine. Rather, he appears to start to smoke for purely psychological reasons — to emulate a valued image, to conform, to experiment, to defy, to be daring, to have something to do with his hands, and the like. Only after experiencing smoking for some period of time do the physiological "satisfactions" and habituation become apparent and needed. Indeed, the first smoking experiences are often unpleasant until a tolerance for nicotine has been developed. This leaves us, then, in the position of attempting to design and promote the same product to two different types of market with two different sets of motivations, needs and expectations.
Nicotine transfer efficiency (NTE) is affected by several simple design factors such as paper permeability, ventilation, rod and filter pressure drops and burn rates.
We believe smokers to be much more alike than different insofar as their motivation to smoke is concerned. This is our thesis and the conviction underlying our current and projected research program. We believe that the confusion resides in the fact that the smoker, although aware of his response to smoke, is unable to report accurately the nature of his response. He is aware of a pleasurable inner state but beyond that he cannot characterize the state. He has trouble translating the somatic sensations into descriptive words. We believe that all smokers smoke for this vague but pleasant subjective experience; some call it a lift, some call it a relaxation....a rose by any other name is still a rose.
We share the conviction with others that it is the pharmacological effect of inhaled smoke which mediates the smoxing habit.
We have, then, as our first premise, that the primary motivation for smoking is to obtain the pharmacological effect of nicotine.
In the past we at R&D have said that we're not in the cigarette buisiness, we're in the smoke business. It might be more pointed to observe that the cigarette is the vehicle of smoke, smoke is the vehicle of nicotine, and nicotine is the agent of a pleasurable body response.
cigarette -> smoke -> nicotine -> body response
This primary incentive to smoking gets obscured by the overlay of secondary incentives, which have been superimposed upon the habit. Psychoanalysts have speculated about the importance of the sucking behavior, describing it as oraI regression. Psychologists have proposed that the smoker is projectig an ego-image with his puffing and his halo of smoke. One frequently hears "I have to have something to do with my hands" as a reason. All are perhaps operative motives, but we hold that none are adequate to sustain the habit in the absence of nicotine. In product tests, low nicotine cigarettes are repeatedly rejected in preference for higher levels. Intravenously injected nicotine was foundo to be an acceptable substitute for smoking, in a study with 35 smokers (Johnson, 1942).
We are not suggesting that the effect of nicotine is responsible for the initiation of the habit. To the contrary. The first cigarette is a noxious experience to the noviate. To account for the fact that the beginning smoker will tollerate the unpleasantness we must invoke a psychosocial motive. Smoking a cigarette for the beginner is a symbolic act. The smoker is telling his world, "This is the kind of person I am." Surely that there are many variants of the theme, "I am no longer my mother's child," "I am tough," "I am an adventuress," "I'm not a square." Whatever the individuaT intent, the act of smoking remains a symboTic declaration of personal identity.
As for the work with human subjects, interest has been focused largely upon the long term chronic effects of smoke exposure.
Without attempting at this point to establish anything about the relevance of the physiological response to the sought for "pleasure" in smoking, we list below those body changes which have been shown to occur upon inhaling smoke. It is generally accepted that nicotine is in all instances the responsible agent.
You've heard many explanations for cigarette smoking. These were reviewed at the St. Martin conference. I think it appropriate that we list the more commonly proposed explanations here:
1) For social acceptance or ego-enhancement
2) For pleasure of the senses (taste, smell)
3) For oral gratification in the psychoanalytic sense
4) A psychmotor habit for the release of body tension
5) For the pharmacological effect of smoke constituents
I might mention one other explanation, not because anybody believes it but as an example of how distorted one's reasoning can become when under the influence of psychoanalytic theory. Smoking according to this argument, is the consequence of pulmonary eroticism. Translated, this means the lungs have become sexualized and smoking is but another form of the sexual act.
If one asks the smoker himself why he smokes, he is most likely to say "It's a habit." If he is intelligent enough, he might be more to the point and say either one of two things: "It stimulates me", or "It relaxes me". And now we are already deep into our topic. The polarity of these two observations has plagued investigators for fifty years. The challenge to any theory as to why people smoke lies in the theory's ability to resolve this paradoxical duality of effect.
Elaborate behavioral rituals, taste preferences, and social institutions I have been built around the elemental act of eating, to such an extent that we find pleasure in eating even when not hungry.
It would be difficult for any of us to imagine the fate of eating, were there not ever any nutritive gain involved. It would be even more provocative to speculate about the fate of sex without orgasm. I'd rather not think about it.
As with eating and copulating, so it is with smoking. The physiological effect serves as the primary incentive; all other incentives are secondary.
The majority of the conferees would go even further and accept the proposition that nicotine is the active constituent of cigarette smoke. Without nicotine, the argument goes, there would be no smoking. Some strong evidence can be marshalled to support this argument:
The cigarette should be conceived not as a product but as a package. The product is nicotine. The cigarette is but one of many package layers. There is the carton, which contains the pack, which contains the cigarette,which contains the smoke. The smoke is the final package. The smoker must strip off all these package layers to get to that which he seeks.
But consider for a moment what 200 years of trial and error designing has brought in the way of nicotine packaging:
Think of the cigarette pack as a storage container for a day's supply of nicotine:
Think of the cigarette as a dispenser for a dose unit of nicotine:
Think of a puff of smoke as the vehicle of nicotine:
Smoke is beyond question the most optimized vehicle of nicotine and the cigarette the most optimized dispenser of smoke.
The question is put as to why people smoke. The answer is proposed that one smokes to obtain nicotine. It is contended in this paper that nicotine, specially packed, is the cigarette industry's product. Human engineering features of the cigarette are discussed to explain why it has become the favored smoking form and to support the argument that it cannot readily be replaced as the nicotine package of choice .
Used REST technology to independently manipulate tar and nicotine
In REST technology, nicotine and other water-soluble substances are extracted from tobacco. Nicotine is removed from the extract to the desired degree. Then the extract is returned to the tobacco.
Thus, the amount of nicotine in the tobacco can be changed to whatever value is desired.
[...]we propose a new set of assumptions:
We have to satisfy the 'individual' who is either about to give up or has just done so, i.e., in other words, customers in danger of extinction.
We are not trying to appeal to people with no original self-determined interest in smoking.
We are searching explicitly for a socially acceptable addictive product involving:
We also think that consideration should be given to the hypothesis that the high profits additionally associated with the tobacco industry are directly related to the fact that the customer is dependent upon the product. Looked at another way, it does not follow that future alternative "Product X" would sustain a profit level above most other product/business activities unless, like tobacco, it was associated with dependence. If, in fact, it were not able to sustain a high profit level then there is no 'a priori' reason why tobacco companies should take the risk of investing in a new speculative area but rather should consider investment into established business. That being the case, one must question both the ethics and the practical possibilities of society/medical opinion permitting the advent of the new habituation process - especially if the product were unable to permit governments to obtain a high level of duty income from the product.
Moreover, nicotine is addictive.
We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug effective in the release of stress mechanisms. But cigarettes - we will assume the Surgeon General's Committee to say - despite the beneficient effect of nicotine, have certain unattractive side effects:
You've heard many explanations for cigarette smoking. These were reviewed at the St. Martin conference. I think it appropriate that we list the more commonly proposed explanations here:
I might mention one other explanation, not because anybody believes it but as an example of how distorted one's reasoning can become when under the influence of psychoanalytic theory. Smoking according to this argument, is the consequence of pulmonary eroticism. Transtated, this means the lungs have become sexualized and smoking is but another form of the sexual act.
It would be difficult for any of us to imagine the fate of eating, were there not ever any nutritive gain involved. It would be even more provocative to speculate about the fate of sex without orgasm. I'd rather not think about it.
As with eating and copulating, so it is with smoking. The physiological effect serves as the primary incentive; all other incentives are secondary.
The majority of the conferees would go even further and accept the propositton that nicotine is the active constituent of cigarette smoke. Without nicotine, the argument goes, there would be no smoking. Some strong evidence can be marshalled to support this argument:
The cigarette should be conceived not as a product but as a a package. The product is nicotine. The cigarette is but one of many package layers. There is the carton, which contains the pack, which contains the cigarette, which contains the smoke. The smoke is the final package. The smoker must strip off all these package layers to get to that which he seeks.
Think of the cigarette pack as a storage container for a day's supply of nicotine:
Think of the cigarette as a dispenser for a dose unit of nicotine:
Think of a puff of smoke as the vehicle of nicotine:
Smoke is beyond question the most optimised vehicle of nicotine and the cigarette the most optimixed dispenser of smoke.
Host of the responses we (R&D, RJRT and/or the tobacco industry) should make to the public attitudes reported by Nordine are so obvious that there is no point in my repeating them; e.g.,
Improve social acceptability
Develop positive and refute any erroneous negatives in the smoking/health area,
Improve Company/industry images.
Etc., etc.
Some other things, perhaps not quite so obvious, need consideration:
The total market for cigarettes is projected to be essentially flat over the long term.
About one-third of the adult population is in that market at any given time.
Most of those who have smoked for any significant time would like to stop.
Many, but not most, of those who would like to stop smoking are able to do so.
Thus, the total (transient) market for cigarettes is the result of a dynanic equilibrium, with about as many new smokers entering it as confirmed smokers leaving it.
Any change at either end (entry/exit) of this equilibrium will change the position of the equilibrium, hence the size of the market.
Therefore, we need to focus more effort on adult "pre-smokers" and on confirmed smokers who would like to stop smoking.
To do this we need to know much more about:
Why (some) adults begin to smoke.
Why the majority of confirmed smokers would like to stop smoking.
Why some confirmed smokers are able to stop smoking and others are not able.
Positive/negatives associated with stopping smoking.
State of the art, present/projected, of techniques for stopping smoking.
With sufficient knowledge/information, we should be able to maintain/increase the size of the total market by influencing entry/exit rates; and we should be able to improve our share of the market by targeting our products to the oruolal entry/exit groups at both ends of that total market. That assunes that the entry/exit gates will remain substantially as they are now.
However, we cannot ever be comfortable selling a product which most of our customers would stop using if they could. That is to say, if the exit gate from our market should suddenly open, we could be out of business almost overnight.
Some slow but steady "progress" is being made in developing techniques for stopping smoking; but no universal, easy method is yet in sight.
The probability of such a method appearing in the near term is small.
The probability of such a method appearing over the long term approaches 100%.
If/when that occurs, our options include:
Go out of business.
Find a way to eliminate the desire of smokers to stop smoking.
Provide other products, away from conventional cigarettes, which meet the same needs cigarettes now meet, but without the associated negatives .
If, of the above alternatives, (1) is unacceptable, and (2) is not likely to be achievable, then we need to seriously consider (3).
We need to define the gratifications (social, psychological, physiological, oral, manipulative, visual, etc.) derived/expected from smoking of conventional cigarettes.
Simplistically, we then need to develop and market other products which would deliver these same gratifications, without the negatives presently associated with smoking of conventional cigarettes.
This will take much time and resources to implement.
This is where our long-term opportunity/survival lies.
We need to get started