Public versus internal conceptions of addiction: An analysis of internal Philip Morris documents

Abstract

BackgroundTobacco addiction is a complex, multicomponent phenomenon stemming from nicotine’s pharmacology and the user’s biology, psychology, sociology, and environment. After decades of public denial, the tobacco industry now agrees with public health authorities that nicotine is addictive. In 2000, Philip Morris became the first major tobacco company to admit nicotine’s addictiveness. Evolving definitions of addiction have historically affected subsequent policymaking. This article examines how Philip Morris internally conceptualized addiction immediately before and after this announcement.Methods and findingsWe analyzed previously secret, internal Philip Morris documents made available as a result of litigation against the tobacco industry. We compared these documents to public company statements and found that Philip Morris’s move from public denial to public affirmation of nicotine’s addictiveness coincided with pressure on the industry from poor public approval ratings, the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), the United States government’s filing of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) suit, and the Institute of Medicine’s (IoM’s) endorsement of potentially reduced risk products. Philip Morris continued to research the causes of addiction through the 2000s in order to create successful potentially reduced exposure products (PREPs). While Philip Morris’s public statements reinforce the idea that nicotine’s pharmacology principally drives smoking addiction, company scientists framed addiction as the result of interconnected biological, social, psychological, and environmental determinants, with nicotine as but one component. Due to the fragmentary nature of the industry document database, we may have missed relevant information that could have affected our analysis.ConclusionsPhilip Morris’s research suggests that tobacco industry activity influences addiction treatment outcomes. Beyond nicotine’s pharmacology, the industry’s continued aggressive advertising, lobbying, and litigation against effective tobacco control policies promotes various nonpharmacological determinants of addiction. To help tobacco users quit, policy makers should increase attention on the social and environmental dimensions of addiction alongside traditional cessation efforts.

Helping women veterans quit smoking: a qualitative analysis of successful and unsuccessful attempts

“…The themes of addiction and optimism tied closely to one another. The divide between addiction and habit is unsurprising: historically, public health officials considered smoking as a habit that only needed strong willpower to overcome [23]. While healthcare officials have worked to overcome this historical viewpoint and promote purposeful treatment, two women in this study specifically noted that they could overcome their smoking with will power.…”

Denormalization, smoke-free air policy, and tobacco use among young adults

“…Although many smokers expressed displeasure with restrictions on smoking in public places, many also stated that they understood the desires of non-smokers to be in smoke-free environments (Bell et al, 2010;Kelly, 2009). Despite efforts by the tobacco industry to disrupt changes (Elias et al, 2018), attitudes towards smoking in public shifted considerably during the period following implementation of smoking bans (Thomson et al, 2009(Thomson et al, , 2016, including among young people (Johnston et al, 2017). In this manner, scholars have credited smoking bans with changing popular perceptions of the acceptability of smoking in public places as well as the act of smoking in general.…”

Invisible smoke: third-party endorsement and the resurrection of heat-not-burn tobacco products

“…It is unclear whether these conflicts of interest were disclosed to the journal, or why the journal offered to write the editorial for a paper they deemed ‘not justifiable’ for publication in The Lancet . Current industry communications attribute new prodcuts’ public health impact to consumer acceptance, 50 framed publicly more simplistically than their internal research, 51 as the product of nictoine, taste and the user’s associated ‘ritual’. 52 Our analysis, however, suggests that health-authority backing will also be central in determining whether the next generation of heat-not-burn devices succeeds where previous attempts have failed.…”