Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 248.0

529US1

Unit: $U36

[09-26-01 08:36:39] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 120 (2000)

173

Breyer, J., dissenting

have long wanted their products to produce those effects in
this way.

For example,

in 1972, a tobacco-industry scientist ex-
plained that “ ‘[s]moke is beyond question the most optimized
vehicle of nicotine,’ ” and “ ‘the cigarette is the most opti-
61 Fed. Reg. 44856 (1996)
mized dispenser of smoke.’ ”
(emphasis deleted). That same scientist urged company
executives to

“ ‘[t]hink 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 [and] [t]hink of a
puff of smoke as the vehicle of nicotine.’ ”
Ibid. (Philip
Morris) (emphasis deleted).

That same year, other tobacco industry researchers told
their superiors that

“ ‘in different situations and at different dose levels, nic-
otine appears to act as a stimulant, depressant, tranquil-
izer, psychic energizer, appetite reducer, anti-fatigue
agent, or energizer. . . . Therefore, [tobacco] products
may, in a sense, compete with a variety of other products
with certain types of drug action.’ ”
Id., at 44669 (RJR)
(emphasis deleted).

A draft report prepared by authorities at Philip Morris said
that nicotine

“ ‘is a physiologically active, nitrogen containing sub-
stance [similar to] quinine, cocaine, atropine and mor-
phine.
[And] [w]hile each of these [other] substances
can be used to affect human physiology, nicotine has
a particularly broad range of
Id., at
44668–44669.

inﬂuence.’ ”

And a 1980 manufacturer’s study stated that

“ ‘the pharmacological response of smokers to nicotine is
believed to be responsible for an individual’s smoking