Big Tobacco deserves no sympathy.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Anthony Biglan For The Register-Guard

As an expert witness in the U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against the tobacco companies, I would like to offer a rejoinder to James Kilpatrick's column of April 17. He argues that the Oregon judgment against Philip Morris Inc. for the death of Jesse Williams was outrageous because `...the manufacturer's ads could not have deceived a single rational adult.'

Kilpatrick is mistaken in suggesting that people start smoking as adults or that rationality can have much influence on whether they quit. In my work in U.S. vs. Philip Morris et al., I reviewed thousands of pages of tobacco company documents and the large body of research on the influence of cigarette marketing. The evidence shows that a) the companies understood they would lose market share if they did not influence those under 21 to smoke their brands, b) each of the companies developed campaigns to make cigarettes appealing to young people, and c) some of those campaigns were very successful in getting young people to start smoking.

Myron Johnston at Philip Morris nicely summarized his company's understanding of the need to influence teens to smoke. In 1981 he wrote, `Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens.' A 1973 memo at R.J. Reynolds put it even more plainly: `Realistically, if our company is to survive and prosper, over the long term, we must get our share of the youth market.'

Kilpatrick may believe that young people make a rational choice to smoke, but the tobacco companies understand that they start smoking to fulfill psychological needs.

Perhaps the most important benefit is peer acceptance. A Reynolds document states, "There is no doubt that peer group influence is the single most important factor in the decision by an adolescent to smoke.'

Philip Morris became the No. 1 cigarette manufacturer because its Marlboro Man image was so successful in persuading teenagers that Marlboro smokers were - well, let me quote the results of their own focus group research: `All-American; hardworking/trustworthy; rugged individual, man's man (experienced, sure of self, confident, in charge, self-sufficient, down to earth, cool/calm, get the job done); admire his strength.' If you are an awkward teenager worried about being liked, isn't this an image you would pay for?

Kilpatrick apparently has not read the research on cigarette marketing. It clearly shows that young people exposed to more cigarette advertising are more likely to smoke - whether or not their peers and parents smoke.

Nor, I suspect, has Kilpatrick worked with people who are trying to quit smoking. He does admit that he tried quitting repeatedly, until the love of a woman finally motivated him to succeed (not an influence one would attribute to rational analysis.) Not everyone has such favorable circumstance. Most smokers have a great deal of trouble quitting because nicotine is addictive. The addictiveness of cigarettes is one of the well-established research findings that some of the tobacco companies continue to deny.

The evidence in the case shows that the tobacco companies a) knew since at least the 1950s that cigarettes cause cancer, b) concealed their knowledge of this fact, and c) conducted a large and sophisticated campaign for nearly 50 years to deceive the public about the harmful effects of cigarettes.

The great benefit of our capitalist system is that the possibility of substantial profits inspires millions of innovations that improve our lives. But the system does not guarantee that every innovation will be beneficial. The tobacco companies reaped spectacular profits for more than 50 years after they knew that, when used as intended, cigarettes kill people. In the past 10 years, more than 4 million people have died of smoking-related illness.

Isn't it appropriate to penalize companies that do such harm to society? If we do not, what will stop them?

Anthony Biglan is a senior scientist at the Oregon Research Institute.