Tobacco Documents Online

COVINOTON & BURLINO E~S{} SIXTEENTIt ~TRE£To N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. ~0000 November 2~ 1970 Mr. William Kioepfer, Jr. , The_Tobacco Institute, l~c. 1776 K Street, North'west Washington, D.C. 20006. Dear Bill: : : ~. , We have carefully considered the problems raised by the publication of the Channing L. Bete Co, in its pamph- let% "What Everybody Should Know About Drug A use b ," whlch. • Mr. James Dowdell-of t~e "M. J. ~"~ynoids company requested you refer to us. It is of course true that on technical legal issues one could offer criticisms of this pamphlet. For example, in the Liggett & Myer~ case, tobacco.was specifically held not to b~ a "drug,". Likewise, I am confident that the Ad Hoc Committee could make out an effective answer that even exces- sive use of tobacco does not cause mouth and throat cancer. M~reover, the pamphlet does not distinguish between cigarettes and pipe tobacco if anyone wanted to make a point of that. It can likewise be argued that smoking does not r change a person's physical appearance, er that smoking ciga- rettes, as an example of drug abuse, is not illegal. As an overriding consideration, there is the issue of free speech with which you are familiar. It is legally impossible these days to enjoin the dissemination of~.any ~.. writing, which is not-an advertisement, which discusses health even though it makes the wildest claims In these circumstances, I am very doubtful that our writing a letter to .this company asking that they withdraw this publication would achieve that result. Moreover, since we could not be prepared legally-to follow through with either an injunction or damage action, and because I-doubt that the Committee of Counsel would care-to tender this type of medical

COVING3ON & BURLING "I Mr. Will~am Kloepfer, Jr. November ~g, 1970 PagE ~o issue in that.kind of proceeding, it would be highly inadvisable for the Institute or its counsel to predicate any letter on the basis that the pamphlet is misleading. That it is derogatory can hardly be doubted, but it is equally derogatory of alcohol in any form. • Finally~ I think -~t would be an utter f~ti!Ity to ask the Federal Trade Commission to take action. Consequently, it is regrettable that for all practi- cal purposes the industry is without recourse in thls-situatlon. Very truly yours, encls ~ "