Letter: Addicted to nicotine

Martin Jarvis
Wednesday 18 February 1998 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

HUGH THOMSON talks about smokers trying to shift the blame on to those who supplied what they wanted (letter, 18 February). But the tobacco industry cannot escape responsibility for its products and load it all on to smokers.

People who smoke want nicotine, but they get cigarettes. The great majority of smoking-related disease is caused by tar, not nicotine. The cigarette is an extraordinarily dirty delivery system for the drug nicotine.

Tobacco companies have a duty to their consumers to supply a product fit for its purpose. That purpose is to satisfy nicotine addiction, not to cause smoking-related disease. Up to now, the tobacco industry has manifestly failed to reduce the hazards of cigarettes.

Because of the constraint on choice imposed by addiction, it is hard to argue that smoking is an activity freely undertaken, and that smokers thereby assume responsibility for the consequences. Leaving addiction aside, the manufacturer is still responsible for the product. When mineral water was found to be contaminated with trace amounts of benzene, far lower than those routinely delivered by cigarettes, it was withdrawn from sale until the problem was rectified.

MARTIN JARVIS

Imperial Cancer Research Fund

London WC2

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in