We've all seen this infamous video clip before, where the seven tobacco company executives each state in succession that they don't believe nicotine is addictive:
For over 20 years it's been held up as an incontrovertible example of evil Big tobacco's willingness to lie without compunction to the American people and even to Congress itself. But were they even lying? Or were they giving an accurate answer to a question that was poorly worded? The question, after all, was not "Do you believe cigarettes are addictive?" or "Do you believe tobacco is addictive?" It was "Do you believe nicotine is addictive?"
I think it's safe to call the second guy a liar and a perjurer, because he prefaces his "no" answer by specifying that he's referring to "cigarettes and nicotine." But the rest of them simply state some version of "I believe that nicotine is not addictive." Given what we've learned since then about the virtual impossibility of nicotine inducing dependence in tobacco-naive individuals, is it fair to still call these dudes liars for giving what was probably an honest and truthful answer to the question that was actually posed to them?
Disclaimer: Please don't accuse me of "defending tobacco companies" or some such nonsense. I am doing no such thing. I'm bringing this up because I think it's a specific example of a generally unquestioned bit of conventional wisdom ("tobacco companies lied to Congress about cigarettes being addictive") that may very well be wrong because it's based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation. It seems to me that what actually happened here was that the tobacco execs understood the question better than the guy who asked it.
For over 20 years it's been held up as an incontrovertible example of evil Big tobacco's willingness to lie without compunction to the American people and even to Congress itself. But were they even lying? Or were they giving an accurate answer to a question that was poorly worded? The question, after all, was not "Do you believe cigarettes are addictive?" or "Do you believe tobacco is addictive?" It was "Do you believe nicotine is addictive?"
I think it's safe to call the second guy a liar and a perjurer, because he prefaces his "no" answer by specifying that he's referring to "cigarettes and nicotine." But the rest of them simply state some version of "I believe that nicotine is not addictive." Given what we've learned since then about the virtual impossibility of nicotine inducing dependence in tobacco-naive individuals, is it fair to still call these dudes liars for giving what was probably an honest and truthful answer to the question that was actually posed to them?
Disclaimer: Please don't accuse me of "defending tobacco companies" or some such nonsense. I am doing no such thing. I'm bringing this up because I think it's a specific example of a generally unquestioned bit of conventional wisdom ("tobacco companies lied to Congress about cigarettes being addictive") that may very well be wrong because it's based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation. It seems to me that what actually happened here was that the tobacco execs understood the question better than the guy who asked it.
They could do a TV series and it would last longer than the Simpsons - and likely even funnier. 
... said this @27:00 - "on the question of the addictive properties.....[this is where he suggests the psychological factor I mentioned] ..in the case of nicotine patches, you get a potentially high dose of nicotine in a product that is not addictive.... people are not 'breaking into' pharmacies to steal patches. 
