Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being spiked to cause addiction?

[jay gw]

On 8 May 1998, the State of Minnesota reached a historic settlement with the tobacco industry. One of the many terms of the settlement which were favourable to public health was the agreement extracted from the tobacco industry to place nearly all the tobacco industry documents produced during the trial discovery proceedings on the public record.

This resulted in some 40 million pages of documents becoming public: 33 million at a document depository in Minnesota and another 7 million at a depository in Guildford, England. The Guildford depository is in the offices of British-American Tobacco (BAT) and is exclusively documents from the operations of BAT and its affiliates.

The flow of previously secret tobacco industry documents into the public domain started as a trickle in 1989 and 1990 at a trial in Montreal.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/documents/Manipulation1.htm

'Impact Booster': Tobacco Firm Shows
How Ammonia Spurs Delivery of Nicotine

Brown & Williamson Papers Claim
Wide Industry Use Of Additive in Cigarettes

Leading U.S. tobacco companies enhance nicotine delivery to smokers by adding ammonia-based compounds to their cigarettes, according to two major internal reports by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

The $45 billion tobacco industry vehemently denies that it seeks to keep smokers hooked by increasing nicotine levels in cigarettes. But the confidential reports obtained by this newspaper indicate that, while cigarette makers may not bolster nicotine content per se, most are adding chemicals that increase the potency of the nicotine a smoker actually inhales.

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1996/na...ks/impact.html


"I am a whistle-blower," he says. "I am notorious. It is a kind of infamy doing what I am doing, isn't that what they say?"

It was never Jeffrey Wigand's ambition to become a central figure in the great social chronicle of the tobacco wars.

In two days Wigand, the former head of research and development (R&D) at the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., will be on the front page of The Wall Street Journal for the second time in a week. Five days from now, he will be on 60 Minutes.

http://www.mariebrenner.com/articles/insider/man1.html
_____

Why didn't the FDA say anything for decades about the genetic manipulation of tobacco and addition of chemicals to cigarettes?

What else does the FDA know about food, beverages and drugs they don't want anyone else to know?

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
What else does the FDA know about food, beverages and drugs they don't want anyone else to know?

They know everything, Jay. Stuff that would make you crap your pants and hide under your bed. They know where you are RIGHT NOW, in fact they're watching you. Be careful, very careful. They're on to you, I tell you this as a friend.

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
The carp is in the pond.

Understand?

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Why didn't the FDA say anything for decades about the genetic manipulation of tobacco and addition of chemicals to cigarettes?

What else does the FDA know about food, beverages and drugs they don't want anyone else to know?

Because the FDA does not regulate cigerettes. Any other questions?

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Because the FDA does not regulate cigerettes. Any other questions?

What Ed said!

It was decided many years ago that cigarettes are not a food, not a drink, and not a drug, therefore they are not subject to FDA regulation. Which is a good thing for the cigarette manufacturers because otherwise they would have been out of a job decades ago.

[Freakshow]

Those awful, evil cigarette companies! Next thing you know, they'll try something really evil and dastardly. Like selling a legal product...

(In case you are wondering: No, I don't smoke. Never have.)

[Brown]

The Supreme Court ruled on the extent of the FDA's jurisdiction in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. This was a 5-4 decision. It is just coincidence that all of the court's smokers agreed that Congress had not given the FDA jurisdiction to regulate cigarettes.

The FDA tried to assert jurisdiction over tobacco under its statutory authority to regulate "drugs," which include "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body," and "devices," which include "an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, ... or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is ... intended to affect the structure or any function of the body." The FDA determined that nicotine was a "drug" and that a cigarette was a "device" that was intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.

The Supreme Court said the FDA was wrong. The logic by which the Court reached this conclusion was, however, rather strange.

The Court observed that the FDA's basic duty was to make products safe and effective for their intended uses. The FDA can regulate any drug or device where the "potential for inflicting death or physical injury is not offset by the possibility of therapeutic benefit," said the Court. But the FDA found that cigarettes have no therapeutic benefit, and cannot be made safe and effective.

Quote:

These findings logically imply that, if tobacco products were "devices" under the FDCA, the FDA would be required to remove them from the market.

The Court seemed to conclude that if the FDA regulated tobacco, it would have no choice but to ban it. And this is something the FDA cannot do, because Congress has determined that tobacco must be legal.

Quote:

"The marketing of tobacco constitutes one of the greatest basic industries of the United States with ramifying activities which directly affect interstate and foreign commerce at every point, and stable conditions therein are necessary to the general welfare."

The Court also engaged in a bit of Congressional mind-reading of dubious validity. In the end, the Court reached a result that was somewhat bizarre: exempting a dangerous product with no redeeming therapeutic benefit from regulation. It is a little eerie to see the Court go into detail as to how bad tobacco is, and then conclude that because tobacco is so bad, it cannot be regulated. The dissent pointed out that the dangerousness of a chemical is an argument for regulation, not against it.

The dissent made some other pretty good points. First, reading the statute actually drafted by Congress, it seemed to the dissent that cigarettes were included:

Quote:

First, tobacco products (including cigarettes) fall within the scope of this statutory definition, read literally. Cigarettes achieve their mood-stabilizing effects through the interaction of the chemical nicotine and the cells of the central nervous system. Both cigarette manufacturers and smokers alike know of, and desire, that chemically induced result. Hence, cigarettes are "intended to affect" the body's "structure" and "function," in the literal sense of these words.

So to conclude, the FDA has no power to regulate tobacco because the Court says so, and the only body that can change that is Congress.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Why didn't the FDA say anything for decades about the genetic manipulation of tobacco and addition of chemicals to cigarettes?

What else does the FDA know about food, beverages and drugs they don't want anyone else to know? [/b]

Any comments on your conspiracy?

[jay gw]

Quote:

It was decided many years ago that cigarettes are not a food, not a drink, and not a drug, therefore they are not subject to FDA regulation.

Were any tobacco companies involved in that legal process?

[Charlie Monoxide]

Isn't tobacco a plant? I know that in Canada a lot of government money (read - yours and mine if you're Canadian) went into agricultural research on tobacco. IIRC back in the 50's and 60's, the tobacco plant was bred to produce more nicotine. I'm sure something similar was happening here, in the good ole USA.

Charlie (excuse me while I put my tinfoil hat on) Monoxide

Full Disclosure: I never smoked (tobacco that is), but I am invested in the Vice Fund.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Were any tobacco companies involved in that legal process?

Even worse - I hear that these days, tobacco company employees are even allowed to vote. Imagine.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
The $45 billion tobacco industry vehemently denies that it seeks to keep smokers hooked by increasing nicotine levels in cigarettes.

Largely because it wouldn't work. The extra nicotine in cigarettes was for a completely different reason.

When someone takes a drug by inhaling, they have a much greater ability to control the dose than if a drug is swallowed or injected. Nicotine, through smoking, is slowly introduced into the bloodstream and the addict smokes as much as he needs to get his fix...and no more.

The extra nicotine came about when cigarette manufacturers were working to make their cigarettes as safe as possible, through low tar, extra filters, etc. If there is a greater amount of nicotine in a cigarette, it does not make the cigarette more addictive (anyone with any knowledge of addiction would laugh at that idea). What it does mean is that someone doesn't have to smoke as many cigarettes to get their fix. So, a smoker might only have to smoke two cigarettes in a smoke break instead of three, for example. They're getting the same amount of nicotine, but they're getting less of the tar and other chemicals in the cigarette which can be very harmful to one's health.

The extra nicotine in cigarettes MADE THEM SAFER.

This is about stuffing government coffers and scoring political points with bad science. Nothing else. It CERTAINLY isn't about the health and well-being of smokers.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
The extra nicotine came about when cigarette manufacturers were working to make their cigarettes as safe as possible, through low tar, extra filters, etc. If there is a greater amount of nicotine in a cigarette, it does not make the cigarette more addictive (anyone with any knowledge of addiction would laugh at that idea). What it does mean is that someone doesn't have to smoke as many cigarettes to get their fix. So, a smoker might only have to smoke two cigarettes in a smoke break instead of three, for example. They're getting the same amount of nicotine, but they're getting less of the tar and other chemicals in the cigarette which can be very harmful to one's health.

The extra nicotine in cigarettes MADE THEM SAFER.

That only works if the smoker stops after smoking the smaller number of stronger cigarettes. If he or she doesn't realize this, and lights up their traditional number out of habit, they will be getting more of the bad stuff and will eventually require the increased dosage to curb the appetite.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
That only works if the smoker stops after smoking the smaller number of stronger cigarettes. If he or she doesn't realize this, and lights up their traditional number out of habit, they will be getting more of the bad stuff and will eventually require the increased dosage to curb the appetite.

They don't have to realize it mentally. They smoke until the desire to keep smoking stops. That'll stop much earlier with more potent cigarettes.

[Santa666]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
They don't have to realize it mentally. They smoke until the desire to keep smoking stops. That'll stop much earlier with more potent cigarettes.

There is something fundamentally wrong here, I just know it. Smokers require a "fix". Said "fix" can be reached with fewer cigarettes, thus, making them "safer". Tragic monkey implies smokers might just smoke more cigarettes and this may increase how much nicotine they need to get their "fix" and shanek replies with the above. Is shanek implying that the amount of nicotine for each smoker to reach his/her fix is a set amount that never changes. That EVERYONE who starts smoking will automatically smoke a particular number of cigarettes (the magical number to reach their fix) and no more. Surely, he is not implying such nonsense. Surely he knows that the amount of nicotine each person who smokes needs can increase and decrease, AND, if each cigarette contains more nicotine then it is certainly possible (and I would guess likely) it would require more and more nicotine to acheive a "fix" as more and more nicotine is ingested.

Am I way off base here? Maybe I am. Someone feel free to put in my place if I am wrong.


Looking for naughty and nice people,

Santa

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Santa666
There is something fundamentally wrong here, I just know it. Smokers require a "fix". Said "fix" can be reached with fewer cigarettes, thus, making them "safer". Tragic monkey implies smokers might just smoke more cigarettes and this may increase how much nicotine they need to get their "fix" and shanek replies with the above. Is shanek implying that the amount of nicotine for each smoker to reach his/her fix is a set amount that never changes.

Of course not. I'm just saying that it doesn't have anything to do with the amount of nicotine in any particular cigarette.

Quote:

Surely he knows that the amount of nicotine each person who smokes needs can increase and decrease,

Of course; but again, that isn't dependent on the cigarette itself. The rate of intake of the nicotine is just too slow, and the introduction in the blood stream too fast, to really make any difference.

Quote:

AND, if each cigarette contains more nicotine then it is certainly possible (and I would guess likely) it would require more and more nicotine to acheive a "fix" as more and more nicotine is ingested.

Increases in drug intake to satisfy a fix has to do with the person developing a tolerance to that level of the drug. There's no reason to believe that the cigarette itself affects that in any way.

[Whoracle]

I'm by no means an addiction expert here but why would Tobacco companies do something that in theory is suppossed to cause people to buy less of their product? These people are as dirty and underhanded as it gets, so it's not like they give a rats ass about the health of the people taking their product.

[DragonLady]

I've been a smoker for nearly 25 years, so I'll weigh in here.

You're both right.

Each smoker has an "optimum" nicotine level, and will stop smoking when that level is reached.

But, most smokers will finish a cigarette they've already lit, will smoke if someone else is smoking, will smoke after a meal or a snack...and will smoke at the slightest hint of stress; even if they've already reached their optimum level. And the next day, they're optimum level will be just a tiny bit highter. Every "extra" cigarette causes the bar to raise for the next week or longer.

So, they slowly raise the bar. It may take years to escalate from ten cigarettes a day to 20 or more, but it will slowly happen. And if the cigarettes also have an escalating amount of nicotine, then it becomes harder and harder to revert to an earlier level.

If a person starts out smoking "light" cigarettes, and finds themselves smoking two packs every day, they'll move up to regular strength cigarettes, and smoke one pack every day...for awhile. Then, it will be a pack and a half, then finally two packs again.

So far as the hospital, it seems like they could've found someone to take him outside. Even the most die-hard smoker can handle having to cut back to three or four a day; but even the most casual smoker panics at the prospect of not being able to smoke at all.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
I'm by no means an addiction expert here but why would Tobacco companies do something that in theory is suppossed to cause people to buy less of their product?

Because they can make more money by advertising a safer product (back then, they were actually allowed to do that. Imagine!). That would increase the quantity sold because they would be getting business for their competitors.

Quote:

These people are as dirty and underhanded as it gets, so it's not like they give a rats ass about the health of the people taking their product.

Oh, well, as long as you're not biased or anything...

[Freakshow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
These people are as dirty and underhanded as it gets, so it's not like they give a rats ass about the health of the people taking their product.

Are they supposed to? It is an individual's job to care about their health. Not a company selling a product that everyone knows is dangerous. It's not like it is some big secret that smoking is bad for you...

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by DragonLady
But, most smokers will finish a cigarette they've already lit,

I've never smoked, but that isn't what I've observed with the smokers I know, and I've known a lot. I see them put out cigarettes all the time that are less than half-burned.

Quote:

If a person starts out smoking "light" cigarettes, and finds themselves smoking two packs every day, they'll move up to regular strength cigarettes, and smoke one pack every day...for awhile. Then, it will be a pack and a half, then finally two packs again.

But, as you point out, that level is already escalating before switching to the stronger cigarette. And they d0 indeed cut back once they go on the stronger ones. There's just no evidence that increasing the amount of nicotine causes cigarettes to become more addictive.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Freakshow
Are they supposed to? It is an individual's job to care about their health. Not a company selling a product that everyone knows is dangerous. It's not like it is some big secret that smoking is bad for you...

Exactly. They aren't devils trying to undermine the health of Americans. They're businessmen trying to deliver a product that people want. Anything else is just Socialist whining to try and get people to give the government more power.

[Whoracle]

I never said they should be illegal or anything. I'm not biased, anybody with a brain knows these companies are sleazy. I'm just saying lets not pretend they are trying to help anyone. No they don't have to help anyone, but again lets not act like they are trying to.

[WildCat]

I just don't want an unelected, unaccountable government agency having the power to essentially outlaw (and let's face it, to require a "safe" cigarette means no cigarette) an otherwise legal product. If Congress wants to do it, fine. But don't delegate such authority to the FDA. That the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not Congress intended to have the FDA regulate tobacco is patently ridiculous. Congress isn't dead! If that's what they wanted, they sure as hell can say so. My $.02

[Freakshow]

Only slightly off topic...

Do you know what North Carolina did with some of the money they got from the settlement with the tobacco companies?

They are giving it to...TOBACCO FARMERS!!! Now here is the kicker...do you know WHY they are doing this? Because...less people are smoking!!! So the tobacco farmers are getting hit. So NC (and other states) sues the tobacco companies...because they (the states) say tobacco is bad, and they want people to smoke less. They get a huge settlement. And since people are smoking less...they pay tobacco farmers to help make up the difference! WTF??!?!?

Make up your minds!!! Do you want people to smoke less, or not?

And some of my more pro-government friends can't figure out why I have lost all faith (never had much to begin with) in government...

[SezMe]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Nicotine, through smoking, is slowly introduced into the bloodstream ....

This didn't sound right to me so a bit of googling found
this

Quote:

Most tobacco products deliver nicotine to the brain rapidly and effectively, bringing on the quick onset and maintenance of addiction

and this (in response to some later shanek assertions:

Quote:

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, stress and anxiety affect nicotine tolerance and dependence. Corticosterone reduces the effects on nicotine; so more nicotine must be consumed to achieve the same effect. This increases tolerance to nicotine and leads to increased dependence.

Both this seem to contradict your assertions.

[Santa666]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
I just don't want an unelected, unaccountable government agency having the power to essentially outlaw (and let's face it, to require a "safe" cigarette means no cigarette) an otherwise legal product. If Congress wants to do it, fine. But don't delegate such authority to the FDA. That the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not Congress intended to have the FDA regulate tobacco is patently ridiculous. Congress isn't dead! If that's what they wanted, they sure as hell can say so. My $.02

I have to question the statement that you do not want an unelected, unaccountable government agency outlawing an otherwise legal product. Isn't that exactly what the FDA does when they require a product be pulled from the shelves? Or even when they deem a product unworthy to be sold to the public? The products are otherwise legal, but are considered unsafe, unheathly, or found to have a detrimental enough side effect that they then cannot be sold. If the Supreme Court wishes to remove tobacco from the jurisdiction of the FDA, then so be it, however, simply stating the FDA has no business at all regulating an otherwise legal substance such tabacco/nicotine if they determine said product is unsafe for public use just does not seem to make sense.

Now if you wish you argue that the FDA should not have such jurisdiction in the first place; that is an entirely different argument.

Spreading good tidings and evil,

Santa

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Santa666
I have to question the statement that you do not want an unelected, unaccountable government agency outlawing an otherwise legal product. Isn't that exactly what the FDA does when they require a product be pulled from the shelves? Or even when they deem a product unworthy to be sold to the public? The products are otherwise legal, but are considered unsafe, unheathly, or found to have a detrimental enough side effect that they then cannot be sold. If the Supreme Court wishes to remove tobacco from the jurisdiction of the FDA, then so be it, however, simply stating the FDA has no business at all regulating an otherwise legal substance such tabacco/nicotine if they determine said product is unsafe for public use just does not seem to make sense.

Now if you wish you argue that the FDA should not have such jurisdiction in the first place; that is an entirely different argument.

Spreading good tidings and evil,

Santa

No, not at all. Nobody is smoking tobacco because they think it will cure or treat some disease. And many treatments that existed before the existence of the FDA are completely exempt from their regulations. Epsom salts can make any wild claim they want on their label, because it was around long before the FDA.

The whole push to get the FDA to "regulate" tobacco is to get them to do something that Congress will not, ban tobacco.

[Santa666]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
No, not at all. Nobody is smoking tobacco because they think it will cure or treat some disease. And many drugs that existed before the existence of the FDA are completely exempt from their regulations. Aspirin, for example, even though it can cause severe problems in some people, including death.

The whole push to get the FDA to "regulate" tobacco is to get them to do something that Congress will not, ban tobacco.

Perhaps I do not understand. There are items on the market today that would fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA, but are exempt from their regulations? Using aspirin as you did, you are telling me the FDA has absolutely no control over the aspirin market. If it was determined that aspirin caused cancer is say, well how about roughly 10% of its users, would the FDA pull it off the market. I cannot say for sure YES, but I would guess absolutely, without question.

If I am wrong here and there are indeed items immune to the authority of the FDA, when normally they should fall under its guidelines, please point to the proper references. I would be very interested in finding out.


Almost to 50 posts so I can use my avatar,

Santa

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
I'm just saying lets not pretend they are trying to help anyone.

They are trying to help people: they're trying to help people get what they want at a price that's agreeable to them. If what they want are safer cigarettes, they'll deliver them, as long as government gets out of the way of course.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Freakshow
Only slightly off topic...

Do you know what North Carolina did with some of the money they got from the settlement with the tobacco companies?

They are giving it to...TOBACCO FARMERS!!!

And you expected, what? Tobacco is a huge lobby here. And most of the politicians are from the eastern part of the state, where the tobacco is grown.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by SezMe
This didn't sound right to me

You're right; I misspoke there. I corrected it later.

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Santa666
Perhaps I do not understand. There are items on the market today that would fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA, but are exempt from their regulations? Using aspirin as you did, you are telling me the FDA has absolutely no control over the aspirin market. If it was determined that aspirin caused cancer is say, well how about roughly 10% of its users, would the FDA pull it off the market. I cannot say for sure YES, but I would guess absolutely, without question.

If I am wrong here and there are indeed items immune to the authority of the FDA, when normally they should fall under its guidelines, please point to the proper references. I would be very interested in finding out.


Almost to 50 posts so I can use my avatar,

Santa

I'm not sure about aspirin, I edited my post to reflect that but you quoted me first. Very early here, My brain isn't up to speed yet, though there's probably some here who would say it never has been.

eta: Now as my neurons start to awake, I think that the FDA exemptions have to do w/ labeling, and claims made on the labels, which is why you see some very odd claims made on labels of epsom salts,for example.

[Freakshow]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
And you expected, what? Tobacco is a huge lobby here. And most of the politicians are from the eastern part of the state, where the tobacco is grown.

What did I "expect"? I expected the same thing I always expect from anything involving government: incompetence, corruption, idiocy, fraud, waste, scheming, and lots of other similar words that I don't feel like bothing to list right now.

Why would I expect anything else of government?

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Freakshow
What did I "expect"? I expected the same thing I always expect from anything involving government: incompetence, corruption, idiocy, fraud, waste, scheming, and lots of other similar words that I don't feel like bothing to list right now.

Why would I expect anything else of government?

Sounds right to me!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by DragonLady
I've been a smoker for nearly 25 years, so I'll weigh in here.

You're both right.

Each smoker has an "optimum" nicotine level, and will stop smoking when that level is reached.

But, most smokers will finish a cigarette they've already lit, will smoke if someone else is smoking, will smoke after a meal or a snack...and will smoke at the slightest hint of stress; even if they've already reached their optimum level. And the next day, they're optimum level will be just a tiny bit highter. Every "extra" cigarette causes the bar to raise for the next week or longer.

So, they slowly raise the bar. It may take years to escalate from ten cigarettes a day to 20 or more, but it will slowly happen. And if the cigarettes also have an escalating amount of nicotine, then it becomes harder and harder to revert to an earlier level.

If a person starts out smoking "light" cigarettes, and finds themselves smoking two packs every day, they'll move up to regular strength cigarettes, and smoke one pack every day...for awhile. Then, it will be a pack and a half, then finally two packs again.

So far as the hospital, it seems like they could've found someone to take him outside. Even the most die-hard smoker can handle having to cut back to three or four a day; but even the most casual smoker panics at the prospect of not being able to smoke at all.

To summarize: Shanek is wrong. Yet again.

[Whoracle]

Quote:

They are trying to help people: they're trying to help people get what they want at a price that's agreeable to them. If what they want are safer cigarettes, they'll deliver them, as long as government gets out of the way of course.

If you're suicidal and I offer to sell a bullet to your head am I helping you by giving you want you want at an agreeable price? They aren't making safer ciggarettes. They are trying to get people more addicted so they buy more. I'm not saying it should be illegal or anything but lets just call a spade a spade here.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
They aren't making safer ciggarettes.

They were until the government stepped in.

Quote:

They are trying to get people more addicted so they buy more.

There's just no evidence of that watsoever. Their product is already addictive, and they already have plenty of addicts buying them. There's no evidence that they even need to do that, or that it would be to their benefit at all for even trying.

This is a conspiracy theory, nothing more.

[Whoracle]

Quote:

There's just no evidence of that watsoever. Their product is already addictive, and they already have plenty of addicts buying them. There's no evidence that they even need to do that, or that it would be to their benefit at all for even trying.

What do you mean no evidence? They are putting more of an addictive substance into their product. What kind of retarded logic is they already have enough customers? What company wouldn't want more customers? Or their existing ones to buy more of their product? That makes no sense.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
What do you mean no evidence? They are putting more of an addictive substance into their product.

That is not evidence of your claim. I have already debunked that.

Quote:

What kind of retarded logic is they already have enough customers? What company wouldn't want more customers?

Ah, yes, nice strawman.

What would they have profited if they take measures to try and gain more business if they would lose the extra money gained to bad publicity and lawsuits?

[Whoracle]

Earlier you said they were putting more nicotine in only you claim to make them safer. As for more business, they'll always want more business. Many companies will go ahead and do something knowing full well they will get sued because the extra money will be worth it even factoring in litigation over it.