Philip Morris - Right or
Wrong?
Con Philip
Morris
From an Associate
Professor of Medicine
From:
Stephen McCurdy, MD MPH
Associate Professor of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine
University of California, Davis School of Medicine
David and folks at The Motley Fool,
I am sending this from a bank of computers at the American Thoracic Society
meeting in San Francisco. This is the premier worldwide medical organization
fighting the tobacco merchants. As you have probably guessed, I am writing
in response to David's May 19th Fool Portfolio piece. I hope that I can convince
you to reconsider your recommendations and view of Philip Morris.
Your rationale, as written in the recap, flies in the face of all you stand
for. Although you note that other companies in the Foolish Four have their
problems with political correctness, there are several distinguishing and
critical differences that uniquely apply to tobacco companies.
For example, the environmental problems associated with GM and International
Paper and other companies are unfortunate side effects of their main business.
They do not set out to harm our health or environment. Granted, they have
fought against regulation to mitigate harm, but their main purpose is not
to cause health or environmental damage.
In contrast, tobacco is the only product that, WHEN USED AS DIRECTED,
substantially harms the wellbeing of users and innocent bystanders. This
harm is both medical and economic. Consider the more than 300,000 lung cancer
deaths among smokers and the tens of thousands of lung cancer and heart disease
deaths among innocent bystanders -- nonsmokers -- attributable to "second-hand
smoke" every year. There are also obvious economic burdens to the smoker
and society due to the medical costs of smoking and associated productivity
loss.
Another distinguishing feature of tobacco companies is that their profitability
is based on addiction. Tobacco companies have lied through their teeth to
avoid responsibility for this, but recently have admitted it and targeting
adolescents with their marketing efforts. (If you don't believe this, look
at the ad for Virginia Slims on page 49 -- if memory serves me! -- of the
recent Time magazine. It shows a teenage-looking model in a bubble bath being
urged to do the grownup *woman* thing ==> smoke.) Tobacco companies must
target teens to replace dying smokers. Yes, over 90% of current smokers got
hooked in their teens.
Lastly, tobacco use represents a direct assault on the Motley Fool's raison
d'etre: it manifestly and substantially interferes with progress toward financial
independence of the smoker. Couple this with the fact that smoking is more
prevalent among those who can least afford it: persons of lower income and
educational status. I can't run the numbers for you here, but you see my
point: How much would the money from a pack-a-day habit come to if redirected
to the stock market over the life of the smoker?
In view of your educational efforts to help people gain control over their
financial lives, I found it hard to believe you would recommend profiting
from a product that so clearly interferes with this goal, predominantly in
those groups least able to afford it, and only because it has addicted them.
Is this not reminiscent of that other great parasitic institution preying
disproportionately on low-income groups--the lottery? You have rightfully
condemned the lottery because of its impact on those least able to afford
it -- how can you then recommend Philip Morris?
I grant you that few companies are so pristine so as not to raise questions
in some quarter about their "political correctness" or social responsibility.
But tobacco merchants are clearly over the line. Can these stocks be recommended?
Only if you don't mind profit that is fundamentally based on addiction and
the medical and economic misery of others. For me the answer is clear.
I hope your readers will devote more thought to this before rushing in to
make a buck. I hope also that you at The Motley Fool will reconsider. You
are teachers, and your influence in society is deservedly great and growing.
With this goes responsibility.
Stephen McCurdy, MD MPH
Associate Professor of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine
University of California, Davis School of Medicine |