2007Reynoldsmeeting

Activists come to the meetings out of a moral conviction, because they care about LIFE. Life is important. Choice is important, and there is NO choice where addiction is concerned.

The tobacco industry is about DEATH and ADDICTION and the MONEY and POWER tobacco brings them over LIVES and NATIONS.

The money tobacco companies make can be used to infiltrate the economies of all nations of the world and dominate and control the lives and economies of the people within those countries. The motto of Philip Morris, after all, is "We came, we saw, we conquered."

Is it "evil" to continue to manufacture and market and promote products which you admit will addict and sicken and ultimately kill those who use these products, as well as their unborn, as well as those around them, as well as the environment? The answer is YES, it is evil -- it is immoral -- it is unethical -- it is wrong -- it is anti-life.

This is unhealthy, wrong, immoral, and destroys families, cultures, and the environment. It eliminates land for farming food and growing forests. Wildlife, the soil, rivers, and ground water are all contaminated and destroyed by the runoff from tobacco factories, and by the chemicals used in growing tobacco. The field and factory workers may be damaged through their contact with nicotine and the chemicals in the growing and the manufacturing process, and the radioactivity in the tobacco leaves.

Responsible companies in the past have withdrawn or canceled their products which caused illness or death. But not the tobacco companies. Indeed, when activists in 2007 asked in a resolution to Philip Morris/Altria and in a question to Reynolds American that these tobacco companies be responsible and stop the addiction and deaths by ceasing their manufacture and marketing of tobacco products, this was refused absolutely by both companies.

A court of law (US Judge Gladys Kessler, August, 2006) has already found them guilty of deceiving the public and their consumers, and of violating racketeering laws. Philip Morris/Altria and Reynolds American -- tobacco companies -- are adjudicated racketeers.

And now the tobacco executives and their companies are seeking to rent even more scientists to make it appear that they want to lessen the destruction of the tobacco products.

They also are renting former health spokespersons to help legislate a rating of tobacco products as to which product will kill the consumer more slowly.

Someday, in a court somewhere, tobacco executives will be judged for all their crimes

In the meantime, the activists come to speak out against the immorality and evil of the tobacco industry, and to work for justice, for life.

"... So 2006 was a year in which Reynolds American continued to build on its success and fortify its foundation for long-term growth.

... So -- as an employee and a shareholder -- I'm delighted to say that Reynolds American's business model is driving growth and delivering results.

[Editor's Note: In order to drive growth and deliver results, i.e., more profit for the company and shareholders, more people must buy the products, become addicted, and die. Success for Reynolds American is built on the addiction and death of its consumers.]

    So that's what we're achieving. Now, let's look at how we operate. What I'd like to focus on for the next few minutes is the philosophical foundation for Reynolds American's success.

    Reynolds American is committed to building value through responsible growth. And I emphasize the word 'responsible' because we take that very seriously in terms of the products our companies manufacture and market, and in terms of the social, legal and political environments within which they operate.

    Reynolds American's scorecard for 2006 includes significant achievements stemming from our core commitment to responsible growth:
    * We continue to fulfill our commitment to shareholders by delivering superior returns on their investments;
    * We enhanced our commitment to corporate citizenship, with RJ. Reynolds holding dialogues with key stakeholders, and our companies, and their customers.

[Editor's Note: "Key stakeholders" are not listed.]

    Last year, our company, and the industry, saw continued progress in the external environment. On the legal front, the environment continued to improve with favorable developments in the Engle, DOJ [US Department of Justice], and lights class-action cases. In fact, we recently received the refund of our $100 million Engle bond.

[Editor's Note: This overlooks the fact the in the DOJ case, they were found to have lied to their consumers and the public, to have distorted science for their own purposes, and to be adjudicated racketeers.]

    And we're working to make meaningful progress in the regulatory arena, as well.

    As you know, Congress introduced bills in February that would give the FDA [US Food and Drug Administration] control of the domestic tobacco industry. And the Senate held a hearing on this proposal. The legislation that was introduced this year is basically the same legislation that's been repeatedly rejected for the past decade. And, interestingly, the FDA commissioner is among those who have voiced opposition to the current proposals.

    As we said when these bills were introduced, we continue to believe that the time has come for government, industry and others to work together to resolve the contentious issues surrounding the use and marketing of tobacco products. We welcome the opportunity for broad-based discussion to determine effective public policy. And we remain hopeful that objective, good-faith discussions can lead to a reasonable and realistic national regulatory structure.

    Our position is clear. As we've stated before:
       * We would support legislation under which tobacco products remain legal, consumer-acceptable and regulated in a reasonable and consistent manner;
       * We would support legislation that permits effective competition, allows for communication and interaction with adult tobacco users regarding their brand choices, and which further minimizes exposure of minors to tobacco marketing; and
        * We would oppose legislation that does not include these provisions or which provides any of our competitors with an unfair advantage.

    And we hope we can make progress on this front this year.

    Our position concerning the FDA bills, as well as our positions concerning smoking bans and other efforts at the state and local levels, are governed by a set of core principles and beliefs that guide the way we conduct our business.

    Our Guiding Principles and Beliefs detail our commitment to operate our businesses in a responsible manner that best balances the desires of our many stakeholders. And they provide a framework that guides our actions in five areas that are critical to both our company and our society:

       * Tobacco Use and Health;
       * Tobacco Regulation;
       * Tobacco Consumers;
       * Harm Reduction; and
       * Marketing and Communication.

    As you'll see, our Guiding Principles and Beliefs closely align with the beliefs and interests of our society as a whole.

[Editor's Note: This is not really true, but Reynolds is not known for truth.]

    Let's start by looking at Tobacco Use and Health.

   First, and foremost, we believe that:

    * 'Smoking causes serious disease.'

    Most scientists and public health officials believe that smoking is THE biggest public health threat in our society today. But most of them also agree that prohibition is not the solution. So here's the dilemma we continue to face: How do we minimize the potential for public harm while preserving the rights of adults to enjoy the pleasures that some find in tobacco?

    That question has arisen time and again in every part of the world for hundreds of years. There are no easy answers. But our guiding principles and beliefs represent a rational, reasonable, and responsible approach to balancing both sides.

[Editor's Note:   Actually, there is a simple answer. If you know that the product you are making is addictive, and you know that it hurts and kills people who use it, you could do the responsible, moral, and health-considerate thing, and stop making an addictive lethal product. Also, the issue of prohibition has been distorted by the tobacco industry, just as they have, according to a court of law, distorted scientific facts.]

    So in terms of Tobacco Use and Health, we share the beliefs voiced by many scientists and policy advocates regarding public health.

[Editor's Note: Are those scientists and policy advocates referred to ones that have been rented by Reynolds?]

    We believe that:

* 'Smoking causes serious disease.'

[Editor's Note: Now there's a no-brainer. It also causes suffering, death, gum disease, loss of teeth, wrinkles, bad breath, etc., death being the most serious of all. Note that she does not talk about the use of smokeless tobacco and the cancers and illness and death it causes. Ask yourself why.]

We believe that:

*'Nicotine in tobacco products is addictive but is not considered a significant threat to health.'

[Editor's Note: At this point, Anne Morrow Donley laughed out loud, because, she said later to colleagues, it was so absolutely ridiculous, and such a lie. Death is a very significant threat to health, and nicotine kills. Dictionary definitions of nicotine and the use of nicotine over many years as an insecticide all tout it as a poison -- it kills. In tobacco products, it addicts and kills. Tobacco leaves are also radioactive.

Apparently, it was Antonio Monteiro de Castro -- one of the Board Members of Reynolds American, and with the Brazilian subsidiary of BAT (British American Tobacco owns about 45% of Reynolds American) -- who then stood up, turned around and glared at Anne Morrow Donley, who was sitting two rows behind the Board Members.]

[Further Editor's Note:
Please Note: At this 2007 Reynolds American shareholder meeting on May 11, 2007, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, as CEO Susan Ivey listed a set of "Beliefs", one of which begins, "We believe that nicotine is addictive ..." the company lawyers were demanding a mental health exam be given to an RJR customer who states she was addicted to RJR cigarettes which contain nicotine.]

We believe that:

* 'No tobacco product has been shown to be safe.'

[Editor's Note: But they still manufacture, market, promote, and defend their tobacco products in courts of law.]

And we believe that:

* 'An individual's level of risk for serious disease is significantly affected by the type of tobacco product used as well as the manner and frequency of use.'

[Editor's Note: This is a very dangerous statement, and should send chills down the spines of everyone concerned about life and health.]

These principles inform, and form the foundation for, the rest of our beliefs. So let's look at what we believe in terms of Tobacco Regulation. As I've already noted, we believe that:

* 'Tobacco products should be regulated in a reasonable and consistent manner, and they should remain legal and consumer-acceptable. The prohibition, in any form, of tobacco products is neither practical nor desirable.'

We believe that:

* 'Communication and interaction with adult tobacco users regarding their brand choices is essential for effective competition.'

And we believe that:

* 'Resolving the long-standing controversies regarding the marketing and use of tobacco products in an open and objective manner is critical to establishing an acceptable and cooperative environment for all.'

Finally, regarding Tobacco Regulation, we believe that:

* 'Smoking restrictions should exempt adult venues such as bars and taverns.'

[Editor's Note:   See below.]

    I want to talk about that last one for a minute because I think it exemplifies the balanced and responsible approach that Reynolds American takes concerning the core issues that affect our businesses.

[Editor's Note:   Do responsible businesses continue to addict and kill their consumers, and never apologize, but only blame the victim?]

    We recognize and respect the fact that many people prefer to work, shop, and dine in smoke-free environments. And we believe that people should rely on the conclusions of the Surgeon General and other health authorities when making any decisions regarding smoking and health.

[Editor's Note:   Notice that not once, not once, does Susan Ivey say that Reynolds American or RJ. Reynolds or any other part of the company "believes" that secondhand smoke causes serious disease. Not once.]

    So that brings us back to the tobacco dilemma: How do we minimize the potential for public harm while preserving the rights of adults to enjoy the pleasures that some find in tobacco?

[Editor's Note: "Some" -- and the others smoke or chew or whatever, why?]

    In our opinion, the best way to do that is to make sure that any proposals to restrict or ban smoking provide for common-sense exemptions that allow the owners of bars, taverns, and other age-restricted venues the choice to set their own smoking policy.

[Editor's Note:   Owners of bars, taverns, restaurants, etc. must obey many health laws and regulations. Washing the hands after using the toilet is not left to the whim of the owner, but it is a health regulation. Refrigerating the chicken salad is not left to the whim of the owner.

Banning smoking is done to protect people from the deadly toxic fumes of secondhand smoke. Also, many restaurants have ABC licenses, so they might have a bar within the restaurant, which might make them an "adult venue" or divide the building into smoking and no-smoking, but smoke does not read signs and travels. So is Reynolds hoping to make everyone -- smokers and nonsmokers -- a smoker, first hand or secondhand?]

    We do not oppose legislative proposals that ban smoking in offices, shopping centers, restaurants, and other unrestricted areas. But we do believe that age-restricted venues where adults gather to enjoy age-restricted products, like alcohol, should also permit adults to enjoy other age-restricted products, like tobacco, if that's the wish of the establishment's owner. Banning the use of a legal age-restricted product in age-restricted establishments infringes on adult choice, and quite frankly, defies common sense.

[Editor's Note: Please see above. Common sense is not something most people associate with tobacco companies. Wouldn't common sense suggest that companies should not make products which kill their customers when those products are used as intended?]

    And that brings us to our Guiding Principles and Beliefs concerning Tobacco Consumers.

[Editor's Note:   "Beliefs", not documented facts, but "Beliefs". These words are from an adjudicated racketeer.
Consider also the lack of compassion for consumers -- our product may kill you, and we'll never say we're sorry, and we won't stop making addictive and lethal products.]

As I said, we believe that:

* 'Individuals should rely on the conclusions of the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control, and other public health and medical officials when making decisions regarding smoking.'

[Editor's Note: Would you say that naturally every child and adult considers this before buying the shiny packages of the addictive and lethal tobacco products? Would you say that if the manufacturer makes it, and the government allows them to sell it, there is an unspoken stamp of government and health approval on the products in the minds of many would-be consumers?]

We further believe that:

* 'The best course of action for tobacco users concerned about their health is to quit.'

[Editor's Note: Even better for the health of people, animals, bees, and other living things, would be for the tobacco manufacturers to quit making and marketing tobacco products. Perhaps they are addicted to money and power?]

That:

* 'Minors should never use tobacco products, and adults who do not use or have quit using tobacco products should not start.'

And that:

* Adults who smoke should avoid exposing minors to secondhand smoke."

[Editor's Note: What about exposing other adults to secondhand smoke, including employees of offices, restaurants, bars, etc.?]

    Our beliefs in this area are consistent with the beliefs of our society as a whole.

[Editor's Note:   This overlooks, for example, not exposing employees and other adults to smoke. Judge Gladys Kessler in 2006 noted that Reynolds, and the other tobacco companies in the lawsuit, had lied to their consumers and to the public, and all appearances would make it seem that they continue to lie.]

And we are committed to operating our businesses in a manner that is consistent with these beliefs. Which brings us to the issue of Harm Reduction.

    Reynolds American and its operating companies believe that:

* 'Decreasing the health risks and harm directly associated with the use of tobacco products is in everyone's best interest.'

[Editor's Note:   The best way to reduce the health risks is to eliminate the nicotine and the carcinogens and the nitrosamines, and the ammonia, and the radioactivity, and more simply, just stop making and marketing and promoting the deadly tobacco products.]

    We believe that:

    * 'Manufacturers, working in conjunction with governments, public health authorities, and tobacco producers, should strive to reduce the harm caused by the use of tobacco products.'

[Editor's Note: The best way to reduce the harm caused by the use of tobacco products is to stop making and marketing the tobacco products. A no-brainer for anyone with moral convictions.]

    That:

* 'Public policy should encourage the development of tobacco products that reduce harm or relative risk of serious disease.'

[Editor's Note: Again, the manufacturer is talking about public policy, and not talking about how responsibility begins with the manufacturer, who could cease making addictive and lethal products which addict and kill when used as intended. The sheer arrogance of these statements is appalling.]

And that:

* 'Public policy should require population -- and science-based standards that allow for consistent, accurate and verified communication about reduced harm and the relative risks of tobacco products.'

[Editor's Note: This would apparently allow them untold harm in litigation, marketing, and life in general. Also, the judge in 2006 noted that they had distorted science for their own purposes. Why should we think they have changed their ways when they still make products that addict and kill?]

We further believe that:

* 'Adult tobacco consumers should have access to a range of tobacco, nicotine, and cessation products, and should be given information in order to make an informed choice on the relative risks of each product.'

[Editor's Note:   And they are apparently ready to sell you every one of these.]

    Adults should have the right to make informed choices about the risks they do or do not want to take. And we believe that the manufacturers of products that present health risks have a responsibility to help the government provide the public with the information necessary to make informed choices.

[Editor's Note:   Note the use of the words "products that present health risks" -- as in killing you. Not as in, be careful how you use this ladder and don't fall off of it. But that tobacco products will addict and kill you if you use them as intended to be used. This statement would apparently seek to remove the responsibility from the shoulders and back of the manufacturers and instead blame the victim for using the product.]

    Which brings me to the fifth and final area of our Guiding Principles and Beliefs -- Marketing and Communication. I think the points I've already made should clarify why we are guided by the following beliefs.

    We believe that:

* 'Marketing standards for tobacco products should minimize the exposure of minors to tobacco advertising, be consistent with constitutional protections and provide information allowing adults to make an informed choice.'

[Editor's Note: "Informed choice" -- Addiction is not an informed choice.]

We believe:

* 'Public policy should allow communication of the relative risks of tobacco products and encourage tobacco users to switch to lower-risk products.'

[Editor's Note: Are they suggesting that they would want to sell you both the tough stuff that kills you immediately and the softer stuff that kills you next week?]

And finally, we believe that:

* 'Preferential treatment (in terms of labeling, adult consumer communication, tax rates, etc.) should be given to tobacco products or categories established through scientific evaluation to be significantly less harmful than other available tobacco products or categories.'

[Editor's Note:   They want you to buy their smokeless tobacco which causes pancreatic cancer, cancers of the mouth, but may not give you lung cancer. This is less harmful?]

    I'd like to spend just a minute talking about the basis for these beliefs -- and why we're convinced that they must play a central role in any legislation that might be proposed.

    RJ. Reynolds has a long, well-documented history of efforts to develop products that present smokers with less risk. But one thing that has hampered the company, and others who share this commitment to harm reduction, is the lack of clear, consistent standards to judge and communicate the relative risk of tobacco products.

[Editor's Note:   RJ. Reynolds has refused to make RIP [Reduced Ignition Propensity] cigarettes for any consumers except those living in states where the law requires this. See the question regarding this at the meeting.]

    Let me give you an example. There's a large and growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that we could achieve major strides in public health if smokers who don't want to quit -- or believe they can't quit -- would switch to noncombustible tobacco products like moist snuff or snus.

[Editor's Note:   Again, smokeless tobacco is higher in radioactivity than are cigarettes, cause cancer, and is dangerous to the user's gums and teeth and throat.]

    But a lack of clear standards to judge and communicate potential benefits of making that switch prevents our companies from providing adult smokers with the facts they need to make an informed choice. And it prevents tobacco companies -- and the government -- from providing them with incentives to try to switch.

    We strongly support informed choice as a bedrock of responsible public policy. And an increasing number of scientists and health officials are also coming to believe that consumers deserve access to information that helps them make informed choices concerning tobacco products and their use.

[Editor's Note:   Again, once the product is used, addiction takes over, and there is no such thing as "informed choice" where tobacco products are concerned. If Reynolds is so concerned over the health of their customers, why don't they stop making tobacco products? Other responsible companies have pulled their product lines when just a few people have become ill or died. But not Reynolds.]

    So I repeat the point I made when I began this presentation of Reynolds American's Guiding Principles and Beliefs: We welcome the opportunity for broad-based discussion to determine effective public policy. And we remain hopeful that we can make meaningful progress in this regard.

[Editor's Note:   "Broad based discussion" may well refer to the renting of scientists and the renting of former health officials and personnel.]

    So that gives you a good idea of how Reynolds American is doing and how we're achieving results. At this meeting last year, I told you that 2006 was already shaping up to be another exciting year at Reynolds American. Looking back, I think you'll agree that it was even more exciting -- and more successful -- than we could predict. And I look forward to standing before you next year and saying the same about 2007. Because, as you saw from our first-quarter results, Reynolds American is already off to another terrific start."

[Editor's Note:   In order for Reynolds American to continue to make profits, and especially more money than ever before, they must addict and kill even more consumers, as well as raising the cost of their products. To bring in new consumers at whatever age, they must market and advertise. Reynolds American is an adjudicated racketeer. The judge in 2006, after hearing many witnesses and examining many documents, said they had lied to their consumers and to the public in general. There is no reason to believe that they are telling the truth now.]