Comments on Shareholder Proposal #2:
Informing Children of their Rights
if Forced to Incur Secondhand Smoke
2007 Altria Shareholders Meeting

CONTENTS

• Stephen Ross, Dover Youth to Youth, NH
• Merritt McLaughlin, Dover Youth to Youth, NH

COMMENTS BY STEPHEN ROSS, DOVER YOUTH TO YOUTH, NH

STEPHEN ROSS: Hello. My name is Stephen Ross. Today, I'm representing Dover Youth to Youth. But more importantly, I am representing all of the kids across America and across the world who breathe in poisoned air every day because their parents smoke and they can't do anything about it.

The second proposal on your agenda regards second-hand smoke and preventative steps that can be taken by Philip Morris to protect kids who are harmed by it. The Surgeon General has said that it is indisputable that second-hand smoke is harmful to people's health.

Kids are most endangered by second-hand smoke. And if their parents smoke, they are being forced to breathe in the poisoned air that can make them sick and eventually might take their lives. The proposal would make Philip Morris provide information for kids about the dangers of second-hand smoke and legal action they can take to protect themselves against second-hand smoke if they are being exposed to it against their will.

The company would utilize all of their media outlets they use to advertise their products to inform kids about their products' dangers. The Committee has suggested that stockholders vote against this, based on the belief that is the public health officials' responsibility to inform people about this.

I strongly disagree with this thinking. The public health officials aren't making obviously deadly product. You are. It is your moral responsibility to inform the public that being around people who use your cigarettes is dangerous for not only the smokers, but those around them when they smoke.

And I repeat, kids can't always choose whether or not they are around adults who are smoking. The responsible thing to do would be to tell kids that they are being exposed to deadly chemicals in the air they breathe, chemicals that can cause asthma on the short term and lung cancer on the long term.

Or, you can vote against this proposal. You can vote against this proposal and allow kids to get sick for no reason while you make a profit off of it. So personally, I don't think it's right to get rich off of other people's misery.

In closing, I ask you to please vote for this proposal. Please think of those of those who can't protect themselves. I would also like to give you a warning. If you vote against this proposal, we won't go away. We are the kids who have realized that you aim your deadly product at us to make money, who are getting sick because of someone else's choice to smoke, who are standing up and making a difference.

And we won't go away. We will come back year after year after year until you are willing to put our lives ahead of your bank accounts.

LOUIS CAMILLERI: Thank you. It's ironic that you don't think public health has a role in this. It's quite ironic.

COMMENTS BY MERRITT MCLAUGHLIN, DOVER YOUTH TO YOUTH, NH

MERRITT MCLAUGHLIN: Hi. My name is Merritt McLaughlin. I'm an eight-grader at Dover Middle School in Dover, New Hampshire, and I'm in favor of Proposal 3. 90% of all adult smokers became addicted to tobacco while -- to tobacco while in their teens. Your older smokers are dying from tobacco-related diseases. So, in order to keep making a profit, you need to replace them with new, younger smokers.

So, if you're relying on younger customers to keep your business, then it's not in your business interests to prevent teens from smoking. If you want to do an effective job, then you shouldn't do it at all. So, why won't you let your prevention campaigns be independently tested? Why have I never seen any data that proves the effectiveness of the ads?

The American Journal of Public Health found eighth-graders more likely to smoke after seeing your prevention efforts targeting parents about talking to their kids. The eighth-graders were more likely to believe that the effects of smoking were being exaggerated. Your company did not challenge this article, making me believe that the evidence you have is not strong enough to prove this wrong, and that you're afraid to show this evidence because you know that it's not sufficient.

As an eighth-grader, your prevention efforts that I have looked at are full of text, and they have some pictures, but they're not cutting edge. They're not the same quality as if an organization dedicated to prevention were making prevention materials. Your prevention efforts and materials are very wordy and bland.

On the other hand, when you advertise tobacco, your ads are eye-catching and more appealing to my friends and I. And I find it hypocritical that a tobacco company is making prevention materials. And that leads me to believe that this is a half-hearted attempt. So, since it is just a half-hearted attempt, you should leave it to the real prevention groups to handle. This is why I support Proposal 3. Thank you.

LOUIS CAMILLERI: Thank you.