Part 2

In chemistry, in physics and in bacteriology, for instance, we do possess certain definite knowledge and we can rightfully cite certain facts. In sociology, in politics and in economics, we possess certain dogmas or beliefs and we can pardonably express certain theories or opinions--so long as we candidly admit their opinionative status. But when we get beyond a certain definite point in any science, even in physics and chemistry, we begin to hypothecate just like an economic determinist or an anti-vivisectionist or a religious fundamentalist, people who are habitually beyond this point of separating fact from belief anyway. We begin to express our opinions vociferously, to dress them up in moral overcoats, and to justify them just because we do lack certain scientific knowledge.

Thus we can go to the scientific work and find an investigator saying that very large quantities of tobacco smoke will paralyze the gastric contractile power. All right. But this very same investigator also sagely adds that small amounts of the smoke will actually stimulate this very gastric contractility and urge along digestion. Or we can go to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the highest current medical authority in the United States. We find a query by some doctor on cigarette smoking and we read the reply. Authority completely absolves cigarette papers from blame for poison. It adds that any cigarette smoker is safer from harm than a tobacco smoker of any other sort. For one thing he actually smokes less tobacco. If he nervously smokes many cigarettes he throws away longer and longer unused portions and thus keeps his consumption at about the same figure.

The Laryngoscope should be an authority on throat conditions as it is the publication of throat specialists. We find in here a statement to the effect that from a medical or laryngeal point of view there is no reason why anybody should give up tobacco or alcohol if it does them no very apparent harm. This is because the use of both in moderation by millions proves the harmlessness of the habit which is, in fact, often actually beneficial.

You can go further than that. If you want to be really mean you can find an authority to state that visual acuity is increased by smoking. When non-smokers smoked for they first time they saw better than they did before smoking. The sight of habitual smokers was unaffected by an additional smoke. They had already smoked themselves into the best possible eye-sight. This may be unreliable testimony. Far be it from me to judge it. The point is that it is quite as reliable as any of the testimony advanced against the tobacco habit.

In short we are here in a region where exact scientific investigation has not yet established reliable criteria of judgment. We cannot cite irrefutable facts. We can only express opinions and opinions are usually grounded in prejudice. Physicians tend normally to prohibit, but they rarely prohibit judiciously because, under our present chaotic medical system, they cannot afford to make a sound, thorough-going clinical examination of every patient and must regard medicine as an art--i. e., fall back upon empiricism.

As for prejudice, it amounts to little. Cromwell and his Puritans smoked excessively. About 1840 women smoked outrageous stogies and cumbersome pipes so shamelessly that men were alarmed and vigorous caricatures satirized them in the periodicals of the day. Early in the Victorian era smoking was all but a lost art. Today it is again in ascendency, yet human depravity has remained at about one level throughout.

In an editorial upon the subject during 1925 The Journal of the American Medical Association especially emphasized the fact that variations in human susceptibility and tolerance were factors as yet little understood. Extreme caution in generalization was wisely advised on such subjects as the harm inherent in tobacco smoking, and the reader was admonished that over-indulgence in turnips or parsnips, or even in water, would turn out a great deal worse than he might anticipate on immature consideration.

This factor of human individualization is rightly coming to the front in medical literature today. Advances in biological chemistry constantly attest the fact that each human individual is unique chemically. What Smith can do with impunity Jones can only do with a prospect of sudden death. This is not a superficial matter, but one deep seated in the cellular structure of the human body, a thing going back through ages of inheritance via the complex and ill-understood chromosome. More and more it is being realized that routine diets, prescriptions and prohibitions will not do in all cases--in fact are actually unsafe and dangerous in many.

For all we definitely know today with positive assurance we cannot deny the proposition that tobacco smoking is probably beneficial to many people. Not long ago everybody was urged to go in for bran because we all sadly needed roughage. Bran would cure constipation and a thousand routine diets spattered the press. It was all very well, except that constipation persisted. Today it is realized that nervous and psychic factors have much more to do with constipation than diet and the parade has set in that direction now. In fact some authorities declare that these rough diets have actually had fatal consequences in certain instances where a smooth diet was required.

But medical science really does not know sufficient about the positive, absolutely undeniable effects of tobacco smoking upon human beings to parade in any direction as yet without painful danger of finding itself hopelessly bogged in error at some date in the near future.

DEBUNKING “DENICOTINIZED” TOBACCO

Some years ago it was quite evident that the cigarette was doomed. Groups of well desiccated females, assisted by large droves of impotent he-virgins, met together, assailed the “filthy weed,” and determined to abolish it by vituperation if not by legislation. Tobacco manufacturers began to feel vague worries, some States passed anti-cigarette laws and righteousness seemed about to triumph. Then came the war!

War is a great release. We all live pretty prosaic lives. Social conventions are harsh and unless we live in Philadelphia or Chicago it is not considered courteous, much less expedient, to go out and rob, kill and commit arson. War delights in that it releases these crude desires which seem to be suppressed and lying potentially in wait in the most sedate of us. Men were released to rob, murder and commit arson and they did it with a vim and vigor which belies the idea that we are becoming a decadent and anemic race.

At the same time war had its disadvantages. A chap needed stimulation. He needed whiskey; he needed women; he needed cigarettes. He got them all and the dear, good Christian souls applied themselves so whole-heartedly to the good work of providing needful stimulation that natural smiles began to sprout on technical virgins, liquor ceased to draw the sex line and cigarettes were actually dispensed by the hands of Christian ladies and gentlemen. The tobacco industry was saved.

After the war women decided to continue doing what they had done during the war. They decided to retain “This Freedom.” Men decided they should not retain it. The Christians decided they should not retain it. It was against ethics, morals and law. The women retained their freedom and added to it. Among other things they smoked cigarettes so indefatigably that a consumption which had commenced to decline hopped to a point of unprecedented size.

Women are like that. Men are more civilized, have more modern bodies, are younger in an evolutionary sense and respect this nonsense called law. Women are much older physiologically--phylogenetically for that matter, if you really like long words. They adopt primitive means to accomplish their ends and primitive means are always effective. When they wanted to smoke they smoked and that was that.

At the same time, however, it is vaguely interesting to many people to know whether smoking is injurious. All sorts of ills have been laid to its door. But there is this to be said in its favor. In very many people smoking is undoubtedly the percussion cap which sets in motion a train of conditioned reflexes and enables them to work efficiently.

Watson has worked on these conditioned reflexes. Let the young baby have a rat. It is not afraid and will play with it happily. But some day produce a blinding flash of light or a loud noise just as you give it the rat and you have imbedded a conditioned reflex which may last its life. It will always fear rats. Watson holds that education should address itself to the job of making our conditioned reflexes of such nature that they are helpful rather than a hindrance.

Thus a certain man cannot think unless he plays with the keys in his pocket. That is the original stimulus which sets his benign conditioned reflexes in motion. Another smokes in order to think deeply. A third smokes and finds that it is laxative. Perhaps these men cannot either think or avoid constipation unless they smoke, and the probable reason is that the act of smoking is an original stimulus which automatically sets in motion a long series of conditioned reflexes of a benign character.

Yet there are people who do not want to run any risks. They want to avoid nicotine. Perhaps it is as well that they should. They therefore buy cigarettes or cigars or tobacco which have been “denicotinized.” To what extent do they succeed in avoiding the poison then? The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 295, a prosaic scientific-looking thing, pretty well explodes the bunk of these tobaccos and it calls a spade a spade. More power to the research agencies of the U. S. A. which dare be so outspoken. A brief analysis of the results shown seems in order.

Tobaccos were analyzed for nicotine and the percentage given is in all cases on a dry basis. First tested were several common brands of cigarettes. They ran as follows in nicotine. Take your pick hereafter when you buy--

Cigarette. Percent Nicotine. Egyptian Deities 1.28 Pall Mall 1.38 Philip Morris 1.40 Lucky Strike 1.88 Camel 2.21 Old Gold 2.17 Capstan Navy Cut 2.30 Chesterfield 2.53 Piedmont 2.89

Since not even physicians have had any idea how much nicotine common brands of cigarettes carried this alone is important. Now how did the “denicotinized” cigarettes line up? They ran as follows:

“Denicotinized” Percent Cigarette. Nicotine Sano 2.32 Cestrada Virginia 2.10 Dormy Turkish 1.19 Sackett 1.02

Next I shall list the cigars and the smoking tobacco analyzed--

Normal

Reyes de Espana 1.16 Manila 1.31 Knickerbocker 1.90

“Denicotinized”