Initial commitHEADmain

6 files changed, 2481 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7b82bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+*.txt text eol=lf
+*.htm text eol=lf
+*.html text eol=lf
+*.md text eol=lf
diff --git a/75599-0.txt b/75599-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ba08611
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75599-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,947 @@
+
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75599 ***
+
+
+
+  LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. =1389=
+  Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius
+
+                         The Truth About the
+                            Tobacco Habit
+
+                          T. Swann Harding
+
+
+  HALDEMAN-JULIUS PUBLICATIONS
+         GIRARD, KANSAS
+
+
+
+
+                           Copyright, 1929,
+                       Haldeman-Julius Company
+
+
+               PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
+
+
+
+                     THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TOBACCO
+                                HABIT
+
+
+A young friend of mine of the trouser-wearing male sex recently
+developed a pain in his stomach. He decided to wait it out. But it
+was an indecent as well as an insidious sort of pain and finally
+persisted so long that he was driven to consult a physician for
+moral support. The physician said, “Do you smoke?” My friend said
+“Yes.” The physician said, “That’s it, of course. Quit smoking.
+Three dollars, please.” My friend went away, quit smoking, and the
+pain persisted. He returned to the doctor. He was now given a little
+silver nitrate. He went away, but he came back again. By that time
+the physician was really angry. He said, “You’ve smoked yourself
+into a nice stomach ulcer, you have. I’ll have to operate. I hate to
+but I have to.” Just then buckwheat cakes and sausage made my friend
+violently ill one day and he deleted them from his diet. The pain
+left and has not yet played a return engagement. He smokes more than
+ever now, but he throws away longer butts.
+
+Another friend of mine classifying in the male sex which so far
+tends to avoid wearing trousers--much--went to a physician. She
+complained of a rash which she said afflicted her all winter.
+Fortunately for the physician she smoked energetically. He therefore
+told her to quit and called the next patient. Since she knew that
+she smoked in summer as well as in winter she did not quit but, by
+chance, consulted a scientific nutrition investigator. There was no
+reason for this; she did it irrationally and by pure inadvertance.
+But he asked, “Do you eat anything in winter that you do not eat
+in summer?” And she at first said, “No,” because that is the most
+natural answer to make under the circumstances. Then later, after a
+half an hour’s cross-examination, she said, “Yes, oatmeal.” He said,
+“Try cutting that out for a while.” So she conquered this craving,
+but continued to smoke, and the rash departed for parts unknown. She
+had an idiosyncrasy for oatmeal proteins just as some people have for
+strawberry or egg proteins, and her rash was thus caused.
+
+In a moment of more violent perversity I went not long ago to a
+lecture advocating ruthless war on tobacco. In spite of the success
+women have just had in smoking anti-cigarette reformers into
+comas, the speaker, Daniel H. Kress, M. D., was President of the
+Anti-Cigarette Alliance. Since he was a regular doctor in active
+practice I had a right to expect the presentation of a scientific
+case against tobacco.
+
+This gentleman, who is personally one of the most delightful old
+souls in the world, actually completed his lecture without ever
+once citing a scientific authority, without once grounding upon
+irrefutable scientific fact and without departing widely from the
+most trivial and childish sort of argument from analogy. Thus he
+stated that a famous war hero did not smoke. Wilson did not smoke.
+Hughes does not smoke. The inmates of reform schools all smoke.
+Smokers are physically and mentally unsafe!
+
+This may all be true for all I can prove to the contrary, but what
+of it? Many war heroes smoke. Grant certainly did. Small, defective
+and generally backward children normally spring from parents who
+underfeed them, who are themselves defective in heredity and who
+neglect to instruct their children in any essential matters. Can
+you prove that smoking alone either stunted them or put them in the
+reform school? You cannot. Criminals are predominantly religious
+according to their professions of faith. Did Christianity make
+them criminals? If smokers are mentally unsafe may I fervently
+declaim--God help research!
+
+You hear it said that the children of smoking mothers are
+inferior. Are they? How can it be proven? As a matter of fact no
+scientific experiment could possibly be carried on to prove this,
+for statistics, being riddled by all sorts of idiosyncrasies and
+unknowns, are grossly unscientific. To prove it you might have the
+same mother have two children at separate times by the same father,
+smoking while she bore one and abstaining for the control child. But
+that would prove nothing. Each child is a unique individual arising
+from a unique chromosome mixture. The mother and father would of
+necessity be older in the one case than in the other. Nourishment and
+other environmental conditions would inevitably vary. The experiment
+is impossible. Yet until such an experiment becomes possible we are
+merely voicing opinions when we say that smoking causes inferior
+children. The actual cause may be any of a thousand other and
+extraneous factors.
+
+When you consider how very often tobacco smoking is mentioned
+therapeutically and how universally it seems to be assumed that it
+is deleterious to health it is rather disconcerting to discover so
+little reliable scientific work to confirm this prevalent viewpoint.
+In fact practically no comprehensive, systematic work has been done
+by scientific research to prove that smoking is exceedingly harmful
+to the human system. Like so many other human preconceptions this
+assumption rests largely upon faith. To the acutely prejudiced
+non-smokers smoking seems so utterly perverse that it surely must be
+physically injurious.
+
+A rational esthetic case could be made out against certain women
+smoking. True, the modern woman so sedulously apes the other sex that
+to deprive her of her cigarette is simply to deprive her gracelessly
+of her masculinity. We should never do that. But the spectacle of a
+really pretty, effeminate woman smoking is nevertheless an esthetic
+affront. Nothing the average man can do could make him look very much
+worse than he does naturally so even this slight objection does not
+apply bisexually.
+
+But we have wandered, and I am of course at fault, having set
+out laudably to lead our thought procession. In my search of the
+scientific literature the nearest thing to an authority I came
+across was perhaps Sir Humphrey Rolleston, Baronet, K. C. B.; F.
+R. C. P. and M. D. of Cambridge, England, physician to King George
+V in his late 1928 illness. He discusses “The Medical Aspects of
+Tobacco” in such staid British medical journals as _The Lancet_ and
+_The Practitioner_. He reviews every possible lesion that might
+spring from tobacco smoking, and they are many--quite as many
+indeed as may spring from over eating artichokes or drinking three
+gallons of well-water daily. He sets himself flatly against animal
+experimentation in this matter because this cannot possibly take
+idiosyncrasies into account, and reminds us that humans are both
+highly individualized and exceedingly complex.
+
+Rolleston then remarks that cigarettes are less invidious than pipes
+or cigars because cigarette smoke is more air diluted. He finds
+a wide diversity of opinion as to the harmfulness of tobacco; he
+doubts that it ever affects the nervous system greatly and believes
+that coffee and tea usually produce the heart symptoms attributed to
+smoking and that a latent venereal disease accounts for much smoker’s
+cancer. He doubts also that dilation of the esophagus, dilation of
+the stomach, acid stomach and nervous dyspepsia are often due to
+tobacco while he commends the mildly laxative properties of a pipe
+after breakfast.
+
+Finally our baronet says, and the medical journal sustains him
+editorially, that in view of the universality of the habit of tobacco
+smoking the rarity of the organic lesions that can be traced out as
+undoubtedly due to that habit, beyond all question, is little less
+than surprising. This, I should say, is the woodpile Ethiopian. It is
+one thing for a physician to lean back and say cut down on tobacco,
+coffee, fried stuff and pastry. It is quite another for him to prove
+scientifically that these indulgences have undeniably caused the
+patient’s present low physical estate.
+
+D. T. Barry, F. R. C. S. and M. D. of the Physiological Department,
+University College, Cork, is not very far off when he writes: “The
+physiological effects of tobacco, as our present knowledge reveals
+them, are not sufficiently deleterious to counter-balance the benign
+influence of the drug in other respects. It may be abused, of course,
+but so may food, and this latter form of abuse is, in my opinion,
+responsible for greater evils than those resulting from the abuse of
+tobacco.”
+
+In this connection another authority, Armstrong-Jones, remarks that
+tobacco smoking in moderation is not injurious to adults but is a
+valuable sedative. It contributes to calm thought and efficient
+mental functioning. Worst of all he casually remarks that cigarette
+smoking, preferably without a holder, is the least injurious form of
+tobacco indulgence. Even allowing for the fact that the gentleman has
+seen some of the less comely holders I have witnessed in my time, his
+statements give pause.
+
+Of course Earp’s well-known studies at Antioch College, Ohio, did
+indicate that non-smokers showed an intellectual superiority over
+smokers, but whether these things were cause and effect or mere
+harmless concomitants who knows? Many very eminent intellectual
+giants smoked excessively. Perhaps they would have achieved absolute
+omnipotence or omniscience had they been non-smokers. Again, who
+knows?
+
+It is significant that Earp’s non-smokers showed no physical
+superiority over his smokers; that is, it is interesting when you
+remember that the American university is an institution of athletic
+training wherein some intellectual education is offered to the
+feeble-bodied as a consolation prize. Intelligence tests are not
+affected by smoking, the non-smokers ranking just as high after
+smoking as before they had ever touched the vile weed. Finally, the
+correlation between the length of a student’s indulgence in tobacco
+and his scholarship is so negligible as to indicate that there can be
+no chronic cumulative poisoning from tobacco.
+
+Laymen do not realize how difficult it is to trace a diseased
+condition to a specific cause even when bacteria abound, as is
+not the case in smoking. For instance certain bacteria so closely
+resemble each other that even experts are hard put to tell them
+apart. Diphtheria germs possess such a dead ringer. Real diphtheria
+cultures were once sent out to clinical laboratories along with
+other cultures containing no diphtheria germs, but germs so closely
+resembling them that the laboratories involved returned all sorts of
+results. Some reported that the actual diphtheria cultures contained
+no diptheria germs at all; others that some of the germs simulating
+diphtheria in appearance were positively the real thing. So a tooth
+or a tonsil may contain a germ so similar to those found at the seat
+of secondary infection that they are indistinguishable, yet the germ
+may be harmless in one case and virulent in the other.
+
+Certainly it is unlikely that we carry virulent germs about in teeth
+and tonsils for long years. For one thing they get acclimated to
+us and can change their murderous habits. For another we get used
+to them. This organism of ours is an hospitable sort of thing.
+The body tends to adjust in neighborly fashion to germs upon long
+acquaintance, or familiarity breeds contempt, just as it adjusts to
+morphine, to opium, to over-eating, to the corrosive harness oils
+now sold as bootleg whiskey and to tobacco, of course. Perhaps long
+acquaintance ripens into real friendship and mutual aid.
+
+Nicotine is the active agent in tobacco. Mendenhall tells us that
+tobacco sometimes stimulates and sometimes depresses the bodily
+sensory mechanism, depending largely upon the state of fatigue
+prevalent at the moment. When stimulation occurs the effect is
+precisely that of a certain portion of high potential rest, for in
+this case, says our authority, tobacco has rested us artificially.
+
+Certain work seems to prove quite clearly that tobacco slows down
+the gastric motility as well as pepsin and rennin secretion. At
+least it produced such results on certain individuals, although the
+majority of mankind may be immune for all we know. This would slow
+down digestion, but it takes considerable smoking to accomplish such
+a result even with the susceptible, and one cigarette after a meal,
+even a cigar, would scarcely be sufficient. It has also been stated
+in scientific journals that tobacco _may_ play an etiologic role in
+gastric neurosis, in gastritis, in ulcer and cancer of the stomach
+and, likewise, in mouth or throat carcinoma.
+
+But, putting your mind rigidly to the task, can you readily think of
+anything from hot soup to worry that has not at some time by some
+person been accused of causing these conditions? Why is this? Holding
+a clay pipe in the mouth may cause mouth cancer; holding an ordinary
+pipe might; continuously holding a roughened stick there might also,
+with tobacco never involved. How do these anti-tobacco ideas arise?
+
+Why are we told that so many things cause ulcer, cancer, kidney
+trouble, heart lesions or high blood pressure? Why are there so
+many theories of evolution or of creation, or of salvation for
+that matter? Why are there so many and such diverse theories of
+economic and political betterment? Why are there such varied schools
+of treatment often imposing diametrically opposed procedures to
+combat the very same maladies? Why do men differ so widely in their
+hypotheses about government, religion, tobacco, women? Simply because
+nobody as yet knows anything positively definite about these matters,
+and just so long as this condition of inspired ignorance persists, so
+long will infinitely varied opinions be inevitable.
+
+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”
+
+    Sano                               1.07
+    O-Nic-O                             .72
+    Sackett                             .67
+
+The smoking tobaccos tested ran--
+
+
+                     Normal
+
+    Blue Boar Pipe                     1.45
+    Weldon Slice                       1.84
+    Hudson Bay Imperial                1.95
+    Gilbert’s Mixture                  2.09
+
+
+                “Denicotinized”
+
+    Dormy Smoking                      2.26
+    Sackett                             .98
+    O-Nic-O                             .97
+
+In short, the average for all brands tested stood 1.77 percent
+nicotine straight and 1.28 percent still in the “denicotinized”
+products. Seventy-two percent of the nicotine remains behind. The
+process is, like the process of removing caffeine from coffees, very
+largely bunk but it is bunk that makes the American people spend
+their money, as Barnum very well knew. A person can with considerable
+ease select an ordinary tobacco which is so near the nicotine content
+of the “denicotinized” varieties that he scarcely seems justified in
+paying the higher prices for the treated product.
+
+Was ever a nation so neurotic over its health as ours? European
+observers are constantly amazed at the imbecile delight we show in
+all sorts of products especially treated to make them less toxic,
+more digestible, less harmful and more beneficial. Just tell an
+American that you have vacuum treated your coffee and have thereby
+removed some obscure organic compounds which normally tie his stomach
+in knots and he will faithfully believe you and buy it. Tell him
+you have taken the nicotine out of his cigarette and though 72
+percent of it is still there he will buy. Tell him Grapenuts make
+his teeth sound and he will buy. Tell him that he can improve his
+health by standing on his head on a cake of ice in a blast furnace
+while somebody shoots a stream of liquid platinum in his left ear and
+you will find some fool to do it in America. Why are we such damned
+fools? I am not going to tell you. I don’t know. But we are.
+
+
+                     IS COFFEE DRINKING HARMFUL?
+
+It is recorded in the annals of history that a certain doctor once
+told a certain patient to drink no coffee. Were you, perchance, the
+patient? I know I was. But why did the doctor say that? Because if we
+stopped there would be more coffee left for him?
+
+It is also recorded that there once lived a certain Arab whose name
+comes down to us as Chadely. Chadely is reputed to have been the
+initial coffee drinker of the world and he drank an extract of the
+berry to combat a continual drowsiness which prevented him from
+attending punctually his religious devotions! In this others of the
+Mohammedan faithful rapidly followed him, and the habit might well be
+cultivated by certain church-going Christians with sedative pastors.
+
+Now I am one of those most unfortunate persons over whom alcohol
+has no appreciable authority. I confess this with shame and deep
+humiliation. Right in this Prohibition Era when various nondescript
+alcoholic beverages are held in higher esteem than ever before in
+our history (for does not the lowliest shellac now become a sacred
+and inviolate symbol of a personal liberty we would not recognize
+in this collectivist country if we saw it?) I can drink one, two or
+even three glasses of high voltage and yet remain placid, neutral,
+passionless, taciturn and erect in posture. So far as I am concerned
+even the dynamic and remorseless cocktail of these days is just so
+much ill-tasting liquid. Isn’t this tragic?
+
+But I would not prohibit the sale, ingurgitation or even the flagrant
+abuse of these curiously synthesized beverages, or even of good
+alcohol drinks. Not for one single prohibitive instant. For I want
+my coffee and some day some bluenose wowser might seek to deprive
+me of the cup that really cheers me. For I can arise in the morning
+hopeless, misanthropic, pessimistic, with a strong suicidal impulse,
+a feeling of uselessness and a Calvinistic conviction of sin--yet
+one cup of good coffee completely reverses my emotions and stirs me
+to optimism, confidence, cheer and incipient exaltation. I can be
+induced to consider new fur coats and parlor rugs.
+
+Or again, in the evening, I may have sunk into a mental stupor,
+becoming in fact so definitely subhuman that I can only listen to
+a radio or read a newspaper--but coffee at once changes the entire
+universe and suffuses me with self-satisfaction, energy, will power
+and complacency--jostles my brain cells rudely against each other
+and clicks out of them what little useful information there is in
+them. Indeed I strongly sympathize with any dull soul who momentarily
+sweeps aside the stagnant miasmas of toil, monotony and misery with a
+swig of ethyl alcohol--in varied disguise. Insensitive to alcohol I
+do exactly the same thing with caffeine.
+
+It is a most curious matter upon which to meditate. The entire
+universe is not something static and permanently postulated by
+definition. It is not even what I made it a moment ago. It is what
+coffee makes me and makes me make it at this moment. Leaving my
+entire environment, debts and all, and my complete mental and somatic
+equipment _in statu quo_ one dash of caffeine completely reorganizes
+the universe for me and as completely modifies my reaction thereto.
+The final test in any scientific experiment takes place when one
+variable factor accomplishes such results while all other factors
+remain completely unaltered. I know my coffee.
+
+But of course this is a world wherein doctors sound solemn tocsins
+to pleasure. You go to them and they almost invariably admonish you
+to quit smoking tobacco and drinking coffee, to have your teeth
+pulled and your tonsils uprooted. Some years ago I myself suffered
+from chronic indigestion. I was on a meticulous diet which lacked
+meat and coffee and I was about ready to accuse coffee alone of all
+my indispositions. But I met a hardy old codger of eighty who drank
+eight cups of strong coffee daily and had but recently reduced his
+consumption from a normal dozen and his vigor, which he attributed to
+seventy years of strong coffee, greatly heartened me. I knew what the
+doctor would say. I didn’t smoke. Teeth and coffee alone were left.
+So I went soberly to the expert in exodontia.
+
+He at first demurred and insisted that I had no teeth meriting
+destruction. But I was desperate. I insisted. So he X-rayed around,
+finally selected an inoffensive and courteous molar and drew it.
+The shock or something proved beneficial. At least I had no more
+indigestion and even learned how to drink two cups of strong coffee
+and go to sleep on the draft. This is the final step in expert coffee
+drinking. When you can perform that feat and outwit your imagination
+you have come into the inner circle of The Sacred Coffee Drinkers’
+Conclave.
+
+But I remained curious. I wondered why doctors said drink no coffee.
+I determined to find out something about this. Botany didn’t get me
+very far. It simply declared “Coffee is the product of a rubiaceous
+plant indigenous to Abyssinia of the _genus_ coffea; there are about
+twenty-five known species, of which coffea Arabica is the most
+important commercially.”
+
+History was slightly more productive. It appeared coffee drinking
+was of respectable age and that the substance derived its name from
+K’hawah, or Kaffa, an Abyssinian Province, and that there it was
+employed as a stimulant for centuries before its introduction into
+Arabia. The Arab physician Khayes, who lived 850-922 A. D., wrote
+on coffee and knowledge of the plant arrived in Europe by the late
+sixteenth century. It is most interesting to remember that these
+Arabian Mohammedans used coffee as an anti-soporific during prolonged
+religious ceremonies. Yet the beverage at first underwent violent
+protest because strictly orthodox and conservative priests held it to
+be intoxicating and hence under the ban of the Koran.
+
+At Constantinople certain dervishes also held that after roasting
+coffee had become a kind of coal which the Prophet had denounced
+as inedible. Thereupon the coffee houses were closed. But a lenient
+mufti later proved to the satisfaction of the faithful that roasted
+coffee was not coal and they were reopened.
+
+The earliest European coffee houses were established, in fact, in
+Constantinople and in Venice. The first one appeared in England in
+1650; out of it grew the Oxford Coffee Club in 1655 and from that
+sprang the Royal Society itself. But alas, convivial gatherings at
+coffee houses became of ill repute; wives complained they could not
+expect their husbands back from errands because they would loiter in
+coffee houses and kings declared that their subjects met at coffee
+houses, became garrulous and bespoke political rebellion. The current
+Volstead, Charles II, therefore, sought to suppress coffee drinking,
+but evidently Anglo-Saxons valued their liberties more then than now
+for the King had little success. Frederick the Great, fearing coffee
+drinking for the more thrifty reason that it caused too much money to
+leave his domain, boldly attributed sterility to indulgence in the
+berry and sought to restrict the use of coffee by a license system.
+
+The medical profession came forward to denounce coffee for all sorts
+of sins. The English Dr. Pecoke accused it of causing leprosy.
+Dr. Duncan of Montpellier in 1706 wrote in opposition to all hot
+beverages while James the I actually composed a royal “Broadside
+Against Coffee.” The kingly book contained this gem--
+
+    Confusion huddles all into one scene,
+    Like Noah’s arks, the clean and the unclean,
+    For now, alas! the drink has credit got,
+    And he’s no gentleman who drinks it not.
+
+Millingen in his “Curiosities of Medical Experiences,” 1837, said
+that coffee in excess produced “feverish heat and a predisposition to
+apoplexy.” But he did commend coffee and tea as beverages affording
+stimulus without producing intoxication. Francis Bacon declared that
+“coffee comforteth the heart and helpeth digestion” while Bach, to
+offset this, wrote his Cantata No. 211 of the “Secular Cantatas” to
+protest its use.
+
+In 1792 Dr. Benjamin Moseley said doubt existed as to whether coffee
+was a tonic or a sedative, but believed that it had intrinsic food
+value. Every now and then individuals arise to denounce or to praise
+an article of diet or a diet system and to declare that all men
+should hear and follow because this idea was of benefit to them.
+Such statements can have no standing in science, even when made by
+a doctor and based upon his actual experiences with a few patients.
+The only possible way to find out whether coffee, say, is beneficial,
+or the reverse is to investigate the literature and try to poll the
+authorities each one of whom has examined large numbers of individual
+cases to see if any general statements can be hazarded. Even then we
+cannot make final conclusions but we can assay general trends.
+
+Is coffee harmful then? What do physiologists, pharmacologists and
+medical men say? Coffee demonstrably enlivens the intellect, removes
+the sensation of fatigue and makes the subject feel more comfortable.
+These are gifts not to be sniffed out of court. But is coffee safe
+and harmless enough that we may dare indulge ourselves in this
+pleasant reaction in a world where the pleasant is so readily assumed
+to be _per se_ the invidious--and so often is actually so? The
+question is in dispute like most questions considered settled by many
+people. There is no more reason to conclude one way than the other
+in so far as average adults are concerned. All who say dogmatically
+“No coffee--it is very harmful” are as wrong as all who state the
+opposite of this.
+
+In his “Personal and Community Health” C. E. Turner says coffee is
+not harmful to most adults in reasonable quantities. G. N. Stewart’s
+“Physiology” remarks that tea and coffee are safe stimulants because
+they have no bad after effects. Stewart also cautions against their
+abuse, but it may as well be stated at once that the question of
+abuse introduces an altogether new factor. Water and salt are
+absolutely necessary to life but the abuse of either is injurious.
+We can produce true water intoxications and salt eaten to excess can
+do us much harm. All articles of diet from parsnips and lamb chops
+to caffeine and alcohol can harm if abused and we should assume when
+speaking of them a sane, rational use and regard abuse as a harmful
+condition of a different order altogether.
+
+As C. E. A. Winslow well says in his “Healthy Living”--“The fact
+that tea and coffee sometimes become tyrants does not mean that such
+drinks are necessarily bad.”
+
+In one thing medical authorities do agree, however, coffee and
+tea are not beverages for children. Moralists to the contrary
+notwithstanding, this is again beside the point when we are
+considering the reasonable use of coffee by adults. Adults and
+children are essentially different animals using their food intake
+differently--the one for upkeep and repair the other for new
+construction as well as upkeep and repair. They differ basically
+in metabolism. They have different metabolic rates and different
+expenditures of energy. The child is turning food into flesh and bone
+and blood at a much greater rate than a fully-grown adult organism
+is ever required to do. Diets which would amply sustain an adult may
+easily be detrimental to or deficient for young and growing children.
+We shall, then, restrict ourselves herein to the rational use of
+coffee by average adults. What can coffee, or its active principle
+caffeine, do to harm adults?
+
+Caffeine definitely increases the force of the heart beat. Yet Wood,
+“Notice of Judgment Under the Food and Drugs Act No. 1455 1912,” says
+such an effect may be desirable since a slower rate and increased
+force induce cardiac efficiency. Heavy coffee drinking may produce a
+frequent, hard pulse and palpitations, but this again goes over into
+the territory of abuse.
+
+Coffee tends both to dilate the vascular system and to constrict it,
+the net result being a mass movement of the blood without increased
+blood pressure. Coffee has repeatedly been suspected of damage to the
+heart and blood vessels but such suspicions are common in therapy
+and evidence is entirely lacking to prove this point scientifically.
+Suspicion is here probably no more legitimate than in many lay
+superstitions. While patients with definite heart trouble should
+avoid all stimulants the normal use of coffee by an adult cannot be
+said to have an insidious effect upon the heart and blood vessels.
+
+While coffee is a diuretic it cannot be convicted of renal injury as
+yet. Indeed it is quite probable that the kidneys become accustomed
+to caffeine while A. R. Cushny (J. Pharmacol. & Experimental Therapy
+4 363) declares that caffeine does not injure the kidneys even when
+given in large dosage over long periods.
+
+But how about digestion? Years ago Fraser (J. of Anatomy & Physiology
+184 13 1883) said that coffee and tea hindered the digestion of
+protein foodstuffs with the exception of ham and eggs! This very
+fortunate immunity renders the typical American dish a safe breakfast
+in any case. In general, however, observations _in vivo_ indicate
+that the amounts of the beverage usually taken have no evil effects
+upon digestion. Indeed some investigators have found a pronounced
+increase in gastric secretion following tea and coffee.
+
+Hutchinson in his “Food and Dietetics” says that the digestive
+disturbance caused by such infused beverages is negligible in health.
+Others have held that the aromatic constituents of coffee, or the
+“empyreumatic oil,” upset digestion. There may be some reason for
+this; at least certain individuals tolerate much better coffee from
+which these substances have been removed.
+
+Caffeine is of course a stimulant to the central nervous system,
+particularly that part of it intimately associated with the gastric
+function. How far is its use as such a cerebral stimulant advisable?
+Like all stimulants this will result in greater fatigue on excessive
+usage. But as “The Medical Review of Reviews” once said, “When tea
+and coffee are made moderate in strength and partaken of in sober
+quantities they are gentle stimulants and their effect upon the
+nervous system is salutary.” A too constant reliance on coffee as a
+goad may of course result in nervous irritability.
+
+Coffee speeds up the metabolism, increases the body heat and heat
+elimination, and perhaps urges us on to greater activity. But, as the
+English pharmacologist Dixon remarks in his “Manual of Pharmacology,”
+“Caffeine decidedly facilitates the performance of all forms of
+physical work.” Yet certain athletes are reported to have had their
+performances injured by coffee drinking, while Osborn holds that
+coffee interferes with the best muscular efforts. Take Hobson’s
+choice here, you have an authority either way and we do love some one
+to give our opinions an affidavit. It may be observed that coffee
+also increases the rate and depth of our respiration.
+
+The following gracefully and euphoniously named aromatics have been
+found in roasted coffee--pyrol, quinol, methylamin, acetone, furfuryl
+alcohol, a derivative of saligenin, phenols, valeric acid, pyridin
+and trimethylamin. You are no doubt much surprised and edified to
+know that. Some of these compounds are toxic, but they occur in
+coffee in amounts far too small to be dangerous to health. Some have
+accused these formidably named derivatives of bad effects but the
+work existing shows caffeine to be the only coffee constituent of
+importance in its physiological effects. It is agreed that caffeine
+is very rapidly changed by the body into less active substances and
+disposed of, so there can be no cumulative effect even of that. In
+old age, as in youth, coffee, like other stimulants, should be used
+in moderation if at all.
+
+As a whole then what can we conclude about the use of coffee by
+adults? Science has not found it harmful when taken in non-excessive
+amounts. Heart patients, neurotics, the young and the aged should
+avoid it. It has not been proven to cause pathological changes in the
+heart, blood vessels or kidneys. It is a valuable cerebral stimulant
+and antidote for mental fatigue, lacking as it does the bad effects
+of most stimulants. It also stimulates respiration and speeds up
+the metabolism, while its effects on digestion cannot be said to
+be definitely deleterious. Tea, because of its tannin content, is
+probably worse than coffee gastrically. Finally caffeine is rapidly
+oxidized and has no cumulative poisonous effect.
+
+Most important of all we must remember that individuals differ.
+They are constructed of different proteins and have cellular and
+glandular processes differing from individual to individual. What one
+can do with impunity another will find bringing him nearer to the
+undertaker daily. In this as in all other matters dietetic common
+sense and sound judgment in appraising our own state of health and
+the reactions of our organism to various stimuli will always surpass
+slavish subservience to systems or morbid efforts to avoid all harm
+and achieve an impossible all good.
+
+Then if we are to drink coffee let us consider momentarily how best
+to make it. One basic fact stands out--freshly ground coffee is best.
+Ground coffee loses its flavor on standing. It also loses its content
+of carbon dioxide. These two factors are definitely related but
+exactly how and why we do not know.
+
+In considering coffee-making precise scientific methods are
+everything. Our mothers, more energetic than the decadent women of
+today, made their own bread. They often appraised various flours by
+such rude methods and declared this brand better than that. How much
+could they have known about it? Did they keep every factor constant
+except the flour when making their tests? You know they did not.
+
+Go into the laboratory in the U. S. Bureau of Chemistry, where flour
+bought by the government is tested, and what do you see? You see an
+apparatus enabling the investigator to make bread from that flour
+holding every factor constant except the flour. All other materials
+used are precisely the same and all materials are carefully weighed.
+The dough is kneaded mechanically and timed exactly. Fermentation
+takes place in a cabinet at a constant temperature and for a definite
+time for all loaves. The same holds for the time and temperature
+of baking. The loaves are cooled just alike on wire meshes for
+the same time. They are weighed and their volumes measured. Then
+the investigator positively knows which flour makes the best loaf
+of bread and the government buys that flour for its hospitals and
+penitentiaries.
+
+It is exactly the same with coffee. To test coffees they must be
+infused in very precise ways. How is it done? In the first place
+pulverized coffee must pass a 30 mesh sieve and be like fine
+cornmeal, medium ground coffee must pass a 10 mesh sieve and be like
+steel cut; coarsely ground coffee must pass an 8 mesh sieve and
+appear like the rude, home ground bean of our childhood.
+
+Then boiling, boiling with egg, percolation and filtration must be
+tried on each by precise methods. A 40c. Mocha-Java coffee may be
+used with 12 grams of coffee and 240 cc. of water, except in the case
+of percolation which requires 480 cubic centimeters of water for
+12 grams of coffee. In boiling with egg 10 grams of egg white were
+added. The infusion must be governed precisely.
+
+Boiling takes place in a seamless white enamel pot, cold water being
+poured over the coffee, the whole brought to a boil and boiling
+continued for three minutes; the infusion then stood five minutes
+and was ready. It was strained through cheese cloth. Percolation was
+carried out in the usual manner with an ordinary percolator, the
+water being cold at the start and boiling being continued for five
+minutes. In filtration a wire strainer was put across the top of the
+pot covered with a piece of tennis flannel upon which the coffee lay.
+Boiling water was poured through once.
+
+The brews were tested hot, for strength, color, and flavor by various
+people who did not know the methods of preparation. Six degrees of
+strength were observed with specific gravities of the brew by test as
+shown in the table--
+
+    Very weak                 1.0045 Specific Gravity
+    Weak                      1.0055 Specific Gravity
+    Moderately strong         1.0060 Specific Gravity
+    Standard                  1.0065 Specific Gravity
+    A little too strong       1.0070 Specific Gravity
+    Much too strong           1.0080 Specific Gravity
+
+The specific gravity was taken on the cold brew and a standard,
+1.0065 was selected for further tests. The following table indicating
+condition of coffee, method of brew, weight of coffee used and cost
+per cup is of considerable interest--
+
+                                  S. G. 1.0065        Cost
+    Condition       Method       Weight Coffee     per cup
+                  of infusion        Grams           cents
+
+    Pulverized    Boiling            12.05             .63
+    Pulverized    Percolated         12.78             .71
+    Pulverized    Boiled with egg    12.85            1.05
+    Pulverized    Filtered           12.31             .72
+    Medium        Boiling            15.89             .83
+    Medium        Percolated         22.94            1.29
+    Medium        Boiled with egg    16.71            1.29
+    Medium        Filtered           30.00            1.73
+    Coarse        Boiling            19.79            1.03
+    Coarse        Percolated         27.52            1.54
+    Coarse        Boiled with egg    21.27            1.56
+
+Hence it is apparent that pulverizing is the most efficient method of
+grinding. The best brew is made by filtration. Boiling with egg is
+second best while plain boiling and percolation are the poorest of
+all. In general, strength and color of the brew are quite independent
+of the blend and price but depend upon the grind. The flavor,
+however, varies markedly with the coffee brand and price. Java,
+Sumatra and Bogota give weaker infusions under the same conditions
+than do Mocha and Santos. The order of preference for flavor
+stood--Java, Sumatra, Santos, Bogota and Mocha. It was also observed
+that coffee which had stood long after grinding gave an infusion of a
+lower specific gravity and hence of impaired strength.
+
+The effect of adding sugar and cream to coffee is not well
+understood. Some assert that the fat of cream and the fats of the
+coffee bean form indigestible compounds, but there is scarcely
+sufficient experimental evidence to justify this. The tannin
+compounds in coffee are apparently not precipitated, as has
+frequently been stated, by the addition of sugar and cream. Testing a
+centrifuged cream from a beverage coffee gave no appreciable evidence
+of tannin while the remaining coffee infusion gave the normal
+positive tests for tannin. It is certainly true, however, according
+to one authority that black coffee without any additional substances,
+with the possible exception of a portion of sugar, is the most
+beneficial form of the beverage.
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber’s Note:
+
+Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like
+this_; those in bold are surrounded by equal signs, =like this=.
+Obvious printing errors, such as partially printed letters and
+punctuation, were corrected. Three misspelled words were corrected.
+
+
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75599 ***
diff --git a/75599-h/75599-h.htm b/75599-h/75599-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7606d78
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75599-h/75599-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,1517 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html lang="en">
+<head>
+    <meta charset="UTF-8">
+    <title>
+      The truth about the tobacco habit | Project Gutenberg
+    </title>
+    <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover">
+    <style>
+
+body {
+    margin-left: 10%;
+    margin-right: 10%;
+}
+/* Heading Styles */
+    h1,h2,h3 {
+    text-align: center;
+    text-indent: 0em;
+    clear: both;
+    font-weight: bold;
+    page-break-before: avoid;}
+
+h1 {
+      margin: 1em 5% 1em;
+      font-size: 180%;}
+h2 {
+      margin:2em 5% 1em;
+      font-size: 140%;}
+h3 {
+      margin: 2em 5% 1em;
+      font-size: 140%;}
+
+.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} /* use with h2 for epubs */
+
+div.chapter {page-break-before: always;
+             margin-top: 4em;}
+
+/* Paragraph styles */
+p {text-indent: 1.25em;
+    margin-top: .51em;
+    text-align: justify;
+    margin-bottom: .49em;}
+
+.unindent {text-indent: 0em;
+            margin-top: .51em;
+            text-align: justify;
+            margin-bottom: .49em;}
+
+.p4 {margin-top: 4em;}
+.center   {text-align: center;
+           text-indent: 0em;}
+
+/* Font styling */
+.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;}
+em {font-style: italic;}
+.muchlarger {font-size: 150%;}
+.xxl {font-size: 200%;}
+
+abbr { border:none; text-decoration:none; font-variant:normal; }
+
+
+/* Rules */
+hr { /*default rule across entire width */
+    margin-top: 2em;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;}
+@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;}}
+
+/* Tables */
+table {
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+    text-align: center;
+    border-spacing: 0; /* this removes spaces between handmade lines around boxes */
+}
+
+.tdl      {text-align: left;}
+.tdr      {text-align: right;}
+.tdc      {text-align: center;}
+.pad1 {padding: .5em 0 .5em 0;}
+.pad2 {padding: 0 0 0 1em;}
+.vlb {vertical-align: bottom;}
+.vlt {vertical-align: top;}
+
+.pagenum {
+    position: absolute;
+    left: 92%;
+    font-size: 50%;
+    text-align: right;
+    font-style: normal;
+    font-weight: normal;
+    font-variant: normal;
+    text-indent: 0; /* needed if using indented paragraphs by default */
+    color: #444;}
+
+/* Poetry */
+.poetry-container {display: flex; justify-content: center;}
+.poetry           {text-align: left; margin: .25em 5% .25em 5%;}
+.poetry .verse    {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;}
+
+/* Poetry indents */
+.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3em;}
+
+
+    </style>
+ </head>
+<body>
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75599 ***</div>
+
+<table>
+<tr><td class="tdl vlb">LITTLE BLUE BOOK <abbr title="Number">NO.</abbr></td>
+    <td class="tdl" rowspan="2"><span class="xxl"><b>1389</b></span></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl vlt">Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<h1>The Truth About the<br>
+Tobacco Habit</h1>
+
+<p class="center muchlarger">T. Swann Harding</p>
+
+
+<p class="p4 center">HALDEMAN-JULIUS PUBLICATIONS<br>
+GIRARD, KANSAS
+</p>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p class="p4 center">
+Copyright, 1929,<br>
+Haldeman-Julius Company<br>
+<br>
+<br>
+<span class="allsmcap">PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</span><br>
+</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span></p>
+<h2>THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TOBACCO
+HABIT</h2>
+</div>
+
+
+<p>A young friend of mine of the trouser-wearing
+male sex recently developed a pain in his
+stomach. He decided to wait it out. But it
+was an indecent as well as an insidious sort of
+pain and finally persisted so long that he was
+driven to consult a physician for moral support.
+The physician said, “Do you smoke?”
+My friend said “Yes.” The physician said,
+“That’s it, of course. Quit smoking. Three
+dollars, please.” My friend went away, quit
+smoking, and the pain persisted. He returned
+to the doctor. He was now given a little silver
+nitrate. He went away, but he came back
+again. By that time the physician was really
+angry. He said, “You’ve smoked yourself into
+a nice stomach ulcer, you have. I’ll have to
+operate. I hate to but I have to.” Just then
+buckwheat cakes and sausage made my friend
+violently ill one day and he deleted them from
+his diet. The pain left and has not yet played
+a return engagement. He smokes more than
+ever now, but he throws away longer butts.</p>
+
+<p>Another friend of mine classifying in the
+male sex which so far tends to avoid wearing
+trousers—much—went to a physician. She
+complained of a rash which she said afflicted
+her all winter. Fortunately for the physician
+she smoked energetically. He therefore told
+her to quit and called the next patient. Since
+she knew that she smoked in summer as well
+as in winter she did not quit but, by chance,
+consulted a scientific nutrition investigator.
+There was no reason for this; she did it irrationally
+and by pure inadvertance. But he
+asked, “Do you eat anything in winter that you
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span>
+do not eat in summer?” And she at first said,
+“No,” because that is the most natural answer
+to make under the circumstances. Then later,
+after a half an hour’s cross-examination, she
+said, “Yes, oatmeal.” He said, “Try cutting that
+out for a while.” So she conquered this craving,
+but continued to smoke, and the rash departed
+for parts unknown. She had an idiosyncrasy
+for oatmeal proteins just as some people
+have for strawberry or egg proteins, and her
+rash was thus caused.</p>
+
+<p>In a moment of more violent perversity I
+went not long ago to a lecture advocating ruthless
+war on tobacco. In spite of the success
+women have just had in smoking anti-cigarette
+reformers into comas, the speaker, Daniel H.
+Kress, M. D., was President of the Anti-Cigarette
+Alliance. Since he was a regular doctor
+in active practice I had a right to expect the
+presentation of a scientific case against tobacco.</p>
+
+<p>This gentleman, who is personally one of the
+most delightful old souls in the world, actually
+completed his lecture without ever once citing
+a scientific authority, without once grounding
+upon irrefutable scientific fact and without departing
+widely from the most trivial and childish
+sort of argument from analogy. Thus he
+stated that a famous war hero did not smoke.
+Wilson did not smoke. Hughes does not smoke.
+The inmates of reform schools all smoke. Smokers
+are physically and mentally unsafe!</p>
+
+<p>This may all be true for all I can prove to
+the contrary, but what of it? Many war heroes
+smoke. Grant certainly did. Small, defective
+and generally backward children normally
+spring from parents who underfeed them, who
+are themselves defective in heredity and who
+neglect to instruct their children in any essential
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span>
+matters. Can you prove that smoking
+alone either stunted them or put them in the
+reform school? You cannot. Criminals are
+predominantly religious according to their professions
+of faith. Did Christianity make them
+criminals? If smokers are mentally unsafe
+may I fervently declaim—God help research!</p>
+
+<p>You hear it said that the children of smoking
+mothers are inferior. Are they? How can
+it be proven? As a matter of fact no scientific
+experiment could possibly be carried on to
+prove this, for statistics, being riddled by all
+sorts of idiosyncrasies and unknowns, are
+grossly unscientific. To prove it you might
+have the same mother have two children at
+separate times by the same father, smoking
+while she bore one and abstaining for the control
+child. But that would prove nothing. Each
+child is a unique individual arising from a
+unique chromosome mixture. The mother and
+father would of necessity be older in the one
+case than in the other. Nourishment and other
+environmental conditions would inevitably
+vary. The experiment is impossible. Yet until
+such an experiment becomes possible we are
+merely voicing opinions when we say that
+smoking causes inferior children. The actual
+cause may be any of a thousand other and
+extraneous factors.</p>
+
+<p>When you consider how very often tobacco
+smoking is mentioned therapeutically and how
+universally it seems to be assumed that it is
+deleterious to health it is rather disconcerting
+to discover so little reliable scientific work to
+confirm this prevalent viewpoint. In fact practically
+no comprehensive, systematic work has
+been done by scientific research to prove that
+smoking is exceedingly harmful to the human
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span>
+system. Like so many other human preconceptions
+this assumption rests largely upon
+faith. To the acutely prejudiced non-smokers
+smoking seems so utterly perverse that it
+surely must be physically injurious.</p>
+
+<p>A rational esthetic case could be made out
+against certain women smoking. True, the
+modern woman so sedulously apes the other sex
+that to deprive her of her cigarette is simply
+to deprive her gracelessly of her masculinity.
+We should never do that. But the spectacle of
+a really pretty, effeminate woman smoking is
+nevertheless an esthetic affront. Nothing the
+average man can do could make him look very
+much worse than he does naturally so even
+this slight objection does not apply bisexually.</p>
+
+<p>But we have wandered, and I am of course
+at fault, having set out laudably to lead our
+thought procession. In my search of the scientific
+literature the nearest thing to an authority
+I came across was perhaps Sir Humphrey
+Rolleston, Baronet, K. C. B.; F. R. C. P. and
+M. D. of Cambridge, England, physician to King
+George V in his late 1928 illness. He discusses
+“The Medical Aspects of Tobacco” in such staid
+British medical journals as <cite>The Lancet</cite> and
+<cite>The Practitioner</cite>. He reviews every possible
+lesion that might spring from tobacco smoking,
+and they are many—quite as many indeed
+as may spring from over eating artichokes or
+drinking three gallons of well-water daily. He
+sets himself flatly against animal experimentation
+in this matter because this cannot possibly
+take idiosyncrasies into account, and reminds
+us that humans are both highly individualized
+and exceedingly complex.</p>
+
+<p>Rolleston then remarks that cigarettes are
+less invidious than pipes or cigars because
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span>
+cigarette smoke is more air diluted. He finds
+a wide diversity of opinion as to the harmfulness
+of tobacco; he doubts that it ever affects
+the nervous system greatly and believes that
+coffee and tea usually produce the heart symptoms
+attributed to smoking and that a latent
+venereal disease accounts for much smoker’s
+cancer. He doubts also that dilation of the
+esophagus, dilation of the stomach, acid stomach
+and nervous dyspepsia are often due to
+tobacco while he commends the mildly laxative
+properties of a pipe after breakfast.</p>
+
+<p>Finally our baronet says, and the medical
+journal sustains him editorially, that in view
+of the universality of the habit of tobacco
+smoking the rarity of the organic lesions that
+can be traced out as undoubtedly due to that
+habit, beyond all question, is little less than
+surprising. This, I should say, is the woodpile
+Ethiopian. It is one thing for a physician to
+lean back and say cut down on tobacco, coffee,
+fried stuff and pastry. It is quite another for
+him to prove scientifically that these indulgences
+have undeniably caused the patient’s
+present low physical estate.</p>
+
+<p>D. T. Barry, F. R. C. S. and M. D. of the
+Physiological Department, University College,
+Cork, is not very far off when he writes: “The
+physiological effects of tobacco, as our present
+knowledge reveals them, are not sufficiently
+deleterious to counter-balance the benign influence
+of the drug in other respects. It may
+be abused, of course, but so may food, and
+this latter form of abuse is, in my opinion,
+responsible for greater evils than those resulting
+from the abuse of tobacco.”</p>
+
+<p>In this connection another authority, Armstrong-Jones,
+remarks that tobacco smoking in
+moderation is not injurious to adults but is a
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span>
+valuable sedative. It contributes to calm
+thought and efficient mental functioning. Worst
+of all he casually remarks that cigarette smoking,
+preferably without a holder, is the least
+injurious form of tobacco indulgence. Even
+allowing for the fact that the gentleman has
+seen some of the less comely holders I have
+witnessed in my time, his statements give
+pause.</p>
+
+<p>Of course Earp’s well-known studies at Antioch
+College, Ohio, did indicate that non-smokers
+showed an intellectual superiority
+over smokers, but whether these things were
+cause and effect or mere harmless concomitants
+who knows? Many very eminent intellectual
+giants smoked excessively. Perhaps
+they would have achieved absolute omnipotence
+or omniscience had they been non-smokers.
+Again, who knows?</p>
+
+<p>It is significant that Earp’s non-smokers
+showed no physical superiority over his smokers;
+that is, it is interesting when you remember
+that the American university is an institution
+of athletic training wherein some intellectual
+education is offered to the feeble-bodied
+as a consolation prize. Intelligence tests are
+not affected by smoking, the non-smokers
+ranking just as high after smoking as before
+they had ever touched the vile weed. Finally,
+the correlation between the length of a student’s
+indulgence in tobacco and his scholarship
+is so negligible as to indicate that there
+can be no chronic cumulative poisoning from
+tobacco.</p>
+
+<p>Laymen do not realize how difficult it is to
+trace a diseased condition to a specific cause
+even when bacteria abound, as is not the case
+in smoking. For instance certain bacteria so
+closely resemble each other that even experts
+are hard put to tell them apart. Diphtheria
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span>
+germs possess such a dead ringer. Real diphtheria
+cultures were once sent out to clinical
+laboratories along with other cultures containing
+no diphtheria germs, but germs so closely
+resembling them that the laboratories involved
+returned all sorts of results. Some reported
+that the actual diphtheria cultures contained
+no diptheria germs at all; others that some
+of the germs simulating diphtheria in appearance
+were positively the real thing. So a tooth
+or a tonsil may contain a germ so similar to
+those found at the seat of secondary infection
+that they are indistinguishable, yet the germ
+may be harmless in one case and virulent in
+the other.</p>
+
+<p>Certainly it is unlikely that we carry virulent
+germs about in teeth and tonsils for long
+years. For one thing they get acclimated to
+us and can change their murderous habits.
+For another we get used to them. This organism
+of ours is an hospitable sort of thing.
+The body tends to adjust in neighborly fashion
+to germs upon long acquaintance, or familiarity
+breeds contempt, just as it adjusts to
+morphine, to opium, to over-eating, to the corrosive
+harness oils now sold as bootleg whiskey
+and to tobacco, of course. Perhaps long
+acquaintance ripens into real friendship and
+mutual aid.</p>
+
+<p>Nicotine is the active agent in tobacco. Mendenhall
+tells us that tobacco sometimes stimulates
+and sometimes depresses the bodily sensory
+mechanism, depending largely upon the
+state of fatigue prevalent at the moment.
+When stimulation occurs the effect is precisely
+that of a certain portion of high potential rest,
+for in this case, says our authority, tobacco
+has rested us artificially.</p>
+
+<p>Certain work seems to prove quite clearly
+that tobacco slows down the gastric motility as
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span>
+well as pepsin and rennin secretion. At least it
+produced such results on certain individuals,
+although the majority of mankind may be immune
+for all we know. This would slow down
+digestion, but it takes considerable smoking to
+accomplish such a result even with the susceptible,
+and one cigarette after a meal, even a
+cigar, would scarcely be sufficient. It has also
+been stated in scientific journals that tobacco
+<em>may</em> play an etiologic role in gastric neurosis,
+in gastritis, in ulcer and cancer of the stomach
+and, likewise, in mouth or throat carcinoma.</p>
+
+<p>But, putting your mind rigidly to the task,
+can you readily think of anything from hot
+soup to worry that has not at some time by
+some person been accused of causing these
+conditions? Why is this? Holding a clay pipe
+in the mouth may cause mouth cancer; holding
+an ordinary pipe might; continuously holding
+a roughened stick there might also, with
+tobacco never involved. How do these anti-tobacco
+ideas arise?</p>
+
+<p>Why are we told that so many things cause
+ulcer, cancer, kidney trouble, heart lesions or
+high blood pressure? Why are there so many
+theories of evolution or of creation, or of salvation
+for that matter? Why are there so many
+and such diverse theories of economic and political
+betterment? Why are there such varied
+schools of treatment often imposing diametrically
+opposed procedures to combat the very
+same maladies? Why do men differ so widely
+in their hypotheses about government, religion,
+tobacco, women? Simply because nobody as yet
+knows anything positively definite about these
+matters, and just so long as this condition of
+inspired ignorance persists, so long will infinitely
+varied opinions be inevitable.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <cite>Journal
+of the American Medical Association</cite>, 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span>
+<cite>The Laryngoscope</cite> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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>i. e.</i>,
+fall back upon empiricism.</p>
+
+<p>As for prejudice, it amounts to little. Cromwell
+and his Puritans smoked excessively.
+About 1840 women smoked outrageous stogies
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>In an editorial upon the subject during 1925
+<cite>The Journal of the American Medical Association</cite>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+
+<h3>DEBUNKING “DENICOTINIZED” TOBACCO</h3>
+
+<p>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!</p>
+
+<p>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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>At the same time, however, it is vaguely
+interesting to many people to know whether
+smoking is injurious. All sorts of ills have
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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—</p>
+
+<table>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Cigarette.</td>
+    <td class="tdr">Percent Nicotine.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Egyptian Deities</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.28</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Pall Mall</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.38</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Philip Morris</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.40</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Lucky Strike</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.88</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Camel</td>
+    <td class="tdr">2.21</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Old Gold</td>
+    <td class="tdr">2.17</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Capstan Navy Cut</td>
+    <td class="tdr">2.30</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Chesterfield</td>
+    <td class="tdr">2.53</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Piedmont</td>
+    <td class="tdr">2.89</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>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:</p>
+
+<table>
+<tr><td class="tdl">“Denicotinized”</td>
+    <td class="tdr">Percent</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Cigarette.</td>
+    <td class="tdr">Nicotine</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Sano</td>
+    <td class="tdr">2.32</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Cestrada Virginia</td>
+    <td class="tdr">2.10</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Dormy Turkish</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.19</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Sackett</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.02</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Next I shall list the cigars and the smoking
+tobacco analyzed—</p>
+
+<table>
+<tr><td class="tdc pad1" colspan="2">Normal</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Reyes de Espana</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.16</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Manila</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.31</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Knickerbocker</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.90</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td class="tdc pad1" colspan="2">“Denicotinized”
+    <span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Sano</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.07</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">O-Nic-O</td>
+    <td class="tdr">.72</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Sackett</td>
+    <td class="tdr">.67</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The smoking tobaccos tested ran—</p>
+
+<table>
+<tr><td class="tdc pad1" colspan="2">Normal</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Blue Boar Pipe</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.45</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Weldon Slice</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.84</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Hudson Bay Imperial</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.95</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Gilbert’s Mixture</td>
+    <td class="tdr">2.09</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td class="tdc pad1" colspan="2">“Denicotinized”</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td class="tdl">Dormy Smoking</td>
+    <td class="tdr"> 2.26</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Sackett</td>
+    <td class="tdr">.98</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">O-Nic-O</td>
+    <td class="tdr">.97</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>In short, the average for all brands tested
+stood 1.77 percent nicotine straight and 1.28
+percent still in the “denicotinized” products.
+Seventy-two percent of the nicotine remains behind.
+The process is, like the process of removing
+caffeine from coffees, very largely bunk
+but it is bunk that makes the American people
+spend their money, as Barnum very well knew.
+A person can with considerable ease select an
+ordinary tobacco which is so near the nicotine
+content of the “denicotinized” varieties that he
+scarcely seems justified in paying the higher
+prices for the treated product.</p>
+
+<p>Was ever a nation so neurotic over its health
+as ours? European observers are constantly
+amazed at the imbecile delight we show in all
+sorts of products especially treated to make
+them less toxic, more digestible, less harmful
+and more beneficial. Just tell an American
+that you have vacuum treated your coffee and
+have thereby removed some obscure organic
+compounds which normally tie his stomach in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span>
+knots and he will faithfully believe you and
+buy it. Tell him you have taken the nicotine
+out of his cigarette and though 72 percent of
+it is still there he will buy. Tell him Grapenuts
+make his teeth sound and he will buy.
+Tell him that he can improve his health by
+standing on his head on a cake of ice in a
+blast furnace while somebody shoots a stream
+of liquid platinum in his left ear and you will
+find some fool to do it in America. Why are
+we such damned fools? I am not going to tell
+you. I don’t know. But we are.</p>
+
+
+<h3>IS COFFEE DRINKING HARMFUL?</h3>
+
+<p>It is recorded in the annals of history that
+a certain doctor once told a certain patient to
+drink no coffee. Were you, perchance, the
+patient? I know I was. But why did the doctor
+say that? Because if we stopped there
+would be more coffee left for him?</p>
+
+<p>It is also recorded that there once lived a
+certain Arab whose name comes down to us
+as Chadely. Chadely is reputed to have been
+the initial coffee drinker of the world and he
+drank an extract of the berry to combat a continual
+drowsiness which prevented him from
+attending punctually his religious devotions!
+In this others of the Mohammedan faithful
+rapidly followed him, and the habit might well
+be cultivated by certain church-going Christians
+with sedative pastors.</p>
+
+<p>Now I am one of those most unfortunate
+persons over whom alcohol has no appreciable
+authority. I confess this with shame and deep
+humiliation. Right in this Prohibition Era
+when various nondescript alcoholic beverages
+are held in higher esteem than ever before in
+our history (for does not the lowliest shellac
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span>
+now become a sacred and inviolate symbol of a
+personal liberty we would not recognize in this
+collectivist country if we saw it?) I can drink
+one, two or even three glasses of high voltage
+and yet remain placid, neutral, passionless,
+taciturn and erect in posture. So far as I am
+concerned even the dynamic and remorseless
+cocktail of these days is just so much ill-tasting
+liquid. Isn’t this tragic?</p>
+
+<p>But I would not prohibit the sale, ingurgitation
+or even the flagrant abuse of these curiously
+synthesized beverages, or even of good
+alcohol drinks. Not for one single prohibitive
+instant. For I want my coffee and some day
+some bluenose wowser might seek to deprive
+me of the cup that really cheers me. For I
+can arise in the morning hopeless, misanthropic,
+pessimistic, with a strong suicidal impulse,
+a feeling of uselessness and a Calvinistic
+conviction of sin—yet one cup of good coffee
+completely reverses my emotions and stirs me
+to optimism, confidence, cheer and incipient
+exaltation. I can be induced to consider new
+fur coats and parlor rugs.</p>
+
+<p>Or again, in the evening, I may have sunk
+into a mental stupor, becoming in fact so definitely
+subhuman that I can only listen to a
+radio or read a newspaper—but coffee at once
+changes the entire universe and suffuses me
+with self-satisfaction, energy, will power and
+complacency—jostles my brain cells rudely
+against each other and clicks out of them what
+little useful information there is in them. Indeed
+I strongly sympathize with any dull soul
+who momentarily sweeps aside the stagnant
+miasmas of toil, monotony and misery with a
+swig of ethyl alcohol—in varied disguise. Insensitive
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span>
+to alcohol I do exactly the same thing
+with caffeine.</p>
+
+<p>It is a most curious matter upon which to
+meditate. The entire universe is not something
+static and permanently postulated by
+definition. It is not even what I made it a
+moment ago. It is what coffee makes me and
+makes me make it at this moment. Leaving
+my entire environment, debts and all, and my
+complete mental and somatic equipment <i lang="la">in
+statu quo</i> one dash of caffeine completely reorganizes
+the universe for me and as completely
+modifies my reaction thereto. The final
+test in any scientific experiment takes place
+when one variable factor accomplishes such results
+while all other factors remain completely
+unaltered. I know my coffee.</p>
+
+<p>But of course this is a world wherein doctors
+sound solemn tocsins to pleasure. You go to
+them and they almost invariably admonish
+you to quit smoking tobacco and drinking coffee,
+to have your teeth pulled and your tonsils
+uprooted. Some years ago I myself suffered
+from chronic indigestion. I was on a meticulous
+diet which lacked meat and coffee and I
+was about ready to accuse coffee alone of all
+my indispositions. But I met a hardy old
+codger of eighty who drank eight cups of
+strong coffee daily and had but recently reduced
+his consumption from a normal dozen
+and his vigor, which he attributed to seventy
+years of strong coffee, greatly heartened me.
+I knew what the doctor would say. I didn’t
+smoke. Teeth and coffee alone were left. So
+I went soberly to the expert in exodontia.</p>
+
+<p>He at first demurred and insisted that I had
+no teeth meriting destruction. But I was desperate.
+I insisted. So he X-rayed around,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span>
+finally selected an inoffensive and courteous
+molar and drew it. The shock or something
+proved beneficial. At least I had no more indigestion
+and even learned how to drink two
+cups of strong coffee and go to sleep on the
+draft. This is the final step in expert coffee
+drinking. When you can perform that feat
+and outwit your imagination you have come
+into the inner circle of The Sacred Coffee
+Drinkers’ Conclave.</p>
+
+<p>But I remained curious. I wondered why
+doctors said drink no coffee. I determined to
+find out something about this. Botany didn’t
+get me very far. It simply declared “Coffee
+is the product of a rubiaceous plant indigenous
+to Abyssinia of the <i lang="la">genus</i> coffea; there are
+about twenty-five known species, of which
+coffea Arabica is the most important commercially.”</p>
+
+<p>History was slightly more productive. It
+appeared coffee drinking was of respectable
+age and that the substance derived its name
+from K’hawah, or Kaffa, an Abyssinian Province,
+and that there it was employed as a stimulant
+for centuries before its introduction into
+Arabia. The Arab physician Khayes, who
+lived 850-922 A. D., wrote on coffee and knowledge
+of the plant arrived in Europe by the late
+sixteenth century. It is most interesting to
+remember that these Arabian Mohammedans
+used coffee as an anti-soporific during prolonged
+religious ceremonies. Yet the beverage
+at first underwent violent protest because
+strictly orthodox and conservative priests held
+it to be intoxicating and hence under the ban
+of the Koran.</p>
+
+<p>At Constantinople certain dervishes also
+held that after roasting coffee had become a
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span>
+kind of coal which the Prophet had denounced
+as inedible. Thereupon the coffee houses were
+closed. But a lenient mufti later proved to the
+satisfaction of the faithful that roasted coffee
+was not coal and they were reopened.</p>
+
+<p>The earliest European coffee houses were
+established, in fact, in Constantinople and in
+Venice. The first one appeared in England in
+1650; out of it grew the Oxford Coffee Club
+in 1655 and from that sprang the Royal Society
+itself. But alas, convivial gatherings at
+coffee houses became of ill repute; wives complained
+they could not expect their husbands
+back from errands because they would loiter
+in coffee houses and kings declared that their
+subjects met at coffee houses, became garrulous
+and bespoke political rebellion. The current
+Volstead, Charles II, therefore, sought to
+suppress coffee drinking, but evidently Anglo-Saxons
+valued their liberties more then than
+now for the King had little success. Frederick
+the Great, fearing coffee drinking for the more
+thrifty reason that it caused too much money
+to leave his domain, boldly attributed sterility
+to indulgence in the berry and sought to restrict
+the use of coffee by a license system.</p>
+
+<p>The medical profession came forward to denounce
+coffee for all sorts of sins. The English
+Dr. Pecoke accused it of causing leprosy.
+Dr. Duncan of Montpellier in 1706 wrote in
+opposition to all hot beverages while James
+the I actually composed a royal “Broadside
+Against Coffee.” The kingly book contained
+this gem—</p>
+
+<div class="poetry-container">
+<div class="poetry">
+    <div class="verse indent0">Confusion huddles all into one scene,</div>
+    <div class="verse indent0">Like Noah’s arks, the clean and the unclean,</div>
+    <div class="verse indent0">For now, alas! the drink has credit got,</div>
+    <div class="verse indent0">And he’s no gentleman who drinks it not.</div>
+  </div>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span>
+Millingen in his “Curiosities of Medical Experiences,”
+1837, said that coffee in excess produced
+“feverish heat and a predisposition to
+apoplexy.” But he did commend coffee and
+tea as beverages affording stimulus without
+producing intoxication. Francis Bacon declared
+that “coffee comforteth the heart and
+helpeth digestion” while Bach, to offset this,
+wrote his Cantata No. 211 of the “Secular Cantatas”
+to protest its use.</p>
+
+<p>In 1792 Dr. Benjamin Moseley said doubt
+existed as to whether coffee was a tonic or a
+sedative, but believed that it had intrinsic food
+value. Every now and then individuals arise
+to denounce or to praise an article of diet or a
+diet system and to declare that all men should
+hear and follow because this idea was of benefit
+to them. Such statements can have no
+standing in science, even when made by a doctor
+and based upon his actual experiences with
+a few patients. The only possible way to find
+out whether coffee, say, is beneficial, or the
+reverse is to investigate the literature and try
+to poll the authorities each one of whom has
+examined large numbers of individual cases to
+see if any general statements can be hazarded.
+Even then we cannot make final conclusions
+but we can assay general trends.</p>
+
+<p>Is coffee harmful then? What do physiologists,
+pharmacologists and medical men say?
+Coffee demonstrably enlivens the intellect, removes
+the sensation of fatigue and makes the
+subject feel more comfortable. These are gifts
+not to be sniffed out of court. But is coffee
+safe and harmless enough that we may dare
+indulge ourselves in this pleasant reaction in
+a world where the pleasant is so readily assumed
+to be <i lang="la">per se</i> the invidious—and so often
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span>
+is actually so? The question is in dispute like
+most questions considered settled by many people.
+There is no more reason to conclude one
+way than the other in so far as average adults
+are concerned. All who say dogmatically “No
+coffee—it is very harmful” are as wrong as all
+who state the opposite of this.</p>
+
+<p>In his “Personal and Community Health” C.
+E. Turner says coffee is not harmful to most
+adults in reasonable quantities. G. N. Stewart’s
+“Physiology” remarks that tea and coffee are
+safe stimulants because they have no bad after
+effects. Stewart also cautions against their
+abuse, but it may as well be stated at once that
+the question of abuse introduces an altogether
+new factor. Water and salt are absolutely
+necessary to life but the abuse of either is injurious.
+We can produce true water intoxications
+and salt eaten to excess can do us
+much harm. All articles of diet from parsnips
+and lamb chops to caffeine and alcohol can
+harm if abused and we should assume when
+speaking of them a sane, rational use and regard
+abuse as a harmful condition of a different
+order altogether.</p>
+
+<p>As C. E. A. Winslow well says in his
+“Healthy Living”—“The fact that tea and coffee
+sometimes become tyrants does not mean
+that such drinks are necessarily bad.”</p>
+
+<p>In one thing medical authorities do agree,
+however, coffee and tea are not beverages for
+children. Moralists to the contrary notwithstanding,
+this is again beside the point when
+we are considering the reasonable use of coffee
+by adults. Adults and children are essentially
+different animals using their food intake
+differently—the one for upkeep and repair the
+other for new construction as well as upkeep
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span>
+and repair. They differ basically in metabolism.
+They have different metabolic rates and
+different expenditures of energy. The child
+is turning food into flesh and bone and blood
+at a much greater rate than a fully-grown adult
+organism is ever required to do. Diets which
+would amply sustain an adult may easily be
+detrimental to or deficient for young and
+growing children. We shall, then, restrict ourselves
+herein to the rational use of coffee by
+average adults. What can coffee, or its active
+principle caffeine, do to harm adults?</p>
+
+<p>Caffeine definitely increases the force of the
+heart beat. Yet Wood, “Notice of Judgment
+Under the Food and Drugs Act No. 1455 1912,”
+says such an effect may be desirable since a
+slower rate and increased force induce cardiac
+efficiency. Heavy coffee drinking may produce
+a frequent, hard pulse and palpitations,
+but this again goes over into the territory of
+abuse.</p>
+
+<p>Coffee tends both to dilate the vascular system
+and to constrict it, the net result being a
+mass movement of the blood without increased
+blood pressure. Coffee has repeatedly been suspected
+of damage to the heart and blood vessels
+but such suspicions are common in therapy
+and evidence is entirely lacking to prove this
+point scientifically. Suspicion is here probably
+no more legitimate than in many lay superstitions.
+While patients with definite heart
+trouble should avoid all stimulants the normal
+use of coffee by an adult cannot be said to have
+an insidious effect upon the heart and blood
+vessels.</p>
+
+<p>While coffee is a diuretic it cannot be convicted
+of renal injury as yet. Indeed it is
+quite probable that the kidneys become accustomed
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span>
+to caffeine while A. R. Cushny (J. Pharmacol.
+&amp; Experimental Therapy 4 363) declares
+that caffeine does not injure the kidneys even
+when given in large dosage over long periods.</p>
+
+<p>But how about digestion? Years ago Fraser
+(J. of Anatomy &amp; Physiology 184 13 1883) said
+that coffee and tea hindered the digestion of
+protein foodstuffs with the exception of ham
+and eggs! This very fortunate immunity renders
+the typical American dish a safe breakfast
+in any case. In general, however, observations
+<i lang="la">in vivo</i> indicate that the amounts of the beverage
+usually taken have no evil effects upon
+digestion. Indeed some investigators have
+found a pronounced increase in gastric secretion
+following tea and coffee.</p>
+
+<p>Hutchinson in his “Food and Dietetics”
+says that the digestive disturbance caused by
+such infused beverages is negligible in health.
+Others have held that the aromatic constituents
+of coffee, or the “empyreumatic oil,” upset
+digestion. There may be some reason for this;
+at least certain individuals tolerate much better
+coffee from which these substances have
+been removed.</p>
+
+<p>Caffeine is of course a stimulant to the central
+nervous system, particularly that part of
+it intimately associated with the gastric function.
+How far is its use as such a cerebral
+stimulant advisable? Like all stimulants this
+will result in greater fatigue on excessive
+usage. But as “The Medical Review of Reviews”
+once said, “When tea and coffee are
+made moderate in strength and partaken of in
+sober quantities they are gentle stimulants and
+their effect upon the nervous system is salutary.”
+A too constant reliance on coffee as a
+goad may of course result in nervous irritability.
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span>
+Coffee speeds up the metabolism, increases
+the body heat and heat elimination, and perhaps
+urges us on to greater activity. But, as
+the English pharmacologist Dixon remarks in
+his “Manual of Pharmacology,” “Caffeine decidedly
+facilitates the performance of all forms
+of physical work.” Yet certain athletes are
+reported to have had their performances injured
+by coffee drinking, while Osborn holds
+that coffee interferes with the best muscular
+efforts. Take Hobson’s choice here, you have
+an authority either way and we do love some
+one to give our opinions an affidavit. It may
+be observed that coffee also increases the rate
+and depth of our respiration.</p>
+
+<p>The following gracefully and euphoniously
+named aromatics have been found in roasted
+coffee—pyrol, quinol, methylamin, acetone,
+furfuryl alcohol, a derivative of saligenin,
+phenols, valeric acid, pyridin and trimethylamin.
+You are no doubt much surprised and
+edified to know that. Some of these compounds
+are toxic, but they occur in coffee in amounts
+far too small to be dangerous to health. Some
+have accused these formidably named derivatives
+of bad effects but the work existing shows
+caffeine to be the only coffee constituent of
+importance in its physiological effects. It is
+agreed that caffeine is very rapidly changed by
+the body into less active substances and disposed
+of, so there can be no cumulative effect
+even of that. In old age, as in youth, coffee,
+like other stimulants, should be used in moderation
+if at all.</p>
+
+<p>As a whole then what can we conclude about
+the use of coffee by adults? Science has not
+found it harmful when taken in non-excessive
+amounts. Heart patients, neurotics, the young
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span>
+and the aged should avoid it. It has not been
+proven to cause pathological changes in the
+heart, blood vessels or kidneys. It is a valuable
+cerebral stimulant and antidote for mental
+fatigue, lacking as it does the bad effects of
+most stimulants. It also stimulates respiration
+and speeds up the metabolism, while its effects
+on digestion cannot be said to be definitely
+deleterious. Tea, because of its tannin content,
+is probably worse than coffee gastrically.
+Finally caffeine is rapidly oxidized and has no
+cumulative poisonous effect.</p>
+
+<p>Most important of all we must remember
+that individuals differ. They are constructed
+of different proteins and have cellular and
+glandular processes differing from individual
+to individual. What one can do with impunity
+another will find bringing him nearer to the
+undertaker daily. In this as in all other matters
+dietetic common sense and sound judgment
+in appraising our own state of health and
+the reactions of our organism to various stimuli
+will always surpass slavish subservience to
+systems or morbid efforts to avoid all harm
+and achieve an impossible all good.</p>
+
+<p>Then if we are to drink coffee let us consider
+momentarily how best to make it. One
+basic fact stands out—freshly ground coffee is
+best. Ground coffee loses its flavor on standing.
+It also loses its content of carbon dioxide.
+These two factors are definitely related but
+exactly how and why we do not know.</p>
+
+<p>In considering coffee-making precise scientific
+methods are everything. Our mothers,
+more energetic than the decadent women of
+today, made their own bread. They often appraised
+various flours by such rude methods
+and declared this brand better than that. How
+much could they have known about it? Did
+they keep every factor constant except the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span>
+flour when making their tests? You know
+they did not.</p>
+
+<p>Go into the laboratory in the U. S. Bureau
+of Chemistry, where flour bought by the government
+is tested, and what do you see? You
+see an apparatus enabling the investigator to
+make bread from that flour holding every factor
+constant except the flour. All other materials
+used are precisely the same and all
+materials are carefully weighed. The dough is
+kneaded mechanically and timed exactly. Fermentation
+takes place in a cabinet at a constant
+temperature and for a definite time for
+all loaves. The same holds for the time and
+temperature of baking. The loaves are cooled
+just alike on wire meshes for the same time.
+They are weighed and their volumes measured.
+Then the investigator positively knows which
+flour makes the best loaf of bread and the
+government buys that flour for its hospitals
+and penitentiaries.</p>
+
+<p>It is exactly the same with coffee. To test
+coffees they must be infused in very precise
+ways. How is it done? In the first place
+pulverized coffee must pass a 30 mesh sieve
+and be like fine cornmeal, medium ground coffee
+must pass a 10 mesh sieve and be like steel
+cut; coarsely ground coffee must pass an 8
+mesh sieve and appear like the rude, home
+ground bean of our childhood.</p>
+
+<p>Then boiling, boiling with egg, percolation
+and filtration must be tried on each by precise
+methods. A 40c. Mocha-Java coffee may be
+used with 12 grams of coffee and 240 cc. of
+water, except in the case of percolation which
+requires 480 cubic centimeters of water for
+12 grams of coffee. In boiling with egg 10
+grams of egg white were added. The infusion
+must be governed precisely.</p>
+
+<p>Boiling takes place in a seamless white
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span>
+enamel pot, cold water being poured over the
+coffee, the whole brought to a boil and boiling
+continued for three minutes; the infusion then
+stood five minutes and was ready. It was
+strained through cheese cloth. Percolation was
+carried out in the usual manner with an
+ordinary percolator, the water being cold at
+the start and boiling being continued for five
+minutes. In filtration a wire strainer was put
+across the top of the pot covered with a piece
+of tennis flannel upon which the coffee lay.
+Boiling water was poured through once.</p>
+
+<p>The brews were tested hot, for strength,
+color, and flavor by various people who did not
+know the methods of preparation. Six degrees
+of strength were observed with specific gravities
+of the brew by test as shown in the table—</p>
+
+<table>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Very weak</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.0045 Specific Gravity</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Weak</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.0055 Specific Gravity</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Moderately strong</td>
+    <td class="tdr pad2">1.0060 Specific Gravity</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Standard</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.0065 Specific Gravity</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">A little too strong</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.0070 Specific Gravity</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Much too strong</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.0080 Specific Gravity</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="unindent">The specific gravity was taken on the cold brew
+and a standard, 1.0065 was selected for further
+tests. The following table indicating condition
+of coffee, method of brew, weight of coffee used
+and cost per cup is of considerable interest—</p>
+
+<table>
+                                      
+<tr><td class="tdc">Condition</td>
+    <td class="tdc">Method<br>of infusion</td>
+    <td class="tdc">S. G. 1.0065<br>Weight Coffee<br>Grams</td>         
+    <td class="tdc pad2">Cost<br>per cup<br>cents</td></tr>                            
+
+<tr><td class="tdl">Pulverized</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Boiling</td>
+    <td class="tdc">12.05</td>
+    <td class="tdr">.63</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Pulverized</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Percolated</td>
+    <td class="tdc">12.78</td>
+    <td class="tdr">.71</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Pulverized</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Boiled with egg</td>
+    <td class="tdc">12.85</td>
+    <td class="tdr pad2">1.05</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Pulverized</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Filtered</td>
+    <td class="tdc">12.31</td>
+    <td class="tdr">.72</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Medium</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Boiling</td>
+    <td class="tdc">15.89</td>
+    <td class="tdr">.83</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Medium</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Percolated</td>
+    <td class="tdc">22.94</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.29</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Medium</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Boiled with egg</td>
+    <td class="tdc">16.71</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.29</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Medium</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Filtered</td>
+    <td class="tdc">30.00</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.73</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Coarse</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Boiling</td>
+    <td class="tdc">19.79</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.03</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Coarse</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Percolated</td>
+    <td class="tdc">27.52</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.54</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tdl">Coarse</td>
+    <td class="tdl pad2">Boiled with egg</td>
+    <td class="tdc">21.27</td>
+    <td class="tdr">1.56</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span>
+Hence it is apparent that pulverizing is the
+most efficient method of grinding. The best
+brew is made by filtration. Boiling with egg
+is second best while plain boiling and percolation
+are the poorest of all. In general, strength
+and color of the brew are quite independent of
+the blend and price but depend upon the grind.
+The flavor, however, varies markedly with the
+coffee brand and price. Java, Sumatra and
+Bogota give weaker infusions under the same
+conditions than do Mocha and Santos. The
+order of preference for flavor stood—Java,
+Sumatra, Santos, Bogota and Mocha. It was
+also observed that coffee which had stood long
+after grinding gave an infusion of a lower
+specific gravity and hence of impaired strength.</p>
+
+<p>The effect of adding sugar and cream to
+coffee is not well understood. Some assert
+that the fat of cream and the fats of the coffee
+bean form indigestible compounds, but there is
+scarcely sufficient experimental evidence to
+justify this. The tannin compounds in coffee
+are apparently not precipitated, as has frequently
+been stated, by the addition of sugar
+and cream. Testing a centrifuged cream from
+a beverage coffee gave no appreciable evidence
+of tannin while the remaining coffee infusion
+gave the normal positive tests for tannin. It
+is certainly true, however, according to one authority
+that black coffee without any additional
+substances, with the possible exception of a
+portion of sugar, is the most beneficial form of
+the beverage.</p>
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="Transcribers_Note">Transcriber’s Note:</h2>
+</div>
+
+<p>Obvious printing errors, such as
+partially printed letters and punctuation,
+were corrected. Three misspelled words were corrected.
+</p>
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75599 ***</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+
diff --git a/75599-h/images/cover.jpg b/75599-h/images/cover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3d8771a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75599-h/images/cover.jpg
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7ba2b3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #75599 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75599)