diff options
Diffstat (limited to '75599-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 75599-0.txt | 947 |
1 files changed, 947 insertions, 0 deletions
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 *** |