some accidental circumstance, this moderation should, on occasion, degenerate into excess, injurious symptoms follow. Let me quote one or two opinions on the subject. Sir Robert Christison writes, "No well-ascertained ill effects have been shown to result from. the habitual practice of tobacco-smoking;" whilst Dr. Richardson says, "Perhaps it is the only luxury not injurious." And Dr. Pereira, one of the greatest writers on therapeutics, remarks, "In habitual smokers the practice, when moderately indulged in, produces that remarkably soothing and tranquillising effect on the mind which has caused it to be so much adopted by all classes of society." The study of individual smokers must convince any reasonable mind that the practice is not destructive to body and mind, as some assert. Look, for instance, at Prince Bismarck and Count Moltke. They smoke continually, and yet they are two of the most remarkable men in Europe. I know that some of our greatest physicians and surgeons smoke, and also that at the Bar some of the most distinguished men enjoy their cigars. How, then, can tobacco poison mind and body? I am, of course, asking this question with regard to moderate smoking. No one can be more ready than I am to admit that excess in tobacco is a great evil. But here I may be asked, what is excess? This is, I must say, an extremely difficult question to answer. What may be excess in one man is only moderation in another. There is the greatest difference as to the amount which men smoke. Just as some men can eat a heavy meat meal three times a day, and feel no symptom of indigestion, so there are many men who can smoke large quantities of tobacco without injury. I repeat that we cannot exactly define the quantity any man may smoke without deleterious results, but speaking generally, and as the result of considerable observation, I believe that an adult may smoke a couple of ounces of tobacco a week, and feel sure that he is not overstepping the boundary of moderation. The chief danger of smoking is lest this moderation should degenerate into excess. But in this risk tobacco is not much different from other luxuries or indulgences. If this argument is to be used against tobacco, we must also apply it about every habit of man. I readily admit that I have seen many cases of serious injury to health from excessive smoking; but I must also add that I know many instances in which moderate smoking has proved most beneficial. It may, however, be asked, How can tobacco possibly be any advantage to health? The answer to this question is, that its beneficial action is through the nervous system. Medical men well know the sedative action of alcohol after fatigue, or severe mental effort. Just in the same way : Now, if the answer it is this: Does smoking lead to drunkenness? to this question be in the affirmative, tobacco deserves to be at once banished from the list of our luxuries and every good citizen ought to endeavour to limit the use of a substance destructive alike to the health and happiness of the nation. It is chiefly to this phase of the question that the anti-tobacconist addresses himself, and for which he reserves his most violent diatribes. He avers that smoking always leads to drinking. But if we regard the matter judicially, I think the evidence is quite the other way. In the first place, women, who are unfortunately too often drunkards, do not smoke; and the vice of excessive drinking is, in proportion, more on the increase among women than among men, while smoking is largely increasing among the male sex. Again, it is well known that the confirmed drunkard will invariably give up smoking as soon as drink enslaves him. When he becomes a drunkard he will cease to be a smoker. But it may be argued that here the harm is done long since, and that, although the confirmed drunkard may be unable to enjoy tobacco, yet it was smoking which in the first instance led him on to drink. This is pure assumption, and is contrary to the opinion and experience of thoughtful men who have studied the matter. I have now, for several years, closely analysed tobaccosmoking from this point of view, and I am convinced that there is no evidence to prove that smoking leads to drunkenness. That the great majority of drinking men smoke is no proof, because the larger number of the adult male population in this country now smoke. is, on the contrary, well known that the thorough smoker prefers what is called a dry pipe. I readily admit that to many men a little stimulant renders the pipe more enjoyable; some prefer coffee or tea, others a glass of ale or claret, while to many a glass of spirit and water is most agreeable. And why not? We do the same with our meals. I can see no harm whatever in the moderate glass being taken with the evening pipe by such as like it, any more than I can see harm in taking a glass of sherry with fish or soup at dinner. We do not object to the combination of lobster sauce and cucumber with our salmon, or to lemon with our whitebait; why, then, cry out against the smoker taking his combination? The glutton and the drunkard must not interfere with the man who is temperate in all things. Further, it is a fact that, while the Turks are great smokers, they are the most abstemious of nations. Again, the Italians are inveterate smokers, but yet, taking them as a nation, they are most abstemious. On the other hand, the Scotch perhaps drink more spirit than any other people, and yet we do not find smoking nearly so general in Scotland as in Italy. In short, a man who is a drunkard is so independently, and often in spite of being a smoker. Excessive smoking and drinking go together, not as cause and effect, but as the consequence of a weak and vicious nature, easily yielding to every indulgence and temptation, and rushing headlong into excess in all things. Lastly, it may be urged that at least smoking excites thirst, and in this way encourages drinking habits. But so does playing cricket or eating York ham. This argument may equally be used against all our out-door amusements, and many of our ordinary articles of food. I myself do not believe that smoking excites thirst. Men take sometimes a stimulant with their pipe, not because they are thirsty, but because the two-like bread and cheese, or bread and butter-go well together. Of all these things we may say with Virgil, : it is this: Does smoking lead to drunkenness? Now, if the answer to this question be in the affirmative, tobacco deserves to be at once banished from the list of our luxuries and every good citizen ought to endeavour to limit the use of a substance destructive alike to the health and happiness of the nation. It is chiefly to this phase of the question that the anti-tobacconist addresses himself, and for which he reserves his most violent diatribes. He avers that smoking always leads to drinking. But if we regard the matter judicially, I think the evidence is quite the other way. In the first place, women, who are unfortunately too often drunkards, do not smoke; and the vice of excessive drinking is, in proportion, more on the increase among women than among men, while smoking is largely increasing among the male sex. Again, it is well known that the confirmed drunkard will invariably give up smoking as soon as drink enslaves him. When he becomes a drunkard he will cease to be a smoker. But it may be argued that here the harm is done long since, and that, although the confirmed drunkard may be unable to enjoy tobacco, yet it was smoking which in the first instance led him on to drink. This is pure assumption, and is contrary to the opinion and experience of thoughtful men who have studied the matter. I have now, for several years, closely analysed tobaccosmoking from this point of view, and I am convinced that there is no evidence to prove that smoking leads to drunkenness. That the great majority of drinking men smoke is no proof, because the larger number of the adult male population in this country now smoke. is, on the contrary, well known that the thorough smoker prefers what is called a dry pipe. I readily admit that to many men a little stimulant renders the pipe more enjoyable; some prefer coffee or tea, others a glass of ale or claret, while to many a glass of spirit and water is most agreeable. And why not? We do the same with our meals. I can see no harm whatever in the moderate glass being taken with the evening pipe by such as like it, any more than I can see harm in taking a glass of sherry with fish or soup at dinner. We do not object to the combination of lobster sauce and cucumber with our salmon, or to lemon with our whitebait; why, then, cry out against the smoker taking his combination? The glutton and the drunkard must not interfere with the man who is temperate in all things. Further, it is a fact that, while the Turks are great smokers, they are the most abstemious of nations. Again, the Italians are inveterate smokers, but yet, taking them as a nation, they are most abstemious. On the other hand, the Scotch perhaps drink more spirit than any other people, and yet we do not find smoking nearly so general in Scotland as in Italy. In short, a man who is a drunkard is so independently, and often in spite of being a smoker. Excessive smoking and drinking go together, not as cause and effect, but as the consequence of a weak and vicious nature, easily yielding to every indulgence and temptation, and rushing headlong into excess in all things. Lastly, it may be urged that at least smoking excites thirst, and in this way encourages drinking habits. But so does playing cricket or eating York ham. This argument may equally be used against all our out-door amusements, and many of our ordinary articles of food. I myself do not believe that smoking excites thirst. Men take sometimes a stimulant with their pipe, not because they are thirsty, but because the two-like bread and cheese, or bread and butter-go well together. Of all these things we may say with Virgil, |