With regard to alcohol Dr. Reid in the same volume insists on the proposition that alcohol does not cause degeneration of a race, creating, as is claimed, ever more and more a tendency for people to take it because their immediate ancestors have taken it, but, on the contrary, there is a distinct evolution against it, and that what is hereditary, not by acquisition, but by family trait, is an immunity against the disease which eventually protects the nations that have been longest exposed to the effects of alcohol from the evil consequences of the substance. He says (p. 196):
How, then, has alcohol affected the races that have used it? Are the Jews and the races inhabiting the South of Europe the most degenerate on earth? Are North Europeans only less degenerate? Are the races that have never used alcohol, the Terra del Fuegians, the Esquimaux, and the Australian blacks, for instance, mentally and physically the finest in the world? We have only to state the proposition to see its absurdity. There is no evidence that the hereditary tendencies of any race have been altered by alcohol circulating in the blood and acting directly on the germ plasm. Once again the sufferings of the peoples have produced no effect, but the deaths among the peoples have produced an immense effect. Every race that has had experience of alcohol is temperate in the presence of an abundant supply in proportion to the length and severity of its past experience of the poison. The South Europeans and the Jews are the most temperate peoples in the world. West Africans also are very temperate. North Europeans are not drunken. Those savages, and those only, who have had little or no experience of alcohol—Esquimaux, Red Indians, Patagonians, Terra del Fuegians, Australian blacks—are beyond all the peoples the most drunken on earth.
Lest it should be thought that this discussion of the subject is only of significance with regard to nations and does not touch the individual, and, therefore, has but little significance for the problem that we are treating here. Dr. Reid's succeeding paragraph deserves attention:
Stated in this brief and direct way, the thesis is apt to excite incredulity. It is sharply opposed to popular beliefs, though that need not trouble us. Popular notions on abstruse points of science are occasionally erroneous. Of more importance is the fact that a mass of statistics purporting to prove that the children of drunkards tend to be degenerate has been compiled, especially by medical men in charge of lunatic asylums. But no "control" observations appear to have been made. We know that many drunken parents have normal children; certainly, therefore, parental drunkenness is not invariably a cause of filial degeneration. We know also that many temperate parents have defective children. There is nothing to show that the proportion is greater in the one case than in the other. Even were it established that the proportion of defective children is higher in the case of drunken parents, it would still have to be proved that the relation is one of cause and effect. People who have an inborn tendency to mental defect, who are abnormally depressed, nervous, restless or irritable, are often so constituted as to find solace in drink. Their children are liable to inherit their inborn mental defects with spontaneous variations—that is, to inherit the defect to a greater or lesser extent. The unborn child of a drunken and pregnant mother is practically another drunken person, as liable, or more liable to suffer from the effects of drink; but in such a case the resulting defect, though a mere acquirement, is tolerably certain to be regarded as a congenital (i. e. inborn) defect by the medical man who sees it. Mere acquirements, also, are the defects due to the ill-treatment, want and neglect to which the children of drunken parents are particularly exposed. Indeed, were it fully established that drunken parents, other than pregnant mothers, tend to have an excessive number of their children "congenitally defective," it would still be a question whether the filial defects were not mere acquirements. Prof. Cossar Ewart's observations on diseased pigeons renders this not unlikely. All these sources of error render the success of a statistical inquiry peculiarly difficult, if not impossible, but there is no indication that they ever occurred to the minds of the compilers.
Warnings as Suggestions.—I have a case in my notes in which a rather prominent professional man insists that he is quite sure that the alcoholism from which he suffered during the ten years between twenty-five and thirty-five was entirely due to suggestion. As a boy of sixteen he had gone off to boarding school, but not until his mother had taken him aside, told him that his father had drunk himself to death, had done it by secret tippling, and that they had found that for many years he had been accustomed to have whiskey near him in his office and take it rather frequently. He had never tasted spirituous liquor at this time and his mother begged him not to, for she felt sure that if he did his father's craving would awaken in him and would become uncontrollable. The day that he went away his father's eldest brother took him aside and said practically the same thing to him. A maiden aunt was not quite so emphatic, but she, too, pleaded with him to understand all the dangers. For his first year at school he did not touch liquor, but in his second year he tasted it once or twice but had no particular craving aroused in him. By chance when he was home at Christmas time some college mates who were visiting him gave his mother the impression that he belonged to a rather jovial set. Once more he was warned by mother and uncle. Above all they told him never to keep strong drink near him because that was what his father used to do. During his college years the fear of this hung over him. He resented it and probably took more liquor than he would have so far as actual craving went. After getting out into active life once more he suggested himself into the habit of taking an occasional glass of whiskey by himself. After a time he was constantly taking too much. For [{701}] ten years he hurt all of his prospects, broke his mothers heart, and was looked upon as a hopeless alcoholic. Then one day the thought came to him that it was not that he craved alcohol so much, but that his thoughts turned on it constantly and at first he dreaded it overmuch, then wondered what attraction there could be and then acquired a habit by suggestion. Once this train of thought worked itself out in his mind, he quit spirituous liquors for good. For ten years he has not touched them, he does not care for them, they do not constitute a temptation.
It must not be forgotten that many warnings may so preoccupy the mind with regard to a danger as to constitute temptations by suggestion. This is eminently true of alcoholism, the drug habits, sex habits and the like, in spite of the foolish present-day notion that information and warning must necessarily be helpful. In all these, teaching may be suggestively harmful.
Prophylaxis.—The most important part of the treatment of alcoholism through mental influence is by prophylaxis, and that, to be effective, must begin very early. Just as with regard to overeating, as I have pointed out in the chapter on [Obesity], it is extremely important not to permit children to acquire habits with regard to alcohol when they are young. During the growing years the system, indeed one may say all the systems of the body—the nervous, the muscular, the digestive and the mental systems—are all more or less unstable. Deep impressions may be produced on them then, and if children are allowed, much less encouraged, during their growing years (and this includes practically all the years up to twenty-five) to indulge in alcohol, then one can look for the development of a craving very hard to eradicate later in life. Many of them will be able to conquer the desire thus awakened, but a great many of them will not. We have some very definite evidence on this point and some of it collected here in America is very valuable. Dr. Alexander Lambert of New York made a study of over 250 cases of alcoholism seen in the wards at Bellevue Hospital, paying special attention to the age at which the patients remembered they had begun the use of alcoholic liquors. If anyone doubts the influence of youth in this matter, then his statistics should be read:
Of 259 instances where the age of beginning to drink was known, four began before six years of age; thirteen between 6 and 12 years; sixty between 12 and 16; one hundred and two between 16 and 21; seventy-one between 21 and 30; and eight only after 30 years of age. Thus nearly seven per cent. began before 12 years of age, or the seventh school year; thirty per cent. began before the age of 16; and over two-thirds—that is, sixty-eight per cent.—began before 21 years of age.
Dr. Henry Smith Williams, commenting on Dr. Lambert's study of this subject in his article on "The Scientific Solution of the Liquor Problem," [Footnote 54] states emphatically the conclusion so inevitable from these statistics that more than anything else alcoholism is the result of habits and occasions created in early years. He adds some remarks that are worth noting for those who are interested in the prevention and cure of alcoholism, not only in particular cases, but also for the community: