No more authoritative opinions on this subject can be found than those contained in the two volumes from which quotations have been made—and the strongest opinions are not quoted. In spite of the isolated claims made for alcohol, the fact remains that the knowledge of the world indicates that alcohol is a poison to the human system; that it is not "for the belly." However, the value of the external use of alcohol, for various purposes, has never been denied. On the contrary almost every up to date practitioner recommends the external use of alcohol, as for instance after baths for lowering the temperature of fever patients. In this matter, then, Joseph Smith was in perfect harmony with the latest results of science. It is strange that he, unlearned as he was, should have stated what is now known as truth, so clearly and simply, yet so emphatically, more than seventy years ago, before the main experiments on the effect of alcohol on the human organsim had been made.
[Sidenote: The doctrine that tobacco is injurious to man is scientific.]
"And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill."[A] Although tobacco has been used for several centuries by civilized man, the real cause of the effect which it has upon the human body was not understood until the early part of the last century. In 1809, a chemist separated from tobacco an active principle, in an impure state, some of the properties of which he observed. In 1822, two other chemists succeeded in isolating the same principle, in a pure condition, and found it to be a colorless, oily liquid, of which two to eight per cent is found in all tobacco. This substance has been called nicotine; later investigations have shown it to be one of the most active poisons known. Tobacco owes its activity entirely to this poison."[B]
[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, 89:8.]
[Footnote B: Wormley, Micro-chemistry of Poisons, 2nd ed., pp. 434, 435.]
The intensely poisonous nature of nicotine is illustrated by a number of cases on record. One drop placed on the tongue of a cat caused immediate prostration, and death in seventy-eight seconds. A smaller drop was placed on the tongue of another cat, which resulted in death after two minutes and a half. A third cat to which a similar quantity had been administered was dead after seventy-five seconds. A man who was accustomed to smoking took a chew of tobacco, and after a quarter of an hour accidently swallowed the mass. An hour later he became unconscious and died. In another case, in which an ounce of tobacco had been swallowed, death resulted in seven hours. In still another case, one ounce of tobacco was boiled in water, and the solution drunk as an remedy for constipation. The patient died in three quarters of an hour.[A] These, and numerous other cases, illustrate the intensely poisonous nature of tobacco. The evil effects of the repeated use of small amounts of tobacco, in smoking or chewing are also well understood.
[Footnote A: Ibid, pp. 436, 437.]
[Sidenote: Joseph Smith probably did not know the poisonous nature of tobacco in 1833.]
It was in 1828, about five years before Joseph Smith's doctrine with respect to tobacco was given, that nicotine was obtained in a pure state. Many years later the chemists and physiologists learned to understand the dangerous nature of the tobacco poison. It does not seem probable that Joseph Smith had heard of the discovery of nicotine in 1833; the discovery was announced in a German scientific journal, and in those days of few newspapers, scientific news, even of public interest, was not made generally known as quickly as is the case today. In fact, Hyrum Smith, the brother of the Prophet, on May 29, 1842, delivered a sermon upon the Word of Wisdom in which he says, "Tobacco is a nauseous, stinking, abominable thing;"[A] but nothing worse, thus basing his main objection to it on the revealed word of the Lord. Had Joseph and his associates been familiar with the isolation of nicotine and its properties, they would undoubtedly have mentioned it in sermons especially directed against the use of tobacco. In any case, at a time when it was but vaguely known that tobacco contained a poisonous principle, it would have been extremely hazardous for the reputation of an impostor to have claimed a revelation from God, stating distinctly the injurious effects of tobacco.
[Footnote A: The Contributor, vol. iv., p. 13; Improvement Era, Vol. 4. pp. 943-9.]