172 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



The effect of nicotine on the growth is very measurable, and the following 

 figures are presented as a fairly satisfactory demonstration of the extent of the 

 interference with growth that may be expected in boys from sixteen to twenty- 

 five years of age, when they are believed to have reached full maturity. For 

 purposes of comparison the men composing a class in Yale have been divided 

 into three groups. The first is made up of those who do not use tobacco in any 

 form; the second consists of those who have used tobacco regularly for at least 

 a year of the college course; the third group includes the irregular users. 

 A compilation of the anthropometric data on this basis shows that during the 

 period of undergraduate life, which is essentially three and a half years, the 

 first group grows in weight 10.4 per cent, more than the second, and 6.6 per 

 than the second, and 11 per cent, more than the third; in girth of chest the 

 first group grows 26.7 per cent, more than the second, and 22 per cent, more 

 than the third; in capacity of lungs the first group gains 77 per cent, more 

 than the second, and 49.5 per cent, more than the third. 



These figures have been widely quoted, and generally considered as 

 affording positive proof that college students who do not use tobacco 

 make far greater progress in physical development than is the case 

 with smokers. Without actual figures of increment in measurements, 

 these percentages signify little or nothing. For instance, the difference 

 of 24 per cent, in stature increment reported might mean that the 

 smokers increased 17 millimeters and the non-smokers 21 millimeters, 

 but no one would attach any significance to a difference of 4 millimeters 

 in stature measurement. 



A recent study by E. L. Clarke, published in the Clark College 

 Record for July, 1909, shows that 46.3 per cent, of 201 students smoke. 

 The smokers exceed the non-smokers a little in strength and lung- 

 capacity, and 26 per cent, of the smokers won athletic insignia against 

 16 per cent, of the non-smokers. But in the matter of scholarship, 

 68.5 per cent, of the non-smokers won honors as against only 18.3 per 

 cent, of the smokers. Mr. Clarke concludes : 



1. As a rule the non-smoker is mentally superior to both the occasional 

 and the habitual smoker. 



2. As a rule the non-smoker is equal, and probably slightly superior, phys- 

 ically, to all members of the smoking classes except the athletes. It may well 

 be queried as to whether the smoking athlete does not make his gain at too 

 high a mental cost to make it pay. No one would contend for a moment that 

 smoking is the sole cause of these differences. There are numerous other factors 

 that are inseparably linked with it. 



The question may be approached from the physiologic, the moral 

 or the economic view-point. In this article, the chief aim will be to 

 determine if smoking exerts any influence upon the physical and mental 

 characteristics of college students; the moral question involved will be 

 considered only incidentally; no attempt will be made to present the 

 economic view-point. The writer, with the cooperation of his assistant, 

 Mr. Hyman Cohen, A.M., made a detailed study of 223 college students 

 from two classes, including all for whom records could be obtained. 



