370 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



reply to moral demand ; able to do whatever is right and advanta- 

 geous, simply because his reason shows that it is so. The sense of duty 

 is to such a free man the only stimulus demanded for calling forth his 

 uttermost energies. 



If he again returns to his habitual tea, he will again be reduced to 

 more or less of dependence upon it. This condition of dependence is 

 a state of disease precisely analogous to that which is induced by 

 opium and other drugs that operate by temporary abnormal cerebral 

 exaltation. The pleasurable sensations enjoyed by the opium eater or 

 smoker or morphia-injector are more intense than those of the tea- 

 drinker. Mr. Gaubert tells us that he enjoys his cup " immensely." 

 The gin-drinker enjoys his half quartern "immensely," as anybody 

 may see by " standing treat " and watching the result. The victim 

 of opium has enjoyment still more immense, and in every case the 

 magnitude of the mischief is measurable by the immensity of the 

 enjoyment. 



Again I say that I am not denouncing the proper use of any of 

 these thinars. There are occasions when artificial stimulants or seda- 

 tives cautiously used are most desirable. My condemnation is applied 

 to their habitual use, and the physical and moral degradation involved 

 in the slavish dependence upon any sort of drug, especially when the 

 drug operates most powerfully on the brain. To the brain-worker tea 

 is worse than alcohol, because it exaggerates his special liability to 

 overstrain. I can detect by physiognomical indications the habitually 

 excessive tea-drinker as readily as I can detect the physiognomy of 

 the opium-victim, as may anybody else who chooses to make careful 

 observations. 



I must not leave this subject without a word or two in reference to 

 a widely prevailing and very mischievous fallacy. Many argue and 

 actually believe that, because a given drug has great efficiency in cur- 

 ing disease, it must do good if taken under ordinary conditions of 

 health. 



No hisrh authorities are demanded for the refutation of this. A 

 little common sense properly used is quite sufiicient. It is evident 

 that a medicine, properly so called, is something which is capable of 

 producing a disturbing or alterative effect on the body generally or 

 some particular organ. The skill of the physician consists in so apply- 

 ing this disturbing agency as to produce an alteration of the state of 

 disease, a direct conversion of the state of disease to a state of health, 

 if possible (which is rarely the case), or more usually the conversion 

 of one state of disease into another of milder character. But, when 

 we are in a state of sound health, any such disturbance or alteration 

 must be a change for the worse, must throw us out of health to an 

 extent proportionate to the potency of the drug. 



I might illustrate this by a multitude of familiar examples, but 

 they would carry me too far away from my proper subject. There is. 



