A 19Th Century View On Health And Nutrition

[KevinG]

I guess you're right. A lot of shifting has been done already and the WoW is not interpreted now as it was before.

Isn't continuing revelation great!

I looked at a copy of a turn of the century epsitle from the First Presidency (around 1910) where the young Saints were admonished not to partake of marajuana and told that just because the Word of Wisdom didn't name it specifically didn't mean it wasn't covered by the revelation.

[Ariarates]

Maybe the WoW has just become obsolete over time, since we now have other and better sources to inform us on health and nutrition. There's no need to reveal what is already known through science and medicine. What remains is the WoW as a boundary device, distinguishing in-group from out-group behaviour.

[LeSellers]

Maybe the WoW has just become obsolete over time, since we now have other and better sources to inform us on health and nutrition.

"Other" I'll grant you; "better" I will not concede.

There's no need to reveal what is already known through science and medicine.

I can live with this, fer shure. God doesn't waste His time (nor His prophet's) revealing the known. The idea is ludicrous.

What remains is the WoW as a boundary device, distinguishing in-group from out-group behaviour.

It does fill that function, just as Jewish dietary law serves a similar role.

That does not diminish the value the Word of Wisdom has for us in terms of physical well-being (since so many people abuse their bodies, even knowing the Word of Wisdom's strictures by way of "science"). We are a healthy people, no matter what others may say to the contrary. The existence of the Word of Wisdom, and its incorporation into the heart of LDS culture makes the findings of science, in regard to health, more likely to fall on willing ears. There are some oddities (green tea, and the vacillations about coffee—now good, now bad, or red wine's supposed benefits—it's the grapes, not the wine, folks—are recent examples), but, on the whole, we Saints have a lot to be grateful for because of the Word of Wisdom. Its nexus is good, the aura is wonderful, too.

Lehi

Edited August 20, 2011 by LeSellers

[Jeff K.]

Looks like you missed the answer to Jeff's CFR.

I saw the reference but no information. I would need a bit more for it to be a convincing CFR.

[Jeff K.]

It is in fact true that in the past many doctors would “prescribe” smoking to pregnant women as a safer alternative to medicines in the control of blood pressure.

[Jeff K.]

This is prevalent.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

Maybe the WoW has just become obsolete over time, since we now have other and better sources to inform us on health and nutrition. There's no need to reveal what is already known through science and medicine. What remains is the WoW as a boundary device, distinguishing in-group from out-group behaviour.

I have never noticed anything nutritious about WoW

[KevinG]

I have never noticed anything nutritious about WoW

...and what is wrong with a steady diet of Cheetos and Mountain Dew?

[KevinG]

Maybe the WoW has just become obsolete over time, since we now have other and better sources to inform us on health and nutrition. There's no need to reveal what is already known through science and medicine. What remains is the WoW as a boundary device, distinguishing in-group from out-group behaviour.

You ignore 150 years of prophetic and lay teaching that applies this revelation to modern audiences. No one has ever been turned away from an LDS meeting house or refused Baptism for disobedience to the Word of Wisdom.

Even the Temple recommend question about the Word of Wisdom does not delve into specifics and is completely dependent on voluntary compliance and answers.

Believe me the LDS are distinct (Joseph might say peculiar) enough we don't need to erect artificial barriers to distinguish ourselves from others.

[Jeff K.]

This is an interesting timeline for tobacco development. In a nod to Ariartes I note that the idea of tobacco being healthy was not universal, but it was prevalent and remained so well into the 20th century.

http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History19.html

[Jeff K.]

...and what is wrong with a steady diet of Cheetos and Mountain Dew?

Ambrosia and nectar in my view.

[blackstrap]

Up until about 1950 few had to be told to exercise.It was required to work or play.Now there could be a strong emphasis on nutritious eating and judicious exercise because the people of the developed nations,particularly North America, have seen a worrisome rise in obesity especially among the young. It has been said that this generation of youth is the first to be expected to live shorter lives than their parents.

[Ariarates]

Sorry guys, I thought this thread was dead but I'm glad to see that it isn't!

I saw the reference but no information. I would need a bit more for it to be a convincing CFR.

I don't understand what you mean. You asked where I got the idea that the WoW is "a normal representation of the prevalent views of the time" and I gave you the reference. What else would you like me to do?

[Ariarates]

It is in fact true that in the past many doctors would “prescribe” smoking to pregnant women as a safer alternative to medicines in the control of blood pressure.

Great pics but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Here's what Bush wrote in the article I referenced:

Overall, however, in the nineteenth century tobacco had lost its status as a panacea, and even its use as a specific remedy was beginning to fall into disfavor. Devotees no longer argued that its daily use prolonged life; and tobacco smoke enemas (injected "by means of bellows of a peculiar construction"), for example, while still occasionally recommended for cholera and other ailments, were discredited as an ineffective treatment for drowning. Similar infusions of a preparation of the tobacco leaf itself, formerly recommended for hernias, came to be regarded as too dangerous in all but the most extreme cases of hernial strangulation. A popular anti-tobacco impulse developed around 1830, again led by the health reformers, but with a number of respected orthodox physicians (and botanies) among its spokesmen. In its wake even well-accepted indications—such as indigestion and toothache (Brigham Young favorite)—began to be questioned. The effectiveness was sometimes disputed, but more often the perceived problem was the accompanying "involuntary" and "insensible" falling into the "habit of using tobacco."

[Ariarates]

No one has ever been turned away from an LDS meeting house or refused Baptism for disobedience to the Word of Wisdom. Even the Temple recommend question about the Word of Wisdom does not delve into specifics and is completely dependent on voluntary compliance and answers.

That's not how it's done over here in Europe. You either keep the WoW or you don't. If you don't, no TR (unless you lie, of course, which you seem to be hinting at).

[Analytics]

The medical community does not seem to agree with you.

I happened to have my annual physical a couple of days ago, and my doctor said that for optimum health, I should have one drink a day. He said red wine is the best, but a cocktail is better than nothing.

Here is an article that expresses his view:

Time Magazine: Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers? (8/31/2010)

[Senator]

No one has ever been ..... refused Baptism for disobedience to the Word of Wisdom.

Are you sure about that?

[cinepro]

You ignore 150 years of prophetic and lay teaching that applies this revelation to modern audiences. No one has ever been turned away from an LDS meeting house or refused Baptism for disobedience to the Word of Wisdom.

In my mission, no one could be baptized if they had recently had alcohol or cigarettes. Maybe we were unusual.

[Ariarates]

This is an interesting timeline for tobacco development. In a nod to Ariartes I note that the idea of tobacco being healthy was not universal, but it was prevalent and remained so well into the 20th century.

Nod away, but you're wrong. The opinion that smoking is bad caught on very early and was held consistently by everyone except the tobacco industry (no surprise there) and the media (who were sponsored by the tobacco industry). I have taken the liberty of extracting all relevant statements from the timeline you posted. The bolded ones support your position, the others don't.

I stopped at 1950 because it's a lot of work. I may have missed a few but none intentionally so.

If you think that the idea of tobacco being healthy was prevalent, you're just falling for the tobacco industry's advertising.

Here it goes:

1830s: TOBACCO CONTROL: First organized anti-tobacco movement in US begins as adjunct to the temperance movement. Tobacco use is considered to dry out the mouth, "creating a morbid or diseased thirst" which only liquor could quench.

1833-02-27 RELIGION: In Kirtland, OH, Mormon founder Joseph Smith announces to church leaders that God opposes strong drinks, hot drinks and tobacco. This proclamation becomes known as the "Word of Wisdom," but considered as counsel or advice, rather than a commandment.

1836: USA: Samuel Green of the New England Almanack and Farmers Friend writes that tobacco is an insectide, a poison, a fillthy habit, and can kill a man.

1845: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS writes to the Rev. Samuel H. Cox: "In my early youth I was addicted to the use of tobacco in two of its mysteries, smoking and chewing. I was warned by a medical friend of the pernicious operation of this habit upon the stomach and the nerves.''

1855: "Annual Report of the New York Anti-Tobacco Society for 1855" calls tobacco a "fashionable poison," warns against addiction and claims half of all deaths of smokers between 35 and 50 were caused by smoking.

1856-1857: ENGLAND: A running debate among readers about the health effects of tobacco runs in the British medical journal, Lancet. The argument runs as much along moral as medical lines, with little substantiation.

1858: Fears are first raised about the health effects of smoking in The Lancet

1859: Reverend George Trask publishes tract "Thoughts and stories for American Lads: Uncle Toby's anti-tobacco advice to his nephew Billy Bruce". He writes, "Physicians tell us that twenty thousand or more in our own land are killed by [tobacco] every year

1868: UK: Parliament passes the Railway Bill of 1868, which mandates smoke-free cars to prevent injury to non-smokers.

1880s: USA: Women's Christian Temperance Movement publishes a "Leaflet for Mothers' Meetings" titled "Narcotics", by Lida B. Ingalls. Discusses evils of tobacco, especially cigarettes. Cigarettes are "doing more to-day to undermine the constitution of our young men and boys than any other one evil" (p. 7).

1889: SCIENCE: Nicotine and nerve cells reported on. Langley and ****inson publish landmark studies on the effects of nicotine on the ganglia; they hypothesize that there are receptors and transmitters that respond to stimulation by specific chemicals.

1889: Lung cancer is an extremely rare disease: there are only 140 documented cases worldwide ( Kaminsky M. Ein primres Lungencarcinom mit verhornten Plattenepithelien. Greifswald: Inaug. Diss, 1898.)

1890: "Tobacco" appears in the US Pharmacopoeia, an official government listing of drugs.

1890: REGULATION: 26 states and territories have outlawed the sale of cigarettes to minors (age of a "minor" in a particulary state could be anything from 14-24.)

1890: REGULATION: PAKISTAN: The Railways Act prohibits smoking in railway compartments without the consent of fellow passengers. (Repealed in 1959 by then-provicial governemtn of West Pakistan)

1892: REGULATION: Reformers petition Congress to prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of cigarettes. The Senate Committee on Epidemic Diseases, while agreeing that cigarettes are a public health hazard, finds that only the states have the authority to act. The committee urges the petitioners to seek redress from state legislatures.

1893: REGULATION: The state of Washington bans the sale and use of cigarettes. The law is overturned on constitutional grounds as a restraint of free trade.

1898: LITIGATION: Tennessee Supreme Court upholds a total ban on cigarettes, ruling they are "not legitimate articles of commerce, because wholly noxious and deleterious to health. Their use is always harmful."

1899: HEALTH: First edition of the Merck Manual is published; it recommends smoking tobacco to treat bronchitis and asthma.

1900: REGULATION: Washington, Iowa, Tennessee and North Dakota have outlawed the sale of cigarettes.

1900: SCOTUS: US Supreme Court uphold's Tennessee's ban on cigarette sales. One Justice, repeating a popular notion of the day, says, "there are many [cigarettes] whose tobacco has been mixed with opium or some other drug, and whose wrapper has been saturated in a solution of arsenic.".

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "[O]nly Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books, were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1903-08: The August Harpers Weekly says, "A great many thoughtful and intelligent men who smoke don't know if it does them good or harm. They notice bad effects when they smoke too much. They know that having once acquired the habit, it bothers them . . . to have their allowance of tobacco cut off."

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York CIty. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says

1905: REGULATION: "Tobacco" does not appear in the US Pharmacopoeia, an official government listing of drugs. "The removal of tobacco from the Pharmacopoeia was the price that had to be paid to get the support of tobacco state legislators for the Food and Drug Act of 1906. The elimination of the word tobacco automatically removed the leaf from FDA supervision."--Smoking and Politics: Policymaking and the Federal Bureaucracy Fritschler, A. Lee. 1969, p. 37

1906-06-30: FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUGS ACT of 1906 prohibits sale of adulterated foods and drugs, and mandates honest statement of contents on labels. Food and Drug Administration begins. Originally, nicotine is on the list of drugs; after tobacco industry lobbying efforts, nicotine is removed from the list.

1906-04: SMOKEFREE: IN: Richmond resident Orville Stanley is arrested and pleads guilty to possession and unlawful use of tobacco. Fines are suspended because he is a minor.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1907: REGULATION: WASHINGTON passes a law making it illegal to "manufacture, sell, exchange, barter, dispose of or give away any cigarettes, cigarette paper or cigarette wrappers."

1907: REGULATION: Teddy Roosevelt's Justice Department files anti-trust charges against American Tobacco.

1908: CANADA: LEGISLATION: The Tobacco Restraint Act passed. Bans sales of cigarettes to those under 16; never enforced.

1908: ENGLAND: LEGISLATION: 1908 Children Act prohibits the sales of tobacco to under 16s -- based on the belief that smoking stunts childrens growth. This act paralleled similar acts for alcohol--based on medical and moral issues-- and concern for the welfare of children in general.

1909: 15 states have passed legislation banning the sale of cigarettes.

1912: HEALTH: First strong link made between lung cancer and smoking. In a monograph, Dr. Isaac Adler is the first to strongly suggest that lung cancer is related to smoking

1912: MEDICINE: The first lobectomy--removal of a lobe of the lung--for lung cancer is accomplished in London by surgeon Hugh Morriston Davies. The patient dies 8 days later because the lung cavity is not drained, a procedure not followed in such cases until 1929.

1914: OPINION: Thomas Edison writes to Henry Ford on the health danger of cigarettes: "The injurious agent in cigarettes comes principally from the burning paper wrapper. The substance thereby formed is called acrolein. It has a violent action on the nerve centers, producing degeneration of the cells of the brain, which is quite rapid among boys. Unlike most narcotics, this degeneration is permanent and uncontrollable. I employ no person who smokes cigarettes."

c. 1915: OPINION: Release of poster with quote from biologist Davis Starr Jordan, "The boy who smokes cigarettes need not be anxious about his future, he has none" (LB)

1916: Henry Ford publishes anti-cigarette pamphlet titled "The Case against the Little White Slaver".

1918: Frederick J. Pack publishes "Tobaco and Human Efficiency," the most comprehensive compilation of anti-cigarette opinion to date.

1919: Evangelist Billy Sunday declares "Prohibition is won; now for tobacco". The success of alcohol prohibition suggusted to some the possibility of tobacco prohibition

1920-10: OPINION: "" in Atlantic Monthly says, "scientific truth" has found "that the claims of those who inveigh aginst tobacco are wholy without foundation has been proved time and again by famous chemists, physicians, toxicologists, physiologists, and experts of every nation and clime."

1922: REGULATION: 15 states have banned the sale, manufacture, possession, advertising and/or use of cigarettes.

1923: NEW JERSEY: A Secaucus teacher's attempt to get her job back after being fired for cigarette smoking reaches the state Supreme Court, but fails

1924: Reader's Digest publishes "Does Tobacco Injure the Human Body," the beginning of a RD campaign to make people think before starting to smoke.

1925: OPINION: "American Mercury" magazine: "A dispassionate review of the [scientific] findings compels the conclusion that the cigarette is tobacco in its mildest form, and that tobacco, used moderately by people in normal health, does not appreciably impair either the mental efficiency or the physical condition."

1928: HEALTH: Lombard & Doering examine 217 Mass. cancer victims, comparing age, gender, economic status, diet, smoking and drinking. Their New England Journal of Medicine report finds overall cancer rates only slightly less for nonsmokers, but finds 34 of 35 site-specific (lung, lips, cheek, jaw) cancer sufferers are heavy smokers.(RK).

1928: HEALTH: German scientist proposes that lung cancers among non-smoking women could be caused by inhalation of their husbands' smoke. Schnönherr E. Beitrag zur Statistik und Klinik der Lungentumoren. Z Krebsforsch 1928;27: 436-50.

1928: The Journal of the American Medical Association criticizes claims that smoking is healthful. From the 1930s to 1950s it accepts advertising that make such claims. (4. Lawlor DA, et.al. Smoking and Ill Health: Does Lay Epidemiology Explain the Failure of Smoking Cessation Programs Among Deprived Populations? Am J Public Health. 2003;93:266-270.)

1929: HEALTH: Fritz Lickint of Dresden publishes the first formal statistical evidence of a lung cancer-tobacco link, based on a case series showing that lung cancer sufferers were likely to be smokers. Lickint also argued that tobacco use was the best way to explain the fact that lung cancer struck men four or five times more often than women (since women smoked much less). (Proctor)

1929: HEALTH: Statistician Frederick Hoffman in the "American Review of Tuberculosis" finds "There is no definite evidence that smoking habits are a direct contributory cause toward malignant growths in the lungs."

1930: SCIENCE: Researchers in Cologne, Germany, made a statistical correlation between cancer and smoking.

1935-09: MEDIA: FORTUNE magazine reports on "Alcohol and Tobacco" (two of its chief advertisers), concluding (page 98), "the sum total of our knowledge of the 'evil' of smoking does not add up to much more than a zero."

1936: American Journal of Obstetrics and Bynecology publishes an article raising concerns about the effect of smoking on unborn children

1936: GERMANY: Fritz Lickint first uses the term "Passivrauchen" (passive smoking) in Tabakgenuss und Gesunheit.

1938: SCIENCE: Dr. Raymond Pearl of Johns Hopkins University reports to New York Academy of Medicine that smokers do not live as long as non-smokers. His findings are printed in the Science News Letter (March 12 (or 4) 1938 p. 163) under the title "Tobacco Smoking and Longevity.""Smoking is associated with a definite impairment of longevity. . . This impairment is proportional to the habitual amount of tobacco usage by smoking, being great for heavy smokers and less for moderate smokers." Of the (6,813 persons reported on, two-thirds of the nonsmokers had lived beyond sixty, but only 46 per cent of the heavy smokers reached age sixty. Time magazine suggested that Pearl's results would frighten tobacco manufacturers to death and "make tobacco users' flesh creep."

1939: GERMANY: Fritz Lickint, in collaboration with the Reich Committee for the Struggle against Adictive Drugs and the German Antitobacco League, publishes Tabak und Organismus (Tobacco and the Organism). Proctor calls the 1,100 page volume "arguably the most comprehensive scholarly indictment of tobacco ever published." It blamed smoking for cancers all along the Rauchstrasse ("smoke alley")--lips, tongue, mouth, jaw, esophagus, windpipe and lungs, and included "a convincing argu ent that 'passive smoking' ( Passivrauchen. . . ) posed a serious threat to nonsmokers." [Proctor, The Nazi War on Cancer]

1939: HEALTH: GERMANY: Franz Muller presents "the world's first controlled epidemiological study of the tobacco-lung cancer relationship." --Proctor. Tabakmissbrauch und Lungencarcinom ("Tobacco Misuse and Lung Carcinoma") finds that "the extraordinary rise in tobacco use [is] the single most important cause of the rising incidence of lung cancer." A brief abstarct is published in the Sept. 30, 1939 issue of JAMA Franz Hermann Muller of the University of Cologne's Pathological Institute finds extremely strong dose relationship between smoking and lung cancer. (Mller FH. Tabakmissbrauch und Lungencarcinom. Zeitschrift fr Krebsforschung 1939;49:5785.)

1940: HEALTH: JAMA publishes an article linking smoking with a higher risk of coronary disease.

1940-1950: MEDIA: George Seldes exposes the suppression of tobacco stories by the nation's press As most tobacco-ad-laden newspapers refused to report the growing evidence of tobacco's hazards, muckraking pioneer George Seldes starts his own newsletter in which he covered tobacco. "For 10 years, we pounded on tobacco as one of the only legal poisons you could buy in America," he told R. Holhut, editor of The George Seldes Reader.

1941: HEALTH: An article by Dr. Michael DeBakey notes a correlation between the increased sale of tobacco and the increasing prevalence of lung cancer

1941: Drs. Alton Oschner and Michael DeBakey published “Carcinoma of the Lung” in Archives of Surgery. The article noted the parallel rise in smoking and lung cancer, concluding that the latter was due mostly to the former, and included a lengthy bibliography of sources from multiple countries. In response, Edward Harlow, a chemist at the American Tobacco Company, circulated an internal memorandum. Referring to research funded or conducted by American Tobacco, Harlow predicted that impartial research would vindicate cigarettes but that “this would never be suspected by reading the extensive medical literature on tobacco.” He also noted that the “medical profession is the group which it is most desired to reach and convince” and that the “tobacco industry is very much in need of some friendly research in this field.” Decision in the Boerner case, Jan 7, 2005.

1946: A letter from a Lorillard chemist to its manufacturing committee states: "Certain scientists and medical authorities have claimed for many years that the use of tobacco contributes to cancer development in susceptible people. Just enough evidence has been presented to justify the possibility of such a presumption." (Maryland "Medicaid" Lawsuit 5/1/96)

1948: HEALTH: The Journal of the American Medical Association argues, "more can be said in behalf of smoking as a form of escape from tension than against it . . . there does not seem to be any preponderance of evidence that would indicate the abolition of the use of tobacco as a substance contrary to the public health."

[KevinG]

Are you sure about that?

Appearantly not.

In my mission, no one could be baptized if they had recently had alcohol or cigarettes. Maybe we were unusual.

I stand correted. I think that is an overreach on the part of the Mission President (but I'd sustain him if I were under his authority).

In several states and stakes where I have lived people were baptized if they were struggling but trying to obey the World of Widsom. I've had members say they wanted to wait to be baptized until they had quit coffee or tobacco and I've counseled them to go ahead and join the Church and continue to work on it with the support of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. (I know obedience is a condition - but so it mercy...)

So my statement needs correction. How about "to my knowledge we don't excommunicate or refuse to allow people to investigate membership over the Word of Wisdom"?

[KevinG]

That's not how it's done over here in Europe. You either keep the WoW or you don't. If you don't, no TR (unless you lie, of course, which you seem to be hinting at).

What I was hinting at is that the Word of Wisdom as a whole is not used as an "in-group" or "out-group" identifier. Frankly anyone but the Bishopric asking who doesn't have a temple recommend is the height of rudeness in LDS culture.

By specifics not being asked I was pointing out that the recommend interview is private and therefore not a public indicator of who is in and who is out.

By specific I also meant that your answer to the Bishop about WoW compliance does not get into your meat consumption, what kinds of gran you eat, etc. It is up to you to decide if you are keeping the law as the Lord intends. Lying about cigarette or alcohol use to get into the Temple is up to the individual and not an externally enforced mechanism. However in my opinion it would be supremely stupid (to the point of damnation) for someone who believes in the priesthood authority to lie in order to get a recommend.

[thesometimesaint]

DaddyG.

Smoking cigarettes, and/or drinking alcohol, won't get you ex'd unless you lie to the Bishop about it. By the same token you won't get a Temple Recommend either.

[Ariarates]

What I was hinting at is that the Word of Wisdom as a whole is not used as an "in-group" or "out-group" identifier. Frankly anyone but the Bishopric asking who doesn't have a temple recommend is the height of rudeness in LDS culture.

By specifics not being asked I was pointing out that the recommend interview is private and therefore not a public indicator of who is in and who is out.

OK, I get what you're saying here and I agree but that wasn't my point. I was thinking about "distinguishing in-group from out-group behaviour":

The Word of Wisdom is significant in contemporary boundary establishment because in social interaction a common convention is to share a drink -— an alcoholic beverage, coffee, or tea. Practicing Mormons are continually called upon to reaffirm their religious commitment in front of non-Mormons. In a study of Melanesian "cargo" cults, Peter Worsley notes that if believers do not physically withdraw and separate themselves from the unconverted, they show their dedication to the new movement by adopting "diacritical signs and symbols — songs, badges, dances, dress, ornaments, etc. — which emphasize their separateness and dedication." 40 For Mormons, the Word of Wisdom has become such an outward symbol of separateness (King, R.R. & King, K.A. (1984). The Effect of Mormon Organizational Boundaries on Group Cohesion. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (1), pp. 61-75.).

[LeSellers]

The Word of Wisdom is significant in contemporary boundary establishment because in social interaction a common convention is to share a drink -— an alcoholic beverage, coffee, or tea. ...

Yes—what I call "the ritualistic sharing of drugs". It's the same, among smokers and chewers, with tobacco and, among other addicts, with marijuana and most other drugs, too.

Lehi

[Ariarates]

Yes—what I call "the ritualistic sharing of drugs". It's the same, among smokers and chewers, with tobacco and, among other addicts, with marijuana and most other drugs, too.

Excellent in-group behaviour! Everyone who's not in my group is an addict...