New-York daily tribune., 1855-08-24
IS ALCOHOL FOOD

valuable as the abest exposition yet offered 81
that eide Of the question. Ibere is 10 reality
little in the article to disturb the advocates Of
total sbstinebce for is almost, in so many words,
coucedes their whole ground. We quote the
| following passage;
"Lft US confess at once that there is peculiarly in
alcohol wtich justfes ia degree its bad rePuta-
tior-a peculiarly upon which all the mischief of In
toxcaou depends, and which causes all the mseii-s
eeney laio to its door. And what u this pee llsr
ityl Nothing LEES than The fascination Of s virtue,
the Ioter cy Of its efftc Werelt ltss au Ing would
rot lure TO excess; were il ess potent Il would not
leap into such flames of fiery ex4tat'on. lss
very dangerous, trcksy spirit " de who drinks VIII
drink again and moderation we kI ow, oils the hluges
Of tie gate leading to excess. No one can doubt tue
danger The oniy absolute preservation against fas-
| ing too much is 10 take none"
This is certainly sound doctrine-the very cor.
ner-.tone of the sbstainet's faith-and whatever
speculative opinions the writer may entertain
on scieDtiic points, it is obvious that even in his
own mind they 60 not affect the fundamental
COL vction that alcohol is an agent Of peculiar
| power and danger, from which there Is safety
alone in total abstinence. Yet be is unwilling to
make this sentiment the basis of practice, and
is much disturbed at the "probabe danger of
"legisative interference in some imitation of
|
"erief and and alarm making rapid progress in
"the United States"
The argument of The Westminster is character
lied by ingenuity and plausbility, and although
quite behind the age in several Of its objections,
which were exploded in this country by the past
generation, yet the author brings together materi-
ais furnished by the latest progress of physiological
and chemical science to construct new defense of
alcohol. Passing by such points as were long ago
put to undisturbed rest in the public mind, we
propose to examine that portion of his statement
which is of importance from its apparent novelty.
The attempt of the writer, so far the scientific
question is concerned is to establish such deni
ton Of foods as will include alcohol aud having,
as he supposes, got it regularly indicted into the
class of alimentary substances, be infers that it
cannot be poison. This is the gist of his effort.
Alcohol pure in its separate state, or alcoholic
liquors taken in excess, he does not deny to be
poisonous but afirms that drank in moderation
they are not poison but food. He favsrs us with
his idea of what moderation is. 1.-The reader we
address lie type of the moderate man. He
drinks beer or wine at dinner, is not accustomed
" to any thing approaching intoxca'ion, although |
"'him,' which excess he sleeps of that night or
paws for By headache next morning, aud hears
no more of it, This, and similar effects of mod |
crate drinking we are grayey requested, for scien
tifc reasons to attribute to the action of food
within the system. Let us look at the reasoning
upon which this request ID made. We quote |
again
Science teaches that food has to be considered
IL Of slaa
consequent upon the ana tear of life. g 1t fur
nshes food for respiration, the main source of animal
iest sDd 3. Unoer both these hes It Is the gener
attr Of force The only SIMPLE definition OF food Is |
that which, looking at the aim and end OF food, pro-
nounces II 10 be force"
Assuming then what we do net deny, that
alcohol is burned in the system BY the oxygen |
Of respiration, with the production of heat |
which is forced, it is also ranked as force |
producer or food. "The reader has already |
"outrun our conclusion that if food is force and
"alcohol is force, then alcohol must necessarily |
abe food" We will agree with the Reviewer |
that the essential purpose of food in the system |
is to be destroyed by oxidation or slow burning |
for the developmt Mt Of force, and that in this |
sense it may be pronounced simply for;e; but |
it therefore by no means follows, and we totally |
deny that that which may produce or develop |
frce within the body is always and properly |
food. Alcohol ia force but not food. The |
writer's conception of what constitutes food is |
far tco vague and incomplete, while he overlooks
the distinction between natural nutritiye force |
and artificial stimulint force 1t has been bet |
ter given by a writer upon the opposite side |
Of the question. In little work entitled |
"Alcohol and the Constitution of Man." by Mr. |
Youmars, we find the folio wing:
"Now alimeptary substances like all other parts of |
vegetation COZ sist of ao which have been anaoged
in'o groups by the actoo OF solar light and the other
impoDderabe agents; but they also endowed with |
the cspabii Of becoming parts OF animal systems,
and tbe e. ID regulated and peculiar msnoer, reaps
ing into the decomposed or n0rg anic form with the
evolution of heat and force. TIE great Office of the
eDlmal system is thus apparent In philosophical |
pout of view II is but mechanism Tor the destruction
of orgs snzed matter and foods sompose that class OF
organized substances hieh is capable Of beng used
up in this machine rithon iyuriHg It,"
We hence zee not only that food must be or
gapized matter which by decomposition may
generate force within the body, but it must be
oJganized matter endowed with such peculiar
proper lies that it may enter the body and be
changed to force without disturbance or mis- |
GHETTO the system. There may be and there are
diff rent kinds Of force generated within the
body, or without it, aud one kind or form of It's
development may be heslthful while another is
fuItul. That forces differ among each other so
widely in their form Of manifestation that they
are not pr, cticslly convertible aud cannot prog
- al. thor, haa ilut afa1