In chemistry, in physics and in bacteriology, for instance, we do possess certain definite knowledge and we can rightfully cite certain facts. In sociology, in politics and in economics, we possess certain dogmas or beliefs and we can pardonably express certain theories or opinions--so long as we candidly admit their opinionative status. But when we get beyond a certain definite point in any science, even in physics and chemistry, we begin to hypothecate just like an economic determinist or an anti-vivisectionist or a religious fundamentalist, people who are habitually beyond this point of separating fact from belief anyway. We begin to express our opinions vociferously, to dress them up in moral overcoats, and to justify them just because we do lack certain scientific knowledge. Thus we can go to the scientific work and find an investigator saying that very large quantities of tobacco smoke will paralyze the gastric contractile power. All right. But this very same investigator also sagely adds that small amounts of the smoke will actually stimulate this very gastric contractility and urge along digestion. Or we can go to the _Journal of the American Medical Association_, the highest current medical authority in the United States. We find a query by some doctor on cigarette smoking and we read the reply. Authority completely absolves cigarette papers from blame for poison. It adds that any cigarette smoker is safer from harm than a tobacco smoker of any other sort. For one thing he actually smokes less tobacco. If he nervously smokes many cigarettes he throws away longer and longer unused portions and thus keeps his consumption at about the same figure. _The Laryngoscope_ should be an authority on throat conditions as it is the publication of throat specialists. We find in here a statement to the effect that from a medical or laryngeal point of view there is no reason why anybody should give up tobacco or alcohol if it does them no very apparent harm. This is because the use of both in moderation by millions proves the harmlessness of the habit which is, in fact, often actually beneficial. You can go further than that. If you want to be really mean you can find an authority to state that visual acuity is increased by smoking. When non-smokers smoked for they first time they saw better than they did before smoking. The sight of habitual smokers was unaffected by an additional smoke. They had already smoked themselves into the best possible eye-sight. This may be unreliable testimony. Far be it from me to judge it. The point is that it is quite as reliable as any of the testimony advanced against the tobacco habit.