Bob Godfrey
Member
Back in 1604, none other than King James I described smoking as "a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomless." He wasn't far wrong. What a pity we didn't listen! The first supporting views from the medical profession came not long after, but these were never more than suggestions that smoking might be harmful. Believe it or not, it was in 1912 that an American surgeon was the first to suggest a possible link with lung cancer. But it would be another 40 years before scientific evidence was available to establish the connection beyond much doubt.
Until then, few people believed that smoking was a major health risk, though everybody was familiar with the reality of the 'smoker's cough' and it was generally agreed that tobacco was potentially harmful to children; in England in 1912 it was illegal to sell it to a 'young person' under the age of 16. But a few years later during the Great War vast quantities of cigarettes were officially supplied as part of soldiers' rations, and even in military hospitals they were readily available as a morale booster.
.
Until then, few people believed that smoking was a major health risk, though everybody was familiar with the reality of the 'smoker's cough' and it was generally agreed that tobacco was potentially harmful to children; in England in 1912 it was illegal to sell it to a 'young person' under the age of 16. But a few years later during the Great War vast quantities of cigarettes were officially supplied as part of soldiers' rations, and even in military hospitals they were readily available as a morale booster.
.
