[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 11, 1893


JAMA. 1893;XX(10):286. doi:10.1001/jama.1893.02420370026008

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association:  The first article in The Journal for Feb. 25 causes me to make one more effort to set the profession right on the subject of "Drunkenness."Webster is cited as authority on the meaning of the words —law and drunkenness, but it would take a very learned man to distinguish the difference Webster makes in the meaning of the two words, drunkenness and inebriety, and I do not think there is anything to be gained in quibbling over the question as to whether a man is a drunkard or an inebriate; and from a legal standpoint it is of no consequence. If there is ever a law passed for the protection of the drunkard in his many evil deeds, the same law will apply to the inebriate. The point to be settled is this: Is the drunkard responsible for

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview