
"That arsenic really worked like a charm!"
…Before we knew better, that is. Thanks to research, we as a society are generally smarter about things than we used to be. In this post, a quick look at how cigarettes, cocaine, heroin, tapeworms, and arsenic weren’t always all that bad.
(Note: There are quite a few images within)
1. Cigarettes: Cigarettes almost didn’t make this list because they’re still widely used and totally legal, but I thought I’d feature some of these vintage ads, the likes of which we’ll probably never see again. And not to pick on Lucky Strike cigarettes more than any other cigarette brand, but their campaigns really stood out:


Sure, women still smoke cigarettes as a means of staying thin, but with the endless list of negative health effects of smoking, cigarette makers can never again encourage a woman to smoke to “keep a slender figure” or threaten her with an ominous double-chinned shadow.

And how can I pass on the irony of another Lucky Strike gem, seen above left, where the selling point is how many doctors are fans of their cancer sticks? Although, the 1949 Camel cigarette ad on the right would argue it’s their cigarettes that doctors prefer to light up. Don’t get me wrong, physicians definitely used to smoke alongside everyone, so these ads are only amusing/horrifying now because we know so much more about what smoking does for our health. ["It's toasted" refers to toasted tobacco leaves, which supposedly made for a better tasting smoke.] And one more ad to make you cringe:

So it's okay for children *over* 6...?
2. Cocaine: Another story many people have heard of is the one behind the name of Coca-Cola. Coca leaves provided cocaine and the kola nut provided caffeine — a winning formula at the time.

Though some people may feel addicted to this soda at times, it’s probably just the caffeine, or the tastiness — today, Coca-Cola only uses a cocaine-free extract of the cola leaf for flavor. Because no one wants even small amounts of something in their soda if it’s known to cause heart attack, seizure, stroke, or sudden death. You probably wouldn’t want it in your toothache drops either:

Believe it or not, a physician in 1909 seemed to think it relieved the pain and shrank the tumors of 14 of his cancer patients, and published his observations in British Medical Journal:
“…The only agent I had ever used having any effect on the growth of abnormal epithelial tissue was cocaine…I determined to try the effect of the internal administration of cocaine.” (Emphasis mine)
This article is old enough that anyone can access it for free, and it was written in the days when research read more like a diary, so I recommend checking it out: The Treatment of Cancer With Cocaine.
3. Heroin: Another drug that’s reviled at present, but Bayer used to think it made a fine cough suppressant:

But I’m being hard on Bayer — they didn’t know that their Heroin was quickly metabolized by the body into morphine, the drug for which Heroin was supposed to be a non-addictive substitute. People tend to stay far from heroin now, because nearly a quarter of its users become dependent.
4. Tapeworms: Today, people don’t look favorably upon tapeworm infections, and with good reason — who wants diarrhea, malnutrition, seizures, or any of the other awful side effects of a tapeworm living in his digestive tract? But I guess in the late 1800s, welcoming a tapeworm into your intestines could have been the start of a new weight-loss plan (and this was before the obesity epidemic!):

5. Arsenic: Lastly, an element now practically synonymous with poison, arsenic was previously used as a treatment for a wide range of conditions:
Instance of the Good Effects of Arsenic in Chorea (chorea is an involuntary movement disorder), A Case of Chorea Successfully Treated by Arsenic, On the Use of Arsenic in the Cure of Chorea, On the Use of Arsenic as a Blood and Cardiac Tonic, and The Successful Use of Arsenic in Certain Kinds of Gastric Pain. (Again, this research is so old that you can access it for free.)
All of this was done even though it’s been known since the time of the Roman Empire that arsenic can kill. Although arsenic can still be found in occasional medical treatments today, such as arsenic trioxide, a compound approved by the FDA in 2000 to treat a resistant form of leukemia (the arsenic is toxic to the cancer cells), we’ve stopped putting it in our facial soaps (thank you, research):
I realize this post was mostly eye candy, but what I hope I’ve done is to show how research shapes society and has the power to switch the common perception of something from “cure” to “poison.” Finally, I want everyone to ask themselves: What do you think we use now, that 50 or 100 years from now will be laughable “stupid stuff” to future society? Energy drinks? Air fresheners? Leave a comment with your best guesses!
Gilchrist RM (1909). THE TREATMENT OF CANCER WITH COCAINE. British medical journal, 1 (2509), 274-5 PMID: 20764279


Laughable stuff in the future? My money’s on antibacterial hand soaps and sanitizers. That is, if the microbes that are evolving resistance to them don’t wipe out humanity first. ;-P
Ahhh superbugs…you may be right on — NDM-1 Bacteria: The rise of a new superbug
It’s already a little laughable…why do we need to kill 99.9% of bacteria EVERY time we wash our hands?!?
Thanks for the thought!
Pingback: Mistakes and Improvements | Free Everything
My great grandmother used to treat her asthma with tobacco smoke. She would put a bag on her head and someone would blow cigarette into the bag. And, she was not a smoker. Desperate people will try anything. If you’re suffering, it isn’t stupid to try different things for relief.
The goal of this post definitely wasn’t to say that anyone is stupid for trying to help themselves, but just to emphasize how differently society can perceive a practice based on what biological research has taught us. And certainly, the people of the past were only operating on the knowledge they had at the time, so it’s no fault of theirs.
Actually, they recently discovered bacteria at Mono Lake that incorporate arsenic into their DNA because the lake lacks phosphorous, although there is some serious skepticism.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1163.full
Oh yes, we tore this study apart in our journal club class and it’s been the butt of endless jokes ever since. Although it might just be impressive that the bacteria can live around arsenic at all. Not to say that humans can’t tolerate some arsenic, like that new drug I mentioned, but it almost certainly shouldn’t be in our soap!
Yeah, it would be impressive. But I’m skeptical too, considering arsenic is unstable in water and these bacteria were found in a lake…
Pingback: Structured procrastination (#2) | Code for Life
I’m going to guess the future will involve rather different home-cleaning products and practices. If the “hygene hypothesis” turns out to be basically correct, then perhaps there will be less household cleaning in general, and the future will regard current practices as OCD. Also, while I love the effects bleach (sodium hypochlorite) has on really nasty dirt, especially mold, doubly especially on glass, it’s probably quite bad for me to be smelling it (and enjoying the smell). Plus, you know, the hazards associated with the potential chemical reactions of things like ammonium with bleach, or really anything with bleach (it’s one of those strong oxidizers that every chemical MSDS warns about, and I keep a couple of litres in my bathroom…).
Caffeine might be more restricted, too, particularly when consumed in combination with other, more recently popularized things like taurine in energy drinks. We’ve been drinking alcohol, a well-characterized toxic material, for millenia, and caffeine for centuries, and high-sugar drinks for many decades in an era with more rigorous attention paid to potential health effects, so I don’t think the classic rum-and-coke is going to go away, but the combinations with other things, or particular doses and dose ratios (e.g. how much ethanol at the same time as how much caffeine), or subtly different chemistries (glucose vs. sucrose vs. fructose vs. dextrose vs. maltose vs. etc.). Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part, as I lack a sweettooth and find the majority of commercially available beverages excessively sweet.