The Washington times., 1915-05-18
MUST MEN HAVE DRUGS2

The New York Medical Journal
comes forward with a curious criti-
cism of the Harrison act for sup
preston of the traffic in narcotic
drugs. The Journal boldly advances
to the position that in present social
and economic conditions the use of
drugs is not necessarily a vicious
habit; it is often the means by which
men of capacity and ability steel
themselves to meet the requirements
of life; to relieve the strain on over
wrought nerves that is imposed by
the facts of life in generation that
makes unprecedented demand on ner-
vous force.
Protesting against taking away
from these people the means of
equipping them to hold their places
in life, the Journal declares that if
the absolute denial of drugs to such
people is persisted in, there will be
failures of careers, disruption of
homes, inexplicable crimes, and the
overflowing of hospitals with men
tally disordered people who otherwise
would be able to lead socially COM
petent" lives. The paper insists that
the privilege should be open for the
physician to help the drug victim re-
form himself, readjust himself to the
world of sober realities, and subli-
mate his subconscious desires.
By which, it is assumed, the medi-
cal paper means that physicians
should be permitted to use the drugs
in proper fashion as means to help
ing drug-users taper off" and grad
ually break the habit.
1t is not quite to be believed that
even on good medical authority this
view will be taken very seriously. In
| the first place, the idea that the eX-
cessive nervous strain Of modern life
drives men, for relaxation, to the
use of drugs, will we imagine hard
ly stand the test of actual inquiry
into a representative number of
cases. Doubtless a very good cate
CORY of instances could be made up
in support of such theory. But an
actuarial study of given number of
cases, made as coldly and as honest
! " as a life insurance statistician
would handle his figures in the eff
fort to determine the average eXpec-
tation of life among 10000 risks,
would hardly, we imagine, sustain
the notion that drugs become neces-
sary to relieve people who are bear
ing more than their share of capac-
ity of the nervous strain of modern
life.
What are the facts about 10000
drug risks? What sort of people
were they before they used drugs
What were the conditions that moved
them to become addicts? Were they
in fact people of delicate organisms,
subjected to peculiar stresses? In
these regards, in short, were the
10000 drug users really essentially
different from 10000 other people
taken equally at random? That is
the sort of inquiry necessary to de-
termine whether drugs are necessary
for some people while unnecessary
to others.
1t will be conceded, doubtless, that
if in the aggregate drug users are
better off with than without drugs
if they are more socially compe-
tent" with than without drugs; if
society is better served or protected
by giving them drugs-then it were
better that they have drugs. But
the doctrine is an abhorrent one, and
it will not be greeted enthusiastic.
ally. Neither will it be likely much
to influence legislative opinion
There is general belief that the
average drug user is merely the vic
tim of an unfortunate habit, that
he would be better off if rid of it
that at best he is probably the very
sort of weakling who ought to be
protected against rather than in
dulged in his weakness.