The Case of the Stage Fright
In Arthur Conan Doyle's book The Sign of the Four, Sherlock Holmes self-administers Cocaine by hypodermic needle injection under Watson's observation. The reader may infer that Watson probably obtained the drug for Holmes to use. What is questionable is the propriety of Watson's procedure. Readers without first-hand knowledge of the illicit use of controlled substances, such as Cocaine, will suppose Holmes was wise to "experiment" under qualified observation. Indeed, it comports with the enlightened view of drug abuse as a medical issue. Compare the present day medical exemption for Marijuana use and possession.
Holmes's complaint stemmed from boredom. Cocaine provided relief. Do I hear quackery? Unless Holmes was being anesthetized for nose, ear, and throat surgery, how can Watson justify it use? If it is an ethical gray area, it is a more interesting case than the fictional crime investigation narrated in the book. Consider the damage done by Holmes to his credibility as witness at trial. Is his testimony under the influence of Cocaine admissible because medically supervised? I think it should not be dismissed but, if so, the witness's impaired condition is, to be fair, also an admissible fact.
The senses are not all there when under the influence of an anesthetic. Consider the analogous case of a police officer's testimony invalidated because he fails an eyesight test. The defense would be as justified in attacking the officer's testimony as if he had failed a substance abuse test. The circumstance that the officer of the law was acting "in the line of duty" is not acceptable as license to break the law. That much is obvious, unlike the analogous license taken by a medical professional in prescribing Cocaine for casual use. Watson should be charged, if not by law enforcement, then by the licensing board in the jurisdiction in which he operates.
Sherlock Holmes is an egotist. My theory is that Cocaine abuse caused an excessively high estimate of his own ability. It jibes with similar assertions made by other Cocaine users, of their sublime highs, paradisaical insights, beatific beings. At this point I must disclose my almost entire ignorance of the casual use of Cocaine—except, to be perfectly honest, one trial. While this is not equal to never, neither can it be dismissed as perfect ignorance. I must say I don't understand the attraction. All I can report of the experience was readiness for nose and throat surgery. At least it was given to me as a free sample.
It is a multi-faceted matter of concern. The facet of keenest interest is Cocaine's claimed creative inspiration, of glowing tributes to its use by rich and famous celebrities. At the very least it casts an unseemly aspect on success when success is enlisted in defending anything as questionable in itself as drug abuse. By inverse analogy, therefore, admitted drug abuse casts an unseemly aspect on success. When it is not claimed as contributing to success, to the drug is attributed failure—the dreaded "rehab" hiatus of tabloid news headlines.
My concern is for victims of circumstances beyond what is within human control. Narcotics are such a circumstance. I have read the warning signs, never feeling quite confident of my innate self-control to resist addiction—and I desisted. For the rational, the morbidity statistics are adequately robust to deter from playing a game of chicken with lifetime dependence. Those who can't read can see the sequelae of drug dependence everywhere—the broken lives, dashed hopes, dereliction, and death. An animal can perceive danger.
The problem, as I see it, is not drug addiction, but a cause anterior to drug addiction, with drug addiction functioning as something like an excuse. It is a pathos—pathology, in medical terms, for which everyone—not only the primary players—is responsible. When drug addiction is a confirmed fact, the climax of the drama—the crisis, medically—has passed. Drug addiction is a long, slow-but-certain, unfolding of fate. Nothing can be done. And then it's over.
I can do nothing about a friend who fell into the trap of drug abuse, to be specific, casual use of a heavily regulated prescription pharmaceutical, given to him by a licensed medical practitioner. Not by the friend's doctor—the one he consults for ordinary ailments—but by an administrator serving the interests of an organization. My friend's greatest joy in life is charity. He has the spirit of giving that only the very successful self-made man experiences. I have made token contributions to some of his supported charities because I was so moved by his passion. The irregularity that led to his addiction is a direct result of his impressive generosity.
My friend (now drug addict) made a generous donation to a leading state medical institution. As the saying used to go, "Give until it hurts," so a representative of the institution's charitable board approached my friend to offer personal thanks for his unsolicited donation. The point of the tribute was offer of any way to alleviate my friend's supposed pain for giving—by way of compensation. How I know all this is my own business. I therefore don't know exactly which pharmaceutical was prescribed—probably illegal to know without justification—but it was with no strings attached, that it may be refilled on request by my friend. And he has, against his own better judgment, so requested.
It is the type of medication often prescribed for complaints of "stage fright." My friend's business has suffered. It started its decline before, but precipitously so, since. As compensation, he has acquired a dependency on the very remedy formulated to sap a sufferer's nerve, his will, his faculty to make bold decisions. The drug removes worry. The only problem is that with it he worries about dependency. Dependency is a worry but, fortuitously, refill of the pharmaceutical effectively alleviates anxiety. It is a vicious circle. When I realized I could do nothing to help, I thought about the path that led to his condition. The man's emotional problems antedate our association. That I cannot take into account. The intermediary circumstance, as I see it, is a financial reciprocity between charitable giving—and behavioral reward.
The graphic art of Brian Higgins can be viewed at: https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/8-brian-higgins