Notes on Aleister Crowley's Use of Heroin for Asthma

1. In December 1919, Dr. B., one of the best consulting physicians in Harley Street, who had known Mr. A all his life, prescribed heroin to stop spasms of asthma. (Mr. A. is himself a theoretical chemist, and a well-known writer on narcotic drugs etc. Cambridge University and King's College Hospital, London.)

2. Mr. A. went on with this treatment, when necessary, till January 1924 when he ran short of heroin. When the next attack developed in Paris, he called in Dr. C. who immediately prescribed pure heroin in powder—4 centigrams. The chemist filled the prescription without a word.

3. Dr. C. also had to prescribe Ether for inhalation in case of very acute crises, but was so scared that he wrote on the prescription that it was to be used for washing out a wound, and asked his patient to get the two prescriptions made up by different chemists.

4. Dr. C. has degrees from Johns Hopkins University and Paris. His evident incompetence, dishonesty, and moral cowardice disgusted Mr. A.

5. This reminded Mr. A. that he knew a doctor of high reputation, Dr. D. to whom he appealed. Dr. D. however being only a surgeon, could do no more than recommend Dr. E., a famous physician of wide experience and deserved eminence.

6. Part of Mr. A's trouble had been that the good action of the heroin on him seemed to have deteriorated somewhat, and he had put this down—wrongly, as will now appear—to the effects of toleration. Dr. E. examined Mr. A. thoroughly on Feb   . He found however no symptoms of intoxication, diagnosed mechanical obstruction in the nostrils, and sent Mr. A. to Dr. F. In the meantime he prescribed alternatives for the heroin and for several other quite useless prescriptions of previous physicians of an amateur type.

These however proved quite useless as far as cutting short acute attacks was concerned; and, on Feb. 8, Dr. F. unhesitatingly prescribed heroin.

Mr. A. discussed with him at some length the existing laws about drugs. Dr. E. agreed that they were ridiculous and an insult to the medical profession. His main point (for the purposes of this report) was that he doubted if any chemist could be found in Paris would make up a prescription of pure heroin to be used at discretion through the nostrils, and so ordered pills containing an admixture of comparative inert drugs.

7. Dr. F. confirmed Dr. E's diagnosis on examination, and removed a large quantity of bone from the left nostril on Feb. 7, the right nostril to similarly treated on Feb. 16. The first operation was before Dr. E's prescription of the pills, and Dr. E. was inaccessible at that hour. Accordingly Dr. F. prescribed heroin, this time in the form of a potion with the addition of two harmless and pleasant ingredients. The prescription was not only made up without hesitation, but was not returned by the pharmacist. It was merely marked with a figure in light ink which might have been erased with the greatest ease if desired.

8. Mr. A. reporting to Dr. E., obtained the prescription for pills aforesaid, his object being to keep him from discomfort until the success of Dr. F's operation had had a chance to remove the original cause of the trouble. The first chemist to whom this prescription was submitted refused to make it up, asserting that the law required that the pharmacist and the patient should live in the same district. An apparent confirmation of this statement came from the fact that a chemist in Mr. A's district made no difficulty.

9. On the contrary this statement is refuted by

a) Dr. E's statement that the chemist was talking rubbish, and that no such law exists.

b) The fact that Dr. C's prescription had been made up in a district far distant from the residence of Mr. A., and without any inquiry on this or any other point.

10. The name and address of the patient have not been written on any but one of the many prescriptions which form the subject of this report.

11. A well-known English chemist informed Mr. A. that a prescription containing any of the class of drugs in question must be signed by a doctor with French qualifications, and resides within five miles of the town where the prescription was made up. As against this we have the fact that Dr. E's repetition of the prescription from pills was made up without hesitation in a town sixty kilometers from Paris.

12. Mr. A., to convalesce from his little operation, had gone to this distant town for fresh air and exercise; but immediately on his return to Paris on Feb. 11 was stricken by an asthmatic attack of extreme severity, to combat which he had to take seven of the pills instead of one, as well as copious inhalations of ether, before getting, many hours later, any relief of his agony. This produced most unpleasant symptoms of narcotisation, a semi-sleepless night, and a bad headache in the morning. The point is that according to all his experience during these years, a fifth of this quantity of heroin if taken in pure form through the nostrils would have stopped the attack instantly and left no bad effects.

13. The above being reported to Dr. E., by telephone, he asked Dr. G. to call on Mr. A. and administer a hypodermic injection of heroin. When Dr. G. called, Mr. A. was in no need of the drug and refused the injection, but repeated his request for a supply of the pure powder to be used in the event of another attack. Mr. A. has a strong objection to intoxication of any kind; and hypodermic injections acting directly on the blood are certain to produce this effect at a maximum, whereas Mr. A. on the contrary wants to secure local action on the recalcitrant tissues without any general narcotisation. He explained again this very thoroughly to Dr. G. who was entirely sympathetic but was afraid to prescribe the required pure drug and insisted on diluting it with twenty times its weight of bismuth and lactose.

14. This prescription as Mr. A. foresaw simply meant that he could no longer gauge the requisite dose, and that his nostrils, so [illegible] freed from obstruction by Dr. F's scissors and [illegible], were clogged by a chalky paste, which presumably prevented, to a great effect, to absorption of the necessary heroin besides causing discomfort and mass.

15. Dr. G., apprised that his patient's forecast had proven correct said that he would do his utmost to procure the pure drug. Later in the day he reported his failure though informed that Dr. C's prescription for it had been made up without difficulty.

16. Dr. G., apparently thrown off his mental balance by the terrific circumstances of the case, hastily sent round a prescription containing no heroin, but whose principle ingredient was cocaine.

17. Mr. A. boiled over. He can only conclude from the above facts that not even the most eminent doctors and druggists are acquainted with the ramifications of the law, and that they are for the most part afraid in consequence to prescribe according to their oath and conscience; while in the case of the pharmacists we are faced with the absurd position that a complete stranger to the patient abrogates to himself the right of criticising the judgment of the physician in charge of the case.

18. It is clear from the above that if Mr. A. wants heroin as such he can get all he wants, every one of the seven doctors having prescribed it, and that all he need do is to have the drug separated and recrystallised. He can also get it by the ounce in any of a hundred underhanded ways. His trouble is that he objects to be narcotised or to do anything dishonourable.

We have thought it worth while to collect and set in order these facts in order to exhibit with the utmost thoroughness one small angle of the scandalous and humiliating situation created by the drug-law as it stands. It is to be noted that in countries where cocaine and similar drugs are sold freely there is no drug problem, any more than there is an absinthe scandal in England where it can be bought as easily as other forms of spirituous liquor.

[112]