WEBB,
et al. v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 (1919) -No. 370. 'Webb was a practicing physician and Goldbaum a retail
druggist, in Memphis. It was Webb's regular custom [249 U.S. 96, 98] and practice to
prescribe morphine for habitual users, upon their application to him therefor. He
furnished these 'prescriptions,' not after consideration of the applicant's individual
case, and in such quantities and with such direction as, in his judgment, would tend to
cure the habit, or as might be necessary or helpful in an attempt to break the habit, but
with such consideration and rather in such quantities as the applicant desired for the
sake of continuing his accustomed use. . . .
Upon these facts the Circuit Court of Appeals
propounds to this court three questions:
1. 'Does the first sentence of section 2 of the
Harrison Act prohibit retail sales of morphine by druggists to persons who have no
physician's prescription, who have no order blank therefor and who cannot obtain an order
blank because not of the class to which such blanks are allowed to be issued?'
2. 'If the answer to question one is in the
affirmative, does this construction make unconstitutional the prohibition of such sale?'
3. 'If a practicing and registered physician
issues an order for morphine to an habitual user thereof, the order not being issued by
him in the course of professional treatment in the attempted cure of the habit, but being
issued for the purpose of providing the user with morphine sufficient to keep him
comfortable by maintaining his customary use, is such order a physician's prescription
under exception (b) of section 2?'
'If question one is answered in the negative, or
question two in the affirmative, no answer to question three will be necessary; and if
question three is answered in the affirmative, questions one and two become immaterial.'
What we have said of the construction and purpose
of the act in No. 367 plainly requires that question one should be answered in the
affirmative. Question two should be answered in the negative for the reasons stated in the
opinion in No. 367. As to question three-to call such an order for the use of morphine a
physician's prescription would be so plain a perversion of meaning that [249 U.S. 96, 100]
no discussion of the subject is required. That question should be answered in the
negative. |