In such a situation the dominant theme has been the stamping out of so-called “drug use.” The physician who under his best and honest therapeutic judgment strove to meet the immediate indications of the worthy and innocent addiction-disease sufferer by the administration of opiate drug, incurred a danger of severe criticism and at times of jeopardy to his liberties under the interpretation of his acts as perpetuating a “habit.” It cannot be denied that in some cases unscrupulous holders of medical degrees have availed themselves of existing conditions in such a way that their supplying of opiates to narcotic addicts constitutes simply traffic in narcotic drugs and not the intelligent practice of medicine. It should be a matter of serious consideration for our lawmakers, administrators and judiciary, however, as to what extent the performance of the occasional medical vampire should be made a basis for the legal or administrative control of the honest practitioner, and to what extent he should be enveloped by legal and administrative restrictions, the innocent and unconscious violation of whose technicalities may at any time be made a basis for criminal procedure. It should be remembered that zealous administrators may not have proper conception of the scientific facts of disease nor of the practical problems of legitimate medical practice in addiction-disease. The quality of the act in the determination of legitimate medical practice is often if not as a rule more important than the mere act itself. There has been as yet, so far as I know, no satisfactory legal definition of legitimate medical practice. The author sees no reason why the same rules and criteria as have developed or are formulated for legitimate medical practice in other diseases might not be applied to the treatment of addiction-disease. In a general way the legitimate practice of medicine in the care of, handling of or treatment of a disease consists of such medical attention, advice, instruction and guidance, and clinical or therapeutic ministrations as may be indicated by the needs of the individual case. In addiction-disease if a physician proceeds upon the physical, clinical and other indications exhibited in the individual case, being held responsible for reasonable familiarity with such indications, and fulfilling to the best of his available equipment and professional ability the general and therapeutic requirements of each case, it is difficult for the author to see how he can be held to be engaged in illegitimate practice. He can of course be held responsible for reasonable familiarity with available teaching and information on the subject treated by him, and for average intelligence and honest application of medical principles and practice. It seems to the author that legitimate practice as determined in other diseases would go a long way towards the elimination of the charlatan and shyster physician and would not