5S0 
CORRESPONDENCE. » 
but they are not applicable to all cases. It 
must be borne in mind that the provincial 
druggist at least has frequently to make up 
a liniment or a lotion composed of a penny¬ 
worth of each of two or three ingredients, 
and he could not afford to exchange a 
clean distinctive bottle for a dirty greasy 
cue; and to compel the poor to buy new 
ones would, in many cases, be a great hard¬ 
ship. The corrugated bottle seems best 
adapted for general application. If we want 
a neat bottle of this description for our 
shelves or for dispensing purposes, I have 
no doubt the manufacturer will soon pro¬ 
duce one, and if we had an ordinary bottle 
brought to us for two or three pennyworth 
of liniment, we could easily convert this into 
a distinctive bottle of the corrugated class, 
by attaching a piece of ready-gummed glass- 
paper to it. 
I remain, Gentlemen, yours truly, 
Ralph Robinson. 
Rochdale, Relruary 16, 1870. 
This long perplexing question is at length 
taking a tangible form. Our Council have 
determined to bring before the Society cer¬ 
tain regulations proposed for the keeping of 
poisons, and dispensing of external reme¬ 
dies. We all know that this question is not 
a new one, but has for many years been 
discussed in the journals, and at one time 
occupied the attention of the Council as 
such an important one, that a committee 
was formed to elaborate some plan to be re¬ 
commended to the trade for general adop¬ 
tion. Many of us looked forward hopefully 
for the report of the committee, expecting 
some suggestions which would conduce to 
the safety of the patient and comfort of the 
dispenser. In this we were disappointed, 
for they told us, after great consideration, 
that they could not help us. 
It would be interesting to have a verba¬ 
tim report of all that passed in this com¬ 
mittee. We could then probably see the 
cause of failure. It cannot be doubted that 
some schemes were proposed and discussed. 
It is probable that each member would have 
a scheme of his own, and, if he had, the pro¬ 
bability is he could not find sufficient sup¬ 
port for its adoption, while each could find 
sufficient support to negative the other 
schemes. Be this so or not, it is very much 
to be regretted that some system was not 
agreed to and recommended to the trade, 
for at that time a plan was urgently needed. 
However, few members of the trade were 
like this committee, for each took measures 
to procure for himself that which he had 
waited for from the committee, and at this 
time it would be an arduous task to find a 
pharmacy without a plan of safety. After 
the lapse of several years the Council have 
obtained a kind of power to prescribe cer¬ 
tain means to be followed for the storing 
and dispensing of dangerous drugs. The 
Government, in giving this power, gave it 
under the impression that the means pre¬ 
scribed would be more efficient than had 
hitherto been followed. We are now able to 
form an opinion whether the means recom¬ 
mended will conduce to this extra safety or 
not, and can judge to a certain extent whe¬ 
ther the safety of the patient or the conve¬ 
nience of the trade has been most consi¬ 
dered. “ Three distinct and simple methods 
known to be in common use” are recom¬ 
mended, not because they are all of equal 
merit, but because “it may suit A. to keep 
all poisons in a compartment where no other 
medicines are stored. It may be more con¬ 
venient for B. to keep them intermixed 
with other articles. On the other hand, C. 
may feel both these systems irksome or un¬ 
suited to his case.” 
The three systems vary so much that they 
cannot be equally good; therefore the Coun¬ 
cil, which is entrusted with the power of 
prescription in behalf of the public as well 
as the trade, ought to have selected from 
the three the one which it thought would 
give the greatest security, and prescribed it 
to be adopted by the trade. If this had 
been done we must, at any rate, have given 
the Council credit of giving us that plan 
which it thought the best. We all know 
how much trade jealousy exists, and the 
chagrin which some would have felt in 
changing from the plan in use to the plan 
recommended, as it would seem to Ihem that 
they were followers of their neighbours, and 
an admission that their plan was not the 
best. I wonder how much this feeling in 
the Council contributed to the recommenda¬ 
tion of the “ three systems in common use.” 
For my part, I cannot see those “'ever-vary¬ 
ing circumstances” which would “break 
down” a fixed rule to be observed by all 
chemists in storing poisons. They are all 
theoretical, unsupported by facts. The poi¬ 
sons are the same in every establishment, 
and it would be quite as easy for each to 
keep them in some place set apart as to put 
them into distinctive bottles, and the con¬ 
verse. 
On two previous occasions I have sug¬ 
gested a posological arrangement as the best, 
and if it were not virtually admitted to be 
so in the leader on the subject, I should not 
have had the temerity to mention it again, 
lest it should be branded as one of those 
“cunningly devised theoretical schemes put 
down in biack and white for the first time.” 
The writer recommends that the poison 
should be “put in distinctive bottles or ves¬ 
sels ; not all in bottles of one shape or form, 
which would, to some extent, be mischievous, 
as there is as much danger in mistaking 
