CORRESPONDENCE. 
581 
strychnine for morphine as in using morphine 
instead of some other less dangerous poison.” 
This argument applies to every article in 
the materia medica possessing poisoning 
power in an overdose, consequently the fur¬ 
ther the classing of poisons according to 
their potency can be carried out, the greater 
the safety ensured. I am sanguine enough 
to think that the whole pharmacy might be 
reduced to the plan, and, by the aid of bottles 
of different sizes and shapes, very great se¬ 
curity might be obtained. In the fitting up 
of new places it would be attended by very 
little trouble; at any rate, it cannot be 
doubted that the very potent poisons might 
be classified a little more than appears to be 
recommended with advantage and little 
trouble. On the whole, I am pleased that 
the thin edge of the wedge is inserted in this 
matter, but it would have afforded me 
greater pleasure had those whom we look 
upon as our leaders in all which concerns our 
business been seen in the van of progress 
rather than dragging themselves along in the 
rear in this matter. That it will be accepted 
nem. con. at the general meeting cannot ad¬ 
mit of doubt, for it will leave every chemist 
in the enjoyment of his own arrangement, 
put him to no trouble, and flatter his vanity. 
Yours truly, 
W. King. 
Huddersfield, January, 1870. 
Sir,—The discussion going on in the 
Journal on this important subject will, I 
trust, terminate satisfactorily to all; and, I 
think, the Council have acted wisely in in¬ 
viting full and frank expression of individual 
opinion. It is of course easier to criticize a 
measure than to frame one; and it is cer¬ 
tainly but fair, if a member indulge in the 
one, he should suggest something towards 
modifying or improving the other. 
I hope the public outside will not draw 
the mischievous inference, that our present 
solicitude about the storage and sale of 
poisons has arisen from previous careless¬ 
ness or faulty arrangements. Such an in¬ 
ference would be utterly groundless, for I 
question if there be any class dependent on 
the public, who take more trouble to secure 
the safety and comfort of their customers, 
than we find it our interest and duty to 
take. 
The publicity given to cases of poisoning 
is very apt to raise the suspicion that these 
occurrences are rather common, and that 
the person supplying the poison is in some 
respects to blame; and when a chemist has 
the misfortune to make a mistake, there is a 
fear created that eveiy person requiring a 
dose runs the risk of has life. 
It is manifestly unjust that a chemist who 
disp ses a liniment and a mixture for the 
same person, using every possible precaution 
that the character of each is clearly indi¬ 
cated, should in the slightest degree suffer 
for the carelessness of the patient who 
swallows the liniment and rubs himself with 
the mixture ; or be blamed for the muddled 
stupidity of the nurse, who may, like the 
well-known Mrs. Gamp, have a weakness 
for gin- and-water. To prove that mistakes 
by chemists are not common, I have looked 
over the Pharmaceutical Journal for the 
last ten years, and find recorded 301 fatal 
cases of poisoning during that period—160 
of which were accidental; 84< were suicidal; 
31 were homicidal; and 26 traceable to the 
mistake or carelessness of the vendors of me¬ 
dicines. Among these twenty-six, I ques¬ 
tion if there were six members of the So¬ 
ciety. 
Indevisingmeansfor the proper dispensing 
of poisons I think this object should be kept in 
view, viz. to interpose some obstacle between 
the dispenser and the poisonous ingredient 
he requires. For this reason, that in the 
event of his mind being preoccupied or his 
attention from whatever cause distracted, 
he may be aroused and prevented from 
| doing anything mechanically. I have already 
I suggested in the Journal, for that purpose, 
j the putting bottles containing the more po- 
! tent poisons in cases. I am not, however, 
| prepared to recommend that all the bottles 
containing poison should be so encased and 
separated. I would confine that distinction 
exclusively to such medicines as strychnine, 
prussic acid, the salts of morphia, and such 
like, which are now so frequently used in or¬ 
dinary dispensing. As few retail chemists 
rise to the sublimity of having “ a couple 
of chests of opium and fifteen gallons of lau¬ 
danum ” in their stock, I would leave such 
bulky and precious articles to take care of 
themselves. I confess I have not much 
faith in singularly-shaped bottles, for I fear 
the use of them might induce that habit of 
mechanical dispensing which I would dread. 
I have adopted a simple plan to distinguish 
bottles containing poisonous articles. It is 
a cross made of two slips of red capping- 
paper, pasted immediately below the label. 
It readily catches the eye, and can also be 
felt. Those who have noticed the distinction 
highly approve of the idea. If some such 
simple expedient is not generally satisfactory, 
I would suggest to the Council not to pre¬ 
scribe any particular mode, but simply to 
1 order that all bottles, etc., containing poisons 
should be distinguished from all other bottles, 
etc., leaving the mode to be determined by 
individual experience and convenience. Of 
course it would be better to have one uni¬ 
form system, but unless it be simple, inex¬ 
pensive, and applicable to any kind of shop, 
I fear it would be needless to attempt it. 
In selling poisons I would have the name 
