LIVERPOOL chemists’ association. 
621 
of touch was originally proposed for dispensing bottles to prevent mistakes on the part 
of ignorant, careless, or exhausted nurses, perhaps in a darkened room, or having to 
attend to the sick during the night. 
“ But the argument is not applicable to the legally qualified chemist and druggist, 
who does not carry on his business under similar disqualifications. 
“ 3. That a variety of lozenges, pills, etc., may still be considered as legally within 
the definition of ‘ poisons/ notwithstanding an opinion obtained through the Privy 
Council, and it is manifestly undesirable to further hamper the trade in these. 
“ A law not carried out is not only inoperative but mischievous. 
“4. The compulsory use of peculiar bottles for dispensing liniments, etc., does not 
appear to be deprived of its harshness by the words ‘or bottles made distinctive/ since 
the use of a roughened label, if not brought into contact with the person handling the 
bottle, could not be regarded as reasonably ‘ distinctive.’ Those who have but little 
dispensing would be often placed in the position which their more favoured brethren 
would not unfrequently have to deprecate, in not having suitable ‘ distinctive ’ bottles 
for some liniment or lotion. The discredit of having made a blunder would be the 
penalty for using a ‘ distinctive ’ bottle not suited in size to the prescription. 
“ 5. The regulation as to dispensing liniments, etc., in ‘ distinctive ’ bottles would be 
supposed to have the universal application of a Parliamentary enactment. Now, in our 
own town, by far the largest portion of the medicines dispensed come from the surge¬ 
ries of medical practitioners, who would be exempt from regarding the regulations. 
“We therefore view with much alarm the attempt to give the weight of legal autho¬ 
rity to such a regulation, and believe that accidents would be caused rather than pre¬ 
vented by it. 
“ In connection with the extensive reliance upon mechanical safeguards which forms 
the basis of the regulations, it is to be noted that the list of legally defined ‘ poisons ’ 
does not by any means comprehend all preparations liable to serious mistake in dispens¬ 
ing : thus, tincture of digitalis and tincture of colchicum are excluded; and, whilst the 
dispenser may now treat them in a precautionary manner, he would be committing a 
breach of the law if he adopted towards them any of the three methods of dealing with 
poisons prescribed by the regulations. 
“7. The compulsory use of the word ‘poison’ upon all such preparations, if to be 
carried out in a bona-Jide way by labelling the fronts of the bottles, would usually com¬ 
pel us to remove them from our shelves. We believe that a ‘ distinctive ’ label, both in 
keeping and dispensing ‘poisons/ is a reasonable security, and it ought not to be 
assumed that a dispenser ever fails to look at a label. 
“ 8. It is not to be supposed that a fine of <£5 would be the only penalty imposed for 
the breach by an apprentice or assistant of the most trivial of the ‘ regulations.’ 
“ The discredit attaching to a legal conviction might so damage the reputation of a 
chemist and druggist as to cause his ruin. 
“ We hold that no sort of obligation rests upon the Pharmaceutical Society to make 
such enactments in the interest of the State. 
“ The Society is carrying out earnestly and efficiently the educational functions which 
it undertook when Parliament conferred upon registered chemists and druggists their 
present rights and privileges. 
“ The Society has also amended and enlarged the Poison Schedule which formed part 
of the Act. It cannot be a duty that we should place upon our own necks a grievous 
burden, which is not demanded by the State nor by any class of our fellow-citizens. 
“ It is to be noted that no advantages or rights would be conveyed to us for accepting 
these new responsibilities, and we believe that there is no precedent of a body of men 
asking to be allowed so to trammel their freedom. 
“ 9. So long as Lord Campbell’s Act remains unchanged, we view with alarm such 
stringent and easily broken regulations, which would fix the stigma of aggravated cir¬ 
cumstances upon any one who unfortunately made a mischievous mistake.” 
LIVERPOOL CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
Ninth General Meeting, held at the Royal Institution/February 17th, 1870; the 
President, Mr. J. Abraham, in the chair. 
