October 8, 1870.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
299 
CffmspniJMtt. 
Communications for this Journal, and boohs for review, 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
*** JSo notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
Poison Regulations. 
Sir,—I have watched with considerable interest the ex¬ 
pression of various opinions in your correspondence columns, 
relative to the best method of keeping and dispensing poisons. 
Whatever may be the result of the present discussion, our 
greatest security against the improper administration of poi¬ 
sons will be the proper education and training of all who sell 
and dispense them, and I should prefer that our efforts be 
restricted to securing this, leaving each individual to adopt 
those precautions which his particular class of business ren¬ 
dered desirable. But as it appears that we are expected to do 
something more, it is well to consider what features must 
necessarily be included in any system of regulations to fit it 
for general adoption. 
Any plan, to be effective, must be extremely simple and 
capable of being easily worked. Anything of a complicated 
character would promise infinitely more danger than safety. 
It is frequently overlooked that many of the plans proposed 
would require as great care and attention to secure their ob¬ 
servance as would almost suffice, in the first instance, to guard 
against the possibility of error, thus working for one object 
twice over. 
Viewed in the light of the preceding remarks, I think some 
of the proposed schemes are very unsuitable. Distinctive 
stoppers, caps, etc., are useful to a very limited extent. In 
the hurry of a busy day too much care and attention would 
be required to ensure the proper use of them, and there would 
also be the chance of some being applied to the wrong bottles. 
Distinguishing the bottle itself, by making it a peculiar 
shape, or by distinctive labelling, appears to me a much 
better idea, and would doubtless be of great service, though 
the use of peculiar-shaped bottles in dispensing for lotions, 
liniments, etc., is rendered less valuable than it would other¬ 
wise be by the liability of their being used for general pur¬ 
poses afterwards. While on this point, I must say that in 
spite of the immunity from accident which appears to have 
attended one of your correspondents’ (Mr. Mumbray’s) sys¬ 
tems of labelling, I should hesitate to keep such articles as 
tinct. opii, tinct. aconiti, and acidum arseniosum in the situa¬ 
tion he describes, however labelled. The system of labelling 
suggested by Mr. B. S. Proctor seems unnecessarily compli¬ 
cated. Keeping dangerous articles in one particular place, 
such as a cupboard, is a precaution which, I think, should 
never be neglected, though the articles so treated would de¬ 
pend, in some degree, upon the class of business done. 
The system adopted in the establishment where I was ap¬ 
prenticed, which was found to answer very satisfactorily, and 
which I have in operation in my own shop, is as follows:— 
Care is taken that all articles of a dangerous character are 
distinctly labelled “Poison.” Articles of a dangerous cha¬ 
racter, likely to be mistaken for innocent substances, and also 
otto of roses, rare essential oils, chemicals, etc., and articles 
generally in the handling of which it is desirable that extra 
care should be taken, are kept in cupboards. Exceptionally 
dangerous articles, such as acid, hydrocyanic, dil., are addition¬ 
ally protected by the use of peculiarly-shaped bottles or other¬ 
wise. 
I would suggest that the Council, instead of the regula¬ 
tions proposed at the last annual meeting, next year submit 
something of the following character:— 
1. All boxes, bottles, vessels or packages containing poisons 
6hall be distinctly labelled with the word “Poison;” and, if 
practicable, shall be otherwise distinguished from similar re¬ 
ceptacles for innocent substances. 
2. All poisonous substances of a character likely to be mis¬ 
taken for innocent articles shall be kept apart in a place pro¬ 
vided for the purpose. 
These regulations (if they are stringent and definite enough 
to deserve the name) appear to me to do as much in the way 
of providing security for the public as is likely to be effected 
by any other system of regulations. They are simple and 
not too stringent, can therefore be varied in character to a 
slight extent to suit the requirements of different businesses, 
and for these reasons their adoption would be probable. 
They comprise as much as would be generally carried into 
effect of the most stringent set of rules which are likely to be 
proposed, unless we are prepared for a system of close inspec¬ 
tion, which at present, I presume, is not contemplated. 
I am, Sir, yours respectfully, 
A. II. Buckett. 
Pharmacy and Medical Practitioners. 
Sir,—A letter from “ Reformer ” in the Lancet of the 17th 
ult., is made the subject of a leader, headed “ Pharmacy and Me¬ 
dical Practitioners.” “ Reformer ” complains of the extent to 
which druggists prescribe, and says, “ Nearly every patient 
the medical man is sent to, he finds has been doctored by this 
dignitary (the chemist) first, and, therefore, he guesses it is a 
bad case. I, myself, the other day was standing in one of the 
shops, and was greatly amused at seeing the people, one after 
another, come in to be doctored, the druggist actually, in my 
presence, feeling their pulses,” etc. Then “ Reformer ” sug¬ 
gests, in order “ to put a stop to this sort of thing,” that ° 
(1) A clause should be inserted in the Medical Bill before 
Parliament, and 
(2) “That general practitioners should supply their own 
medicines as in former days (which is certainly very infra 
dig.) and thus wrench back from druggists that of which evi¬ 
dently they are depriving the profession.” 
Upon this amusing, yet frightful picture of pharmaceutical 
morals in y e nineteenth century, the editor builds an article, 
the sum of which is that the “monstrously excessive profits ” 
of the chemist ought to be lessened in order that the public 
may be better able to pay the doctor. He begins, of course, 
with “ the time of Hippocrates,” “ the Roman Empire,” etc., 
rushes through the middle ages in half-a-dozen lines, and 
finds himself face to face with the modern medical prac¬ 
titioner, “ who wishes to be liberated from care about mere 
drugs, to whom the notion of making remuneration depend on 
the amount of medicine supplied is abhorrent, and who wishes 
to be paid for his opinion.” But “ there are difficulties and ob¬ 
stacles and serious objections to such arrangements.” What 
are they ? Mr. Editor supplies us with one only, that is, the 
high prices charged by chemists. He says, “ Mixtures are 
Is. 8 d. or 2s. apiece; an ordinary prescription easily costs 
2s. 6d. or 3s.; people find their drug bill equal to the doctor’s, 
and the fact of paying as much to the man who dispenses a 
prescription as to the man who writes it, is a reductio ad 
absurdum. Moreover, the chemist is paid at once; the 
doctor only after months or not at all; and there is no hope 
for better days till chemists have shown how patients can be 
supplied sufficiently and satisfactorily at prices which do not 
inconvenience them or impair their ability to pay their 
doctor!” 
I need not waste your space in inquiring if these statements 
be correct. The experience of your readers will supply the 
answer. It will say that a skilled and scientific workman, 
who gets 2s. for a 6-ounce mixture and 12 pills, which have 
taken 20 or 30 minutes of his time and Is. worth of his stock, 
is badly paid; it will say that he would scarcely make a 
living if he worked from morning till night at this rate; it 
will say that competition and co-operation and dispensa¬ 
ries prevent his being paid after even this humble manner 
in poor districts, and that in rich ones the doctor gets his 
guinea, and the chemist Is. 6d. for a bottle of concentrated 
drops to last the patient a week. It would indeed speak little 
for the faculty, if “ Reformer’s” tale were true of every Phar¬ 
macy in the kingdom, instead of less than 5 per cent, of them. 
Further, the remedy of the Lancet, i. e. reduction of prices, 
would most likely increase, instead of curing the disease of 
which “Reformer” complains, because the “dignitaries” 
would then be more consulted than ever. The gist of “ Re¬ 
former’s ” argument is that we fill our shops by charging so 
little; Mr. Editor’s i3, that we beggar the profession by 
charging so much. Pray, Sir, show us how we may avoid 
Scylla and not run into Charybdis; and, as the Lancet is bent 
on demonstrating “ the evils of the system of transferring the 
business of dispensing to chemists,” supply us with a mild 
counterblast. Yours obediently, 
.- * Max. 
Sir,—The following extract from the Lancet has embodied 
what I have often thought myself, and I have carefully re¬ 
flected on the-subject, and have consequently taken at times 
very different views of the matter :— 
“ One great objection to practitioners handing over th® 
