STS 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[January 7,187L 
contradictory to this tv as elicited. The magistrate de¬ 
clined giving-judgment when the evidence was concluded, 
and although nearly three weeks have elapsed, the de¬ 
cision has not yet been rendered. 
“ It is not for us to say what the end of the case may 
"be, hut from the evidence taken, we certainly think that the 
point upon which the case appears to turn is clearly 
made out, and that laudanum cannot he considered a 
deadly poison, in the same light with poisons such as 
strychnia and arsenic. That the intent of the law is to 
include poisons such as these, and these only, will he ap¬ 
parent from a consideration of the following quotation 
from the Act in question:— 
“ ‘ No apothecary, chemist, druggist, vendor of me¬ 
dicine or other person shall sell or deliver any arsenic, 
corrosive sublimate, strychnine, or other poison, mineral 
or vegetable, simple or composite, commonly known as a 
deadly poison (or which being- incautiously or secretly 
administered may cause immediate death), (o any person 
who does not then produce and deliver a certificate or 
note from some person duly licensed to practise as a 
physician or surgeon, or some priest or minister of re¬ 
ligion, resident in the locality, addressed to such drug¬ 
gist, etc., and mentioning the name, calling, or profes¬ 
sion of the person requiring such poison; and stating 
the put-pose for which it is required, and that it ought to 
he sold to the persons requiring the same; and such cer¬ 
tificate or note shall he kept hy the persons selling 
or delivering such poison as his justification for so 
doing.’ 
“ What is a deadly poison ? This is a question some¬ 
what difficult to answer. It is true we might give a 
general definition of the term, which might convey its 
commonly understood acceptance, hut this definition 
might ho widely incorrect. Happily, in this difficulty, 
the framers of the statute have plainly indicated what 
they, at least, understood hy the term; that is—a poi¬ 
son ‘ which being- incautiously or secretly administered 
may cause immediate death.’ Certainly laudanum can¬ 
not come under this designation, for we know that ‘ im¬ 
mediate death’ has never been known to result from its 
use, even in the most enormous quantities, and in all 
cases a sufficient time elapses for the exhibition of the 
proper remedies. Some persons have endeavoured to 
assign a wider and more general meaning to the term as 
used in the Act. Thus, an erudite correspondent of the 
Globe informs the readers of that paper that a deadly 
poison is one ‘that will kill,’ £ or produce death in man.’ 
A moment’s reflection shows this to he erroneous, hut, 
assuming it to he correct, we might find hundreds of ar¬ 
ticles in a druggist’s stock which might he classed under 
the term. The mere enumeration of these would he 
sufficient to show their character, hut let us go to fields 
less promising and find what the grocer does in the 
‘ deadly poison’ line. Take one of the commoner arti¬ 
cles saltpetre—we find that in doses of one ounce it will 
prove fatal, and instances of such a termination have 
been recorded (Wood and Bache) ; cream of tartar, four 
or five teaspoonfuls have been found a fatal dose for an 
adult (Taylor’s • Medical Jurisprudence’); essence of 
ratafia, a teaspoonful is a fatal dose,—a case of poisoning 
hy this quantity is reported in the Lancet in 1841 ; cay¬ 
enne pepper, one ounce of which would cause death as 
certainly as a like quantity of laudanum. We might 
enumerate a number of similar instances, or might allude 
to alcoholic liquors which are, as a rule, comparatively 
slow in their action, but nevertheless remarkably sure ; 
hut think we have adduced sufficient to show that if a 
deadly poison is one which will produce death in man, 
and that such is the meaning of the term as used in the 
Act, the informer Mason need not in future confine his 
attention exclusively to druggists. 
“ W e d° n <>t, at present, intend to pursue this subject 
further, hut shall postpone our remarks until a legal de¬ 
cision has been given. In the meantime, we do not wish 
it to he understood that we treat the matter of the sale 
of poisons, with undue laxity; we hold to quite the con¬ 
trary, and think that every legal obligation compatible 
with the lawful use of dangerous substances, should he 
laid down and enforced with the utmost rigour, hut we 
believe that the present law is altogether insufficient for 
tho purpose -for which it was intended, as demonstrated 
by the fact that for over ten years it has remained a dead 
letter on our statute hooks, and Avhen it is ultimately re¬ 
vived, it is only for the purpose of extorting money from 
oy.o of the most respectable classes of the community, 
and placing it in the hands of one whose very avocation 
is a by-word and a disgrace. 
“ The most impracticable and pernicious feature of the 
present law is that of requiring a physician or minister’s, 
certificate as authority for the sale of poison (let the ren¬ 
dering- of the word he what it may). On this subject 
one of the Globe s correspondents very sensibly remarks, 
‘ Is a doctor or a minister any belter qualified than a 
druggist to determine the uses to which a person may 
apply poison after having purchased it P Or, do they 
keep any record of the name, occupation, residence, etc., 
of those to whom they grant these certificates P I be¬ 
lieve the answer—No ! will apply to both these ques¬ 
tions. And I also believe that there is no druggist in 
the dominion who would knowingly and willingly contra¬ 
vene the law as it now exists, if he could avoid it. But 
the thing is impossible ! There is scarcely any article in 
the whole Pharmacopoeia which can strictly bo termed 
“innocuous,” and one-half of the stock usually found on 
the shelves of a drug-store might easily be termed “ poi¬ 
sons.” So that keeping to the precise letter of the law, 
a druggist would be compelled to give up his business, 
and say with the Moor,/ 4 Othello’s occupation’s gone,” or 
by infringing it, as in the instance now on trial, place- 
himself at the mercy of any one who through spite or 
impeeuniosity may see fit to visit him with the terrors of 
the law.’ 
“ The druggist is the party with whom the responsi¬ 
bility of the sale of poisons should rest. The nature of' 
his calling presupposes an intimate knowledge of their 
properties and uses; of these matters he is certainly a 
better judge than the priest or minister. His standing 
in the community is, as far as morality is concerned, as- 
high as any. Care and watchfulness form an essential 
part of his education, and, in this respect, he is not a 
whit behind the physician. We are not unduly sound¬ 
ing the praises of the class we represent, for we find that 
others entertain an equally high estimate of the character 
of the profession. On this subject a city contemporary 
editorially remarks: ‘ As a rule the educated druggist is 
one of the most careful of traders. A high sense of re- 
sponsibdity governs his proceedings, whether dispensing 
or retailing his goods. Not a few of them can point to 
occasions on which even the physician’s prescription has- 
been corrected, and a catastrophe arising from a slip of 
the M. D.’s pen, avoided by the watchfulness and intel¬ 
ligence of the dispenser.’ Let the druggist be allowed 
to use his own discretion in regard to the sale of poisons, 
and in thus assuming the guardianship of the public 
safety, we are sure that the welfare of the community 
will not suffer. 
“In speaking to druggists it is needless for us to re¬ 
mark that the passing of the proposed Pharmacy Act, 
as amended at the last sitting of the Legislature, would 
prove an effectual remedy for the evils and inconveni¬ 
ences with which both druggist and j^eople are now ha¬ 
rassed. It would ensure adequate qualification on the 
part of those engaged in selling poisons, and at the same 
time guarantee all that the law can ask in regard to their 
sale. We hope that druggists, as well as lovers of good 
order, will do all in their power to promote the passing 
of this measure, by representing to members of the 
House, with whom they may have influence, the truo 
state of affairs and the great necessity for putting this, 
vexed question of poisons on a just and solid basis.” 
