038 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [February 4,1871. 
*** No 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 . 
Storage of Poisons. 
Sir,—I am not surprised at tlie number of letters you con¬ 
tinue to receive upon this subject, for it is one of the utmost 
importance, and our conduct in this matter will undoubtedly 
have very great inlluence upon our future status and welfare. 
In the letter from the Medical Department of the Privy 
Council to the Registrar, there occurs this passage, “My 
Lords believe it to have been the opinion of Parliament that 
proper regulations in this matter are required for the protec¬ 
tion of the public.” These are serious and weighty words, 
and the whole tendency of modern legislation on matters 
connected with health being towards State supervision and 
control, there can be no doubt that before long some action 
will be taken in this matter, and it would be neither grateful 
nor wise of us to oppose it,—ungrateful because ave have 
already received privileges in connection with this subject, 
and impolitic because our opposition would most assuredly be 
unsuccessful,—and, if compulsory enactments are to be made, 
it were surely better that they were framed by ourselves, ac¬ 
quainted with all the bearings and difficulties of the question, 
than to have an Act forced upon us by others comparatively 
ignorant of the subject. 
And I would ask what are the special difficulties in the 
matter ? What hardship can there possibly be in compelling 
the less careful to adopt those simple and necessary precautions 
which prudent pharmacists have already voluntarily esta¬ 
blished ? To the skilful and careful they are no impediment, 
while to those who are not so, they act as a safeguard and 
check; even the occasional visit of an inspector, although to 
a certain extent unpleasant, can have no terrors for those who 
respect the law and cairy out its provisions. Schools, work¬ 
shops and factories are inspected, and any medical man who 
takes a lunatic patient into his house, is subjected to a monthly 
examination of his premises ten times more inquisitorial and 
unpleasant than any we shall have to endure. 
After long and careful consideration of the subject, I am 
convinced that some compulsory regulations must be pro¬ 
posed by ourselves, or they will be forced upon us by the 
Government, and that, though there may be some difficulties, 
there will be also some advantages arising from State super¬ 
vision and recognition. 
In conclusion, I would suggest that the matter be put into 
the hands of a Committee of six or seven gentlemen, ap¬ 
pointed by the Council or by a general meeting of the mem¬ 
bers convened for that purpose. 
January , 1871. Frederick Andrews. 
Sir,—Since the commencement of the correspondence on 
“ The Storing of Poisons,” we have been favoured with the 
views ot many writers as to the merits and demerits of the 
proposed regulations, a very small majority being against 
compulsory legislation. Now, judging from the letters of 
this majority, it seems to me that their principal objection to 
the proposed movement is, because it is compulsory; they 
do not like the idea of being compelled to do now what they 
should have done voluntarily perhaps years ago, and strongly 
object to having any measure pushed down their throats as it 
were. I am glad to see some of your correspondents take an 
opposite view of the case; and one at least there is who speaks 
as emphatically in favour of the compulsory idea as any of the 
objectors do against it. 
. After reading this mass of correspondence, I do not feel my 
ideas particularly enlightened as to the demerits of regula¬ 
tions; and I remain much as before, impressed with the ne¬ 
cessity, or rather desirability, of some such measure. I would 
that it. be lett to the Council to recommend most 
strongly, and with all the force of their influence, the adop¬ 
tion of such a measure; and if afterwards this is found insuf¬ 
ficient, then to make it compulsory; and when made compul¬ 
sory on us, common-sense demands that it should be equally 
binding.on dispensing surgeons, as it is in their surgeries that 
most ot the accidents from careless dispensing take place. 
Indeed, so lately as the 20th of this month a case is reported 
in the Liverpool Daily Courier, where death resulted from 
the use of morphia instead of another drug, the medicine 
being compounded by a youth whose experience of the nature 
and properties of drugs was limited to a year and three- 
quarters ; and had one of the precautions recommended by the 
Council been adopted, the child’s life would in all probability 
have been saved. In these proposed regulations I see no¬ 
thing to call forth such emphatic protests against their use. 
Were we tied down to an}- one of the three, the case would be- 
different; but such a very wide latitude of choice is allowed, 
that I can hardly conceive anything but downright obstinacy 
refusing to adopt them. For my own part, I have used a 
similar plan for some years past without any inconvenience ;. 
for instance, tr. opii, ac. oxalic, with one or two others of a 
like class and in frequent use, are relegated to a part of the- 
shop where there is no possibility of their being taken in 
mistake for others, being also marked “Poison.” Atropia, 
strychnia and other powerful poisons are under lock and key; 
liq. arsenical., corrosive sublimate and arsenic occupy their 
usual places on the shelves, but securely capped, with a large red 
paper star, as well as “Poison,” pasted on the bottles, so that 
there is no chance of danger in that quarter, while some are- 
in octagonal and coloured bottles; so here are all three plans 
in use. 
One consideration seems to have been lost sight of by 
all your correspondents. Were these regulations made 014 
behalf of principals alone they might, to a greater extent, 
be thought unnecessary, as, from constant familiarity and 
the most moderate exercise of prudence, we are able, generally 
speaking, to avoid error; but most of us employ assistance 
in the conduct of business ; some have apprentices and 
assistants constantly, and others as a temporary relief; and 
it is almost impossible that they will have the same familiarity 
with the arrangements of the shop, and the same prudential 
motives to guide them. To me it seems useless to say that 
the improved education of the druggist is the best safeguard ; 
at present it is not, further than he himself is concerned. 
When all druggists and their assistants shall be examined 
pharmaceutical chemists, and when no apprentices or pupils- 
are taken,—which, of course, is an absurdity,—then it may be. 
To a druggist who thinks he is being hoaxed when asked for 
“ seed lac;” to another who confesses his ignorance as to ammo¬ 
nia alum, and, though he may see it daily, says he has none; and 
to another who advertises “ oatmeal soap and all other French 
chemicals” (these have all come under my own notice re¬ 
cently),—such regulations may be needful. Taking into con¬ 
sideration the little inconvenience such a measure would be 
to ourselves,—nay, the convenience it would be, if taken in a 
right spirit,—and the satisfaction that would be afforded to 
the public mind, I intend to give it my hearty support. 
T. H. Hustwick. 
Liverpool, January 2oth, 1871. 
[*#* We do not suppose our correspondent is singular 
in practising some such precautions as those he mentions 
indeed, we should rather expect to find them adopted, accord¬ 
ing to circumstances, in all well-regulated establishments, and 
by all pharmacists who have received an education such as 
would ensure their competency and a due sense of their re¬ 
sponsibilities.— Ed. Puarm. Journ.] 
Sir,—I have read with pleasure the correspondence which 
has been going on in your columns for some time respecting 
the “ compulsory” keeping of poisons. It is very creditable 
that it has been conducted in so fair a manner. Some of the 
letters have been very ably written, and all of them have 
shown that the writers are really in earnest. On calmly re¬ 
viewing the correspondence, I think it must be confessed that 
the opponents of compulsion have the best of it; cui bono, I 
would ask? I cannot see that its advocates have yet ad¬ 
vanced sufficient reason for compulsion. What are the facts ? 
How many deaths have occurred through the carelessness of 
chemists during the last twelve months or during even the last 
twelve years? Of the few accidental poisonings which have 
occurred, the majority have been caused by medical men who 
dispense, or rather send out their own medicine. I cannot 
but think that the “protection of the public, like many other 
cries of the present day, has been pushed a little too far and 
become stale. 
The general public have become so familiarized with that 
awful word “ Poison,” that already it has lost more than halt 
its power as a caution. There never was a greater mistake 
