February 11,1971.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
G59 
tomptiitittc. 
*** N~o 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. 
The Proposed Poison Regulations. 
Sir,—As a sequel to a case of incompetent dispensing and 
consequent poisoning in a medical surgeiy, perhaps the follow¬ 
ing will prove that Mr. Bean is not the only medical gentleman 
who considers that “ dispensing is merely mechanical, and 
that previous education has not much to do with it/’ Some 
time ago a shop-boy in my employ requested that he might 
leave, as Dr. --had offered him more wages if he would 
come to him. His request was granted, and shortly after I 
was informed by my assistant that the boy’s mother had 
called to say she was sorry for taking him away, but Dr.- 
thought he would be very useful in his surgery after being 
eighteen months with a chemist, the boy being the only dis¬ 
penser hi the establishment, according to her statement. 
Now, Sir, in the face of such glaring facts of incompetent 
dispensing in medical surgeries, can it be possible that H.M.’s 
Privy Council will close its eyes against such a reckless sys¬ 
tem, the extent and result of which can never be known in 
this world, and insist upon enacting further legislative mea¬ 
sures upon the liberty of a body for whom they have done 
quite enough, whilst illiterate shop-boys and coachmen are 
allowed to pass observation and dispense with impunity? 
Then again, what is a poison? Nearly all our preparations 
are poisonous only in overdoses; if so, how is the line to be 
drawn ? Must our cellars be converted into poison stores 
and our shelves into an array of empty show-bottles ? The 
inevitable consequence would be that our dispensing counters 
would become daily crowded with an indiscriminate mixture 
of bottles, etc., owing to the want of an opportunity of re¬ 
turning them to their dismal cells below, and mistakes and 
confusion would be the order of the day. As regards the 
subject of inspection mooted by some of your correspondents, 
what man of education and social standing, with an atom of 
professional pride, would submit to such humiliation and the 
stigma of utter incompetency to manage his own affairs ? 
If we are to be placed on a par with, and subject to the 
crusade against betting-houses and the notorious houses of 
the Haymarket, the sooner we abandon our profession the 
better. To a non-professional looker-on these proceedings 
would imply that poisoning the public must be a profitable 
traffic, which required to be put down by force of law. Are 
we supposed to be so ignorant with regard to our personal 
interests and welfare that we cannot be entrusted with the 
arrangements best suited to the requirements of our indivi¬ 
dual establishments ? Are we so callous to the result of care¬ 
less dispensing that we cannot realize the horrors thereof 
and the inevitable ruin it may entail upoffius ? Why this great 
outcry against poisons at the present moment ?—we have 
killed neither a lord nor a bishop! 
The majority of your anonymous advocates—(by the way, 
why anonymous ? Are they ashamed of showing a bold front, 
and proving that they are none other than dispensing che¬ 
mists?)—have written their “thema,” with a “free accom¬ 
paniment ” which detracts from a beauty it never possessed; 
and the force of the composition is lost owing to the absence 
of harmonious facts. For instance, that “accidents have 
continually happened to human life,” etc., are inadmissible 
false alarms, which cannot be substantiated. Since the Phar¬ 
macy Act was passed nearly three years ago, we have never 
enjoyed greater immunity from fatal mistakes,—a fact that 
commends itself as the most forcible argument. Why not 
leave well alone, and allow the Act, after advancing un¬ 
trammelled so far, to accomplish that for which it was origi¬ 
nally intended, namely, to provide dispensers of education 
with a store of knowledge equal to the requirements of their 
profession? We have allowed the outward, visible sign to 
-engross our attention too long. If we would but spend 
the time we waste in studying bottles, labels, etc., in making 
ourselves better acquainted with the various preparations we 
use, and never allow them to pass through our hands with¬ 
out proper recognition, poisoning would become a thing of 
the past, and we should then have accomplished what the 
.storing of poisons can never attain. 
London, Jan. 31st, 1871. T. C. Jones. 
. —I venture again to make a few remarks on the keep¬ 
ing and storing ot poisons. In my former letter, you kindly 
inserted, I mentioned the fact that in Glasgow nearly two- 
thirds ot our drug retailers are surgeons and doctors, who 
keep open shop for the retailing and dispensing of poisons. 
It has been a custom to in dee the shop a stepping-stone to 
success in their profession among the poorer classes, who 
(trom economy, 1 presume) find a boy at a salary of four or 
. e shillings a week sufficiently qualified to dispense, ma¬ 
nipulate and take charge ot the shop during the greater jiart 
ot the day, while the employer is visiting. Xour article of 
the present week on dispensing in surgeries, illustrates a case 
very much to the point. I am convinced if the father of that 
unfortunate child had not been able to recognize the appear¬ 
ance ot narcotism, the medical man would assuredly have 
taken advantage of the old refuge, “ unfavourable symp¬ 
toms set in, the child buried out of sight, the apprentice 
would begin anew dispensing his thousand prescriptions until 
the next ’cute father turned up. Is it not very natural to 
expect such cases to happen here ? I am certain I speak for 
my brethren that we have no objection to a reasonable ar¬ 
rangement for the storing of poisons, and also that we bear 
no antipathy to surgeon-druggists. What we want is simply 
fair-play. I would suggest that all surgeons and doctors 
who keep open shops should be placed on the same restrictive 
platform with us, and also that they should be compelled to 
employ a properly qualified anti examined assistant. 
If. F. S. (p. 578) observes on my former letter that quali¬ 
fication is no protection to the public. I am astonished he 
should place so little favour on education, as he must know 
that the great aim of the Pharmaceutical Society has been 
the advancement of pharmaceutical knowledge, so that we 
may be more fully able to guard against mistakes, and that 
we should be led to feel that our privileges had given us 
greater responsibility. I hope the Pharmaceutical Society 
will let no opportunity slip so as to bring all dispensers of 
medicine into the fold. I think that this should have formed 
a most important part of the Bill at the outset. 
Glasgow, February bth, 1871. Pharmaceutist. 
Sir,—Allow me to commend to the consideration of our 
worthy Council, in re the storing of poison question, the fol¬ 
lowing quotation from the works of Dr. B. Franklin:— 
“ Perhaps, in general, it would be better if Government 
meddled no further with trade than to protect it and let it 
take its course. Most of the statutes or acts, edicts, arrests 
and placarts of parliaments, princes and states ” (and I may 
add Councils of the Pharmaceutical Society) “ for regulating, 
directing, or restraining of trade, have, we think, been either 
political blunders or jobs obtained by artful men for private 
advantage under pretence of public good. When Colbert 
assembled some of the wise old merchants of France, and 
desired their advice and opinion how he could best serve and 
promote commerce, then* answer, after consultation, was in 
three words, Laisser nous faire —‘ Let us alone.’ It is said 
by a very solid writer of the same nation, that he is well ad¬ 
vanced in the science of politics who knows the full force of 
that maxim, jpas trop gouverner, ‘not to govern too much;’ 
which, perhaps, would be of more use when applied to trade 
than in any other public concern.” 
I will not, Sir, impair the force of the foregoing quotation 
by any observation of my own. A Founder. 
36, Sloane Square, S.W., February 6th, 1871. 
Sir,—If the discussion upon the “ poisons storing regula¬ 
tions ” should not result in the withdrawal of the proposed 
regulations or in the adoption of some definite policy, it will, 
at least, have formed a most instructive medium for the ex¬ 
pression of trade opinions, embracing as it does so many 
phases of practical interest to the chemist and druggist. I 
shall not follow your correspondents through the details of 
the question, for, opposing the scheme, as I do in toto, it will 
be unnecessary for me to depart from the question as to the 
expediency of the proposed legislation. After years of per¬ 
severing agitation, conducted with praiseworthy energy, 
mainly by our metropolitan brethren (palmam qui meruit 
ferat), the Pharmaceutical Society successfully carried the 
present Pharmacy Act. The result is that the educational 
test is compulsory for every future chemist and druggist. 
The Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, nominally assisted 
by the Privy Council, frame regulations for conducting the 
examinations. If the present curriculum has not enough ot 
the practical character in it to give a good trade education 
