678 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [February is, 1871. 
Y. or Z.” is sufficient to make the schedule a subject of fre¬ 
quent contention. 
It would be much more to the purpose if the same trouble 
were taken to devise regulations for the sale of vermin-killers, 
with which accidents frequently occur, instead of regulating 
the keeping and dispensing of medicines, which have not 
been a fruitful source of danger. I cannot call to mind a 
single death within ten years resulting from a mistake on the 
part of a pharmacist in Newcastle, but we have had two 
deaths from vermin-killers within the last ten days. 
It is almost unnecessary to inquire of what use can it be to 
put lotions in “danger bottles” when prepared in a phar¬ 
macy, and allowing them to be put in “ safe bottles” when 
prepared in a surgery ? For a danger bottle to be any use, 
its use should be general. So long as three-fourths of the 
dispensing is done in surgeries and public dispensaries, where 
poison regultions are not respected, it is futile to expect that 
poison bottles used in the other fourth will gain public respect 
as a caution. 
No one need suppose that the Privy Council or the Legis¬ 
lature would wish to enforce any regulations which were not 
calculated to be of practical advantage to the public. Nor 
can it be supposed that they wish to see nominally adopted a 
code of regulations which are not to be enforced. Our policy, 
therefore, should be to inform them that our experience has 
shown us the undesirability of attempting to lay down strict 
rules. 
I trust that at the Annual Meeting the Society will express 
its conviction that it is not desirable to add any regulations 
for the keeping, dispensng or selling of poisons, till expe¬ 
rience has shown that those already contained in the Act do 
not afford as much protection against errors on the part of 
pharmaceutists as the public have a right to expect. 
Grey Street, Newcastle. Barnard S. Proctor. 
Sir,—I am sorry to see so many unnecessary and really 
frivolous objections to the proposed regulations for the storing 
and keeping of poisons, etc. That compulsion is repugnant 
to the feelings of Englishmen—the scientific especially—I am 
willing to allow; yet I hardly take this matter in a eompul- 
sory light, as the plan emanating from the Council, originates 
with ourselves. 
It is quite clear we are expected to adopt something of the 
kind, therefore is it not far better to frame our own, rather 
than have to submit nolentes volentes to regulations proposed 
by those who are entirely ignorant of the working details of 
our business ? The regulations suggested by our Council are 
comprehensive and practicable, and from the choice they offer, 
are such as I think no “reasonable” man can object to. I 
would, however, propose, that instead of using a label, “ Not 
to be taken internally,” we should prefer, “ For outward use 
only,” because if the word “not” became obliterated or torn 
off, the effect would be exactly reversed; the word ‘poison’ 
could be added if desirable. 
I think as a rule we are not sufficiently discreet in the ar¬ 
rangement of our stocks, and although it may seem absurd to 
be “ over-careful,” yet it is a pardonable weakness, if such it 
may be called. Whether the medical profession are required 
or not to use the same precautions, matters little to us; we 
have quite enough to do without interfering with them. In 
my opinion, if we were to act more charitably towards them 
than we do, there would not be half the rancour existing be¬ 
tween us that there now is. I have never found any difficulty 
in the matter; always striving to do my best to oblige them, 
I am bound to say, those I know are not behind in endea¬ 
vouring to assist me. If we are continually trying to find 
out points that are seemingly objectionable to us, and bandy¬ 
ing them about, is it likely, I ask, they will look upon us 
other than as enemies ? whereas we should try and cement 
more closely the two professions that are so nearly related to 
each other. Again, we have plenty of topics to discuss, such 
as education, provincial classes and lectures, provincial 
unity, earlier closing and less Sunday work,—these affect us 
far more closely than arguments about surgeons and doctors. 
Meanwhile, let us calmly consider the “ poison regulations,” 
so that after the annual meeting the world may be favoured 
with a report of business-like and amicable re-union, instead 
of, as last year, an assemblage of chemists which reminded 
one very forcibly of a zoological exhibition. 
In conclusion, let us bear in mind that the Council is com¬ 
posed of gentlemen representing almost every kind of our 
business,—that they have studied well to regard our various 
interests, and that they are requested by the Privy Council 
to move in this matter; therefore instead of putting difficul¬ 
ties in their way, let us rather assist them cheerfully by ac¬ 
cepting what they have taken such pains to offer, and thus 
show our gratitude and confidence in them. 
Alfred W. Smith. 
93 and 94, Nigh Street, Rye, Sussex. 
Sir,—In digesting many of the plans suggested on the 
above subject, the most urgent, in my estimation, has been 
overlooked, viz. the great importance of assistants faithfully 
carrying out such regulations. 
In every case where I have been enabled to get at the 
truth, the accident has arisen from neglect of this simple 
duty; it was palpably so in the instance referred to by Mr. 
Oldham in your last impression. Had the excellent regula¬ 
tions of that well-known establishment been [carried out by 
the assistant, I can affirm from personal knowledge that an 
accident would have been impossible. 
If we are to be under a penalty for non-performance of 
“ proposed regulations,” should not the same be equally bind¬ 
ing on assistants ? 
Happily, the careless are not numerous among us. I have 
pleasure in knowing many who use every care, and do their 
best to carry out established rules, but not one of us is ex¬ 
empt from coming across a careless one now and again. It is 
to these my remarks apply. 
In regard to the “ particular bottle ” to be used in dispen¬ 
sing liniments, etc., what is to prevent its being afterwards 
used for tincture of rhubarb, or more frequently for gin, etc. P 
In this case it might cause that which we wish to avoid,— 
forgetting that a second particular bottle containing some 
deadly poison was placed in the same cupboard,—the con¬ 
tents of one are administered for the other, the fatal mistake 
is made, and the fond mother, weeping over her lifeless child, 
tells you she did not read the label because she knew it was 
in that “ particular-shaped bottle.” The careful need no 
caution. In giving a distinctive bottle, you offer an induce¬ 
ment for the careless to become more so. 
How often do we hear of “ Burnett’s fluid” being mistaken 
for something else? It is in a “particular bottle.” Shall 
we be liable to a penalty for using the “particular bottle” 
for any other than its legitimate use? If so, pray include 
publicans, oilmen, and all who may make use of it otherwise. 
The label is desirable, and is in daily use in all respectable 
dispensing establishments without compulsion. 
Nothing is poison if administered in proper doses. What 
A calls poison B does not. It is very essential that we be in¬ 
formed what is considered poison by the Council. 
London. Tnos. J. W. Tipping. 
Sir,—May I also beg a small space for a few words on the 
subject of “compulsory legislation for the storing of poisons ?” 
I should like to ask a question or two. 
Will it protect the public ? 
Experience so far does not prove the assumption. Bid 
space allow, I could quote cases where the most stringent 
regulations utterly collapsed. 
Is our experience of what legislation has done for us so 
agreeable and beneficial that we are anxious to have more of 
the same sort ? 
If the proposed regulations pass the annual meeting (in 
the enforced absence of most country members, who, it seems, 
will therefore not be allowed to vote), how are they to be 
compulsory ? 
Is the present Act compulsory ? 
I suppose it is considered so. Yet I know a pharmacist 
who told me he had never yet kept a “ poison book,” nor did 
he intend to do so. Of course he is liable to action for 
damages in case of accident; but so, I suppose, we shall ail 
be even if we comply with the most elaborate code of regu¬ 
lations that can be devised. After fulfilling the letter of the 
law in that respect, we shall be still subject to all its pains 
and penalties (that is, in the case of any dispenser or seller of 
poisons who is thought able to pay). 
If it were proposed to draw up a series of regulations, and 
then acquit a dispenser or retailer of blame because he had 
fulfilled them, very little opposition would be offered by any 
who had to submit to them. 
Seventeen years’ experience in my own case goes to prove 
that where responsibility is felt by each individual, and no 
faith placed in either loose caps, stopper guards, or other 
