776 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 25, 1871. 
CfltrfSjMttimttt. 
*** 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. 
The Proposed Poison Regulations. 
Sir,—It will be a matter much to be deplored if the negli¬ 
gence of a careless few should necessitate the infliction on 
the careful many of the observance of possibly irksome ab¬ 
stract rules, which, so far from being in their case a deside¬ 
ratum, may prove in many instances a positive detriment. 
No doubt in hundreds and thousands of well-regulated esta¬ 
blishments throughout the kingdom the rules that therein 
obtain—though possibly varying considerably, being adapted 
to the special requirements of each—are in practice far supe¬ 
rior to any fixed rules the Council of the Pharmaceutical 
Society can frame for the observance of all. 
I believe that no code of rules will ever prove a perfect, or, 
indeed, any material safeguard. Improved education, and 
firmness in coroners’ and common juries, in declaring every 
man tried by them, in cases of gross carelessness, guilty of 
manslaughter, are likely to prove infinitely greater safe¬ 
guards. The laxity of juries in cases such as I refer to, is a 
great scandal, and fraught with ill consequences. Some few 
years since a druggist’s assistant, while engaged in dispensing 
a 6-oz. mixture, one of the ingredients of which was Scheele’s 
acid, was called upon to supply an ounce of castor oil 
in a 6-oz. bottle brought by the customer. He weighed 
the oil into the bottle into which he had put the quantum of 
prussic acid. The result was that the patient got no acid in 
his medicine, and the customer who swallowed the oil was 
killed. And what was the further result? Was the as¬ 
sistant sentenced to six or twelve months’ imprisonment, as 
he ought to have been? Not a bit of it. The trial in some 
of its incidents resembled that celebrated one of Bardell v. 
Pickwick, and proved that fiction to be no exaggeration of 
actual fact. The counsel for the prisoner deeply sympathized 
with his “ unfortunate ” client, who, according to him, ought 
never to have been placed at that bar; but in his place ought 
to have stood his employer, who stored prussic acid in such a 
manner as to render such an accident possible. Having 
elicited the fact that the castor-oil bottle stood upon a shelf 
within two yards of the poison (he took no heed of the 
further fact that the prussic acid was kept in a locked cup¬ 
board), he denounced the reckless conduct of the employer in 
no measured terms, whom, when in the witness-box, he brow¬ 
beat in a most brutal manner; but he thereby succeeded in 
securing the acquittal of his client. A slight additional re¬ 
sult of his forensic eloquence—to him, doubtless, of no im¬ 
port whatever—was the commercial ruin of the truly unfortu¬ 
nate employer. 
It is obvious that the regulations proposed by the Council 
could not prevent such an accident as the above. What 
could ? Simply sufficient education on the part of the dis¬ 
penser. Education enough to teach him that the prussic acid 
was the last instead of the first ingredient that should have 
been put into the mixture, and sufficient conscientiousness to 
observe the obligation. 
Assuming it to be true that, unless the Council do some¬ 
thing in the matter, more rigorous measures will be insisted 
on by the Medical Department of the Privy Council, the 
question comes what is best to be done ? And when it has 
been made patent that some druggists are so scandalously 
reckless, as to keep cyanide of potassium in gallon stone jars, 
without any label at all being on them ; and while, as I hap- 
pen to know, another is anxious to get into business for him¬ 
self, who actually is ignorant that muriatic acid is syno- 
nymous with hydrochloric acid, one can hardly deny that 
there is necessity for something to be done. Are the regula¬ 
tions pioposed by the Council unexceptionable or desirable ? 
Assuredly not. 
Accidents having occurred from the reckless administering 
of medicines to patients during the night, perhaps in the dark, 
or when “ a light ” was burning which only made “ darkness 
visible,” it was a sensible suggestion to send out lotions and 
embiocations, especially when accompanied by draughts or 
mixtuies, in bottles as dissimilar in shape and to the touch, 
to the bottles which contained the latter as possible. But’ 
unless it is intended to legislate for blind dispensers or for 
dispensing to be carried on in the dark, I think it would be an 
absurdity to insist on druggists dispensing any medicines 
from such bottles, however advisable it may be to dispense 
some of them into such. 
The very regulation must be framed on the belief or sup¬ 
position that druggistsdo not infrequently substitute, by mis¬ 
take, the contents of one bottle for another, when dealing with 
more or less potent articles, kept in bottles similar to those in 
which they may keep morphia, ant. pot. tart., strychnine, 
veratria, etc. And if, unfortunately, this be the case, how 
much more frequently must it occur with non»poisonous 
articles, especially liquids,—say, tinct. sennse for tinct. rhei, 
tinct. aconiti for tinct. arnicae, tinct. capsici for tinct. can- 
tharidis,vin.colchici for vin. ipecac., etc.! If such blunders do 
now occur, they would be likely to be increased fourfold, by a 
certain number of articles being kept in bottles, “readily dis¬ 
tinguishable by touch,” by inducing a laxity and carelessness 
with all others, which otherwise would not be likely to obtain. 
The blind and purblind should have no place behind a drug¬ 
gist’s counter; all persons there should be especially enjoined 
to make the utmost use of their eyes,—that those members 
should not only inform the brain of what is required, but that 
the brain should, through their medium, direct the hands. 
The whole of regulations 2, (A) and (B) as well as (C), 
would be likely to tend to more blunders than they would 
prevent. If a goodly number of bottles are to be treated as 
proposed, they would frequently, especially in establishments 
where much business is done, be left “ untied over,” or “ un¬ 
capped,” or “ unlocked,” or left out of “ the cupboard.” 
Allow me to suggest a much more simple, and likely to 
prove a more efficacious code of regulations. I would premise 
that all bottles and even drawers, should as a rule, be kept in 
alphabetical order. Exceptions, the tinct. opii to be kept in 
a cupboard with bottles totally dissimilar in size and appear¬ 
ance, or on a shelf with colourless liquids, as spirits or waters, 
or with dry articles, or with articles for outward application 
only. 
The liq. plumbi bottle not to be placed on the same shelf 
with liq. plumbi dil. Arsenic, if kept in a drawer, not to be 
allowed loose in it, but either tied up in paper and labelled, 
or in a labelled bottle in the drawer, and no other article to 
be kept in such drawer. If kept in a bottle, not to be al¬ 
lowed to stand on the ordinary shelves, but kept in a cup¬ 
board or locker, with bottles and substances totally dissimilar- 
That strychnia, veratria and atropia be kept in a locked cup¬ 
board out of the shop, and set apart for dangerous articles- 
That certain articles—to be enumerated—be distinctly la¬ 
belled “Poison,” the least potent of them with a black printed 
label, the more potent with a red printed label, and the most 
potent ones with a red printed label, with the addition of a 
death’s head and cross bones. 
If such simple rules as these I indicate had been univer¬ 
sally adopted, I believe scarcely any, if any, of the sad acci¬ 
dents occurring by substituting one article for another would 
have occurred. “ Some distinctive mark indicating that it is 
poison ” is very vague, and scarcely less absurd, than the pro¬ 
position of one of your correspondents who proposed to stick 
a triangle on poisons, the apex to be up or down (I forget 
which, and so would many if the proposal were in operation),, 
according to their greater or less potency. 
Southampton, 14 th March, 1871. Rob. Ciiipperfielp. 
Sir,—I have hesitated to add to the extended correspon¬ 
dence with reference to the proposed regulations for keeping 
and dispensing poisons, but, feeling that it is decidedly un¬ 
wise to make them compulsory, I am induced to trouble you 
with this note. Unanimity shotdd be secured if possible. I 
am sorry to see so much divergence of opinion on this sub¬ 
ject, and can only attribute it to want of clear understanding 
of the necessities of the case. The interests of both sides are 
really the same, and both, doubtless, are only seeking the 
best interests of all. I am sure all who are fit to be in the 
business recognize the absolute need of careful regulations in 
their establishments. In fact, most of your correspondents 
seem to think that the proposed regulations are in general 
use. I hope some united plan of action may be arrived at, 
and should be glad to see such regulations as may be deemed 
really necessary issued as recommendations only, backed by 
all the weight of experience. I feel sure that there would be 
no further need to attempt compulsion. If, however, there 
should be any obvious and extensive neglect of wise precau¬ 
tion, then in two or three years the subject can be dealt with 
