March 25, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
770 
argument against their adoption, and the Chemist and Drug¬ 
gist has said that if chemists (proper) adopt them, medical 
shopkeepers will be left out in the cold. But a friend reminds 
me that the public may take this sense of the matter: Oh, 
you see that these men are not to be trusted; the Govern¬ 
ment is even obliged to make laws to compel them to conduct 
their business with more care. Go tq So-and-so, who is con¬ 
sidered properly qualified and competent to prepare medicines 
without being so looked after. We are told that probably 
Government will see that the regulations are enforced in all 
shops or dispensaries, by whoever kept, but of this we wish 
to be assured. 
I have remarked that the Council has not taken care to 
consult the opinions of the whole body as it should. Although 
I do not question the result of the Annual Meeting in May 
next, yet it will be a farce if the voice of the meeting, which 
is to be held in the small theatre of the Society, is taken as 
representing that of many thousands who cannot possibly be 
present at it. The Council should, if it wishes to better the 
unfortunate position it is in, retrieve its character and fulfil 
the bright hopes formed of it at the commencement of its 
term of office, engage a larger room for the meeting, and 
invite all chemists, whether connected with the Society or 
not, to attend and express their opinions. This is the more 
necessary as the Council itself is divided in opinion, and from 
the fact that two eminent pharmacists, who have just retired 
from it, express themselves so unequivocally against the 
adoption of any regulations whatever. The Council would 
thus in a great measure relieve themselves of the heavy re¬ 
sponsibility of allowing regulations to become law without 
consulting the wishes of chemists generally. 
You will gather, Sir, from some of my preceding remarks 
that I do not object to the regulations themselves, and I 
would remind those that do, and argue that few mistakes 
occur, to remember that there are hundreds committed of 
which we hear nothing. The object of regulations is not 
only the prevention of fatal mistakes, but the prevention of 
mistakes of any kind as far as is possible. I am convinced 
that many are made (it may be by ignorant pharmacists, 
and there will be none, of course, in a few years) which could 
be prevented by a few simple rules. 
Many already, since the agitation on the subject, have “ set 
their house in order.” Laws are not made for good men; 
regulations are not for those who adopt precautions, but for 
those who have none and who almost criminally despise all 
law and order. 
With regard to the compulsory adoption of regulations, 
and the perhaps consequent necessity of seeing that they are 
enforced, I beg to suggest the following feasible plan, which 
I have brought forward elsewhere, and which, if carried out, 
would answer every purpose, and almost do away with the 
necessity of framing any special regulations:—“ To each 
district let a pharmacist (not a resident in the district) be 
appointed, who shall inspect the arrangements of every phar¬ 
macy in it, and who shall, if he considers that arrangements 
conducive to safety are carried out, give a certificate signifying 
that such is the case.” 
This I firmly believe would satisfy all,—the Privy Council 
and its medical officer and the public, whose attention has 
unfortunately been drawn to the matter. Mr. Reynolds’ 
assertion has not been refuted yet. 
“When a new pharmacy is opened, the Pharmaceutical 
Society to be communicated with, and some one appointed 
to see that suitable arrangements have been made.” 
Such inspection, or certificate, might last for all time; con¬ 
venient and proper arrangements once made are not likely 
to be done away with. But if an inspection took place at 
stated intervals, say once in five or ten years, no conscientious 
man, I think, would take it either as a hardship or a trouble¬ 
some interfertmce. 
Should you deem this letter "worthy of insertion in the 
Journal, I may be bold enough to address another to you 
upon other features in the poison question. E. B. 
Sir,—As regulations for the keeping and dispensing of sub¬ 
stances, so-called poison, if enforced, must be as simple as 
possible to ensure their general adoption, let me suggest for 
■consideration whether the following will not meet the case. 
Let there be no restriction as to shape of bottles, sand¬ 
papering, colour of labels or poison closet; but strictly enforce 
that all vessels containing dangerous remedies be distinguished 
by a round label (on any ground, gold, or painted any colour, 
as may suit the taste of the chemist), with “for internal or 
external use” so expressed above the name; and if for in¬ 
ternal use, the minimum and maximum dose expressed below. 
These labels to be in use for stand vessels. 
For dispensing in bulk, the same form of label to bo sent 
out with the necessary directions, and if required, “ Poison — 
care,” be printed on the labels in addition to the directions 
for use. 
In the hope that some conclusion may be come to, satis¬ 
factory to all parties, I remain, A Founder. 
36, Sloane Square, S.W., March 20th, 1871. 
1. For Outward Application only. 
2. Not to be taken Internally. 
3. Not por Internal Use. 
Sir,—-As I expect at our Annual Meeting a precautionary 
label will be recommended for general adoption for all lini¬ 
ments, etc. containing poison, I beg to state that I consider 
No. 1 of the above by far the best. Outward remedies are 
often but partly used, the remainder put aside for another 
time, and if the word not become defaced, the label might 
lead to the mischief it was intended to avert; but no such 
result could possibly attend No. 1, which I have used for 
years and which answers remarkably well. 
Thomas Kent. 
226, Blaclcfriars Road, London, S.E. 
March 21 st, 1871. 
Poison Bands v. Poison Bottles. 
Sir,—Of the three clauses (Pharm. Journ., Feb. 11th, 
1871, page 653) that are proposed to regulate the safe keep¬ 
ing and dispensing of poisons, the last seems to create by far 
the greatest opposition. 
Every experienced pharmacist knows that neither tri-, 
quadr-, nor pentangular bottles, blue, “actinic” nor any other 
coloured glass, rough, smooth nor parti-coloured labels, are of 
the slightest use in dispensing unless uniformly adopted by 
each and every member of the whole trade ; and consequently 
no suggestion can ever find favour with all classes, unless it 
is inexpensive as well as intelligible. 
Of the “ thousand and one ” suggestions that have been 
made to effect the above purpose, 1 do not remember one 
that bears favoui’able comparison with the simple and inex¬ 
pensive plan originated by Mr. Jos. Goddard, of this town, 
viz. that a solution of red sealing-wax in methylated spirit 
(=the red varnish of the electrician) be painted round the 
neck and over the stopper’s head of the shop or dispensing 
bottle containing any poison; and for dispensing “ external 
applications” a band of blue paper (about one-third the 
height of the bottle) be pasted round its lower part, on which 
band the following label (in black letters on a red ground) 
should be printed or gummed :— 
The Blue paper on this Bottle 
is to show that its contents are 
NOT TO BE TAKEN. 
Specimens of Mr. Goddard’s suggestion have for some 
years been exhibited in the poison bottle section of the 
Society’s Museum. 
It is not every one that can find the room, if they can the 
means, to add a series of poison bottles to the arrangements 
of the shop; but what druggist is there, worthy the name, 
who has not an abundance of seidlitz paper in his drawer ? 
The method suggested in no wise interferes with the usual 
position of the direction label, nor with the dispatch of busi¬ 
ness, since it only requires the demand to raise a host of 
neatly-printed “poison-bands,” ready cut and gummed if 
required. The present difficulty also with which we have to 
contend, viz. the use of poison bottles bythc public for im¬ 
proper purposes, would be avoided, a wash being all that is 
necessary to convert the dangerous into the usual white 
or flint-glass bottle. 
Finally, this suggestion has the twofold advantage of be¬ 
ing, not only “ distinguishable to the touch,” but appeals at 
the same time to the sight of the patient, who, with these 
precautions before him, if he still persists in di’inking his 
liniment, and rubbing in the mixture, stands in need to have 
his cranium “examined by two duly qualified medical men.” 
16, Gallowtree Gate, Leicester, Jos. Young, P.C. 
March Uth, 1871. 
