-April 13, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
829 
pjannatmtititl Journal. 
SATURDAY, APRIL 13 , 1872 . 
Communications for this Journal, and books for review, etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
HIDGE, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, JB.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, 7U. Envelopes indorsed u Bharm. Journ .” 
THE SALE OF POISONS AND ITS DIFFICULTIES. 
Among tlie difficulties that ma}^ be experienced 
by the duly qualified chemist and druggist in the 
ordinary exercise of his business, few are more per¬ 
plexing than those arising from the popular use of 
-certain preparations which, as regards adults, can¬ 
not reasonably be comprised under the legal defini¬ 
tion of the term ‘"poisons.” Thus, for instance, 
oven the supporters and advocates of compulsory 
regulations as to the sale of poisons do not hesitate 
to admit the propriety of selling such preparations 
as paregoric and some other of the mild opiates, 
without the poison label, which is, by law, neces¬ 
sarily used in the sale of a more powerful prepara¬ 
tion of opium, such as laudanum. 
However, the circumstance of these mild pre¬ 
parations of opium being commonly used for children 
is sometimes attended with fatal consequences, and | 
if in such instances the case happens to come before 
a coroner who is not more than usually conversant 
with the provisions of the Pharmacy Act as to the 
sale of poisons, it is possible that the seller of the 
medicine may be exposed to considerable incon¬ 
venience and even injury, although he may be in 
no way to blame. Although the reply of the Privy 
Council to the case submitted by the Council of the 
Pharmaceutical Society declares that the regula¬ 
tions are to apply only to those preparations of 
“ poisons ” which are in themselves deadly or dan¬ 
gerous like the poison they contain,* it must be 
remembered that in the case now referred to the 
question of dose has a special importance, and that 
the administration of such medicines to children 
may be attended with danger. It seems, therefore, 
desirable, not only in the interest of the public 
but also for mere self-protection, that great care 
should be exercised in the sale of such medicines 
as are here referred to, and that the buyers should 
be warned as to their relatively different potency 
with adults and with children, and especially as 
to its uncertainty with infants. In this way some- ( 
thing may be done towards obviating the possible 
•consequences of ignorance and carelessness. In i 
:Some houses it is the practice to attach to such me¬ 
dicines a label, stating that they are not to be given 
to children at all, or only under medical advice. 
But there are other cases in which such a course 
may he difficult or even impossible, as for instance, 
in the sale of proprietary preparations, or what are 
called “ patent medicines.” A number of these are 
advertised and sold specially for children, and it is 
very often only possible to conjecture what they 
may consist of. I rom time to time deaths of infants 
are recorded as resulting from the use of such secret 
preparations, and at p. 83 1 will be found a report of 
such a case where it is supposed the medicine used 
contained opium, and that an overdose was given. 
According to the report of the Leeds papers a certain 
amount of censure was passed upon the seller of the 
medicine by the Coroner and jury who, assuming 
the presence of opium, held that the bottle should 
have been labelled “ poison,” and considered it was 
very dangerous to sell poison without a label. 
Clearly, if it be necessary to affix a poison-label 
to any article sold as a proprietary medicine, tlie 
obligation to do this rests on the proprietor and 
not on the retailer, who never even sees the bottle 
containing the medicine ; he sells a sealed packet, 
and could not sell the article at all if he attempted 
to break the wrapper for any purpose whatever. 
But with proprietary articles, such as vermin~ 
killers, the case, although similar in some respects, 
is in the main essentially different—vermin-killers 
not being medicines, have no right to any of the 
exemptions given in the Act. More than that, such 
of them as contain any poison named in the schedule 
have been specially added thereto. 
In the case of patent medicines, properly so-called, 
the Chemist and Druggist need not be at an} 7 - loss to 
determine whether compliance with the Regulations 
be necessaiy, inasmuch as he can learn from the 
specifications of the patents what the medicines in 
question may contain. Such cases, however, are 
very rare. But with proprietary articles, such as 
vermin killers for instance, how is the retailer to 
know whether they contain “poison” or not? 
Should it not be the duty of the manufacturers 
themselves to indicate in such cases, that the 
sale of their preparations will have to be con¬ 
ducted subject to the Regulations prescribed for 
poisons belonging, as it may be, to the first or 
second part of the schedule, that they may thus 
retain their right, keeping secret the composition 
their preparations? The question is one that in 
consequence of the great number of proprietary 
articles vended throughout the country, is of grea 
importance to the body of chemists and druggists, 
and deserves their serious consideration. 
Independently of the particular ease which lias 
suggested the foregoing remarks, the present time 
seems to be appropriate for calling general attention 
to this subject, since there is some probability of 
steps being taken with the view of obviating repeti- 
* Pharm, Journ. 2nd ser., vol. x. p. 5G8. 
