142 
Editorial. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
March.  1920. 
as  an  evidence  of  confidence  in  the  profession  of  pharmacy  and  like- 
wise expressed  his  opinion  that  as  a  whole  pharmacy  would  measure 
up  to  this  added  responsibility.  It  is  evident  from  the  discussions 
appearing  in  the  pharmaceutical  press  that  many  of  those  engaged 
in  the  drug  trade  entertain  different  views,  and  what  is  even  more 
apparent  is  the  lack  of  careful  reading  and  digestion  of  the  law  and 
the  regulations  covering  these  features  of  its  enforcement. 
The  fear  that  any  number  of  "weak  brothers"  in  pharmacy  will 
see  an  opportunity  of  reaping  "easy  money"  by  infracting  this  law 
and  by  their  misdeeds  discrediting  the  entire  profession,  seems  to 
be  one  of  the  stock  arguments.  The  regulations  provided  for  the 
protection  against  such  violations  are  certainly  stringent,  and  foolish 
indeed  will  be  the  druggist  who  engages  in  "booze  selling."  He 
may  be  assured  that  sooner  or  later  his  transgressions  will  be  dis- 
covered and  the  merited  punishment  meted  out.  The  penalties  are 
by  no  means  light  and  both  medicine  and  pharmacy  should  purge 
their  professions  of  the  violators  of  anti-liquor  and  anti-dope  laws. 
In  our  opinion  the  dispensing  of  all  medicines  that  are  abused  or 
habit-forming  must  be  restricted  to  the  legitimate  medical  profes- 
sions, each  functioning  within  its  own  proper  field  of  service.  This 
is  evidently  the  intent  of  the  enforcement  act  as  it  relates  to  the  use 
of  liquors  as  medicines,  and  as  its  full  force  and  effect  become  es- 
tablished, the  infractions  must  become  notably  less  and  the  "weak 
brothers"  either  will  not  appear  or  will  have  disappeared. 
We  share  fully  the  opposition  of  the  pharmacists  to  being  classi- 
fied as  retail  liquor  dealers.  The  classification  never  was  appropriate 
to  those  engaged  in  the  vocation  of  the  apothecary  and  now  that 
dealing  in  beverage  alcoholic  liquors  is  outlawed,  we  hope  forever, 
the  necessity  for  the  Treasury  Department  maintaining  the  "R.  ly. 
D."  class  has  certainly  ceased  to  exist.  Pharmacy  should  congratu- 
late itself  and  the  lawmakers  that  in  the  enforcement  act  "pharma- 
cist" is  the  term  used  and  that  professional  title  is  used  to  designate 
the  class  alone  upon  whom  the  responsibility  for  the  proper  dispensing 
of  such  medicines  is  placed.  The  pharmacists  are  entirely  right 
in  demanding  that  the  odium  of  the  retail  liquor  dealer  sho\ild  not 
fall  upon  them  in  the  discharge  of  what  the  law  now  makes  a  part 
of  their  professional  duty. 
It  appears  that  in  maintaining  the  classification  of  "R.  L.  D." 
the  Treasury  Department  is  carrying  out  the  laws  now  on  the  statute 
books,  and  that  to  relieve  the  pharmacists  of  this  objectionable 
