Am.  Joiir.  Pharm.)  Frlifnrinl  r  a -> 
March,  1920 J  HatWrtaL  1 43 
classification  and  tax,  remedial  legislation  will  have  to  be  enacted. 
In  directing  attention  to  this  needed  legislation,  to  correct  what  is 
an  eiror  on  the  part  of  the  Government,  we  do  so  because  of  the 
importance  of  its  bearing  at  this  time.  Many  self-respecting  pharm- 
acists are  deterred  from  dispensing  bona  fide  prescriptions  for  alcohol 
or  a^cohoHc  liquors  because  of  their  objection  to  taking  out  the  per- 
mits and  qualifying  as  now  required,  and  to  being  classified  as 
Retail  Liquor  Dealers.  As  a  result,  in  many  sections  of  the  country, 
physicians  are  having  trouble  in  having  these  prescriptions  dis- 
pensed and  the  pharmacists  are  being  severely  criticized  for  failing 
to  discharge  their  duty  to  the  public. 
Presumably  the  pharmacists  of  the  United  States  want  the  law 
modified  so  that  they  will  no  longer  have  to  bear  the  odium  of  being 
liquor  dealers.  This  can  only  be  accomplished  by  a  determined 
effort  that  will  convince  the  members  of  Congress  of  the  real  facts. 
We  believe  that  this  object  can  be  attained  by  a  united  effort  of  the 
drug  trade  interests  and  are  prepared  to  lend  our  utmost  efforts 
in  that  direction.  In  the  meantime,  will  pharmacists  gain  either 
prestige  or  public  endorsement  of  this  proposition  by  shirking  a 
responsibility  that  Congress  has  already  imposed? 
The  decision  as  to  what  is  or  is  not  a  medicine  does  not  primarily 
rest  upon  the  pharmacist.  The  physician  has  the  responsibility 
of  diagnosing  and  of  prescribing  whatever  remedies  he  deems  are 
appropriate.  Upon  the  pharmacist  devolves  the  duty  of  properly 
compounding  and  dispensing  whatever  the  physician  in  his  judgment 
may  determine  is  the  medicine  required.  In  the  discharge  of  such 
professional  duty,  the  pharmacist  is  not  concerned  whether  this 
judgment  dictates  doses  of  a  toxic  or  a  narcotic,  an  alcoholic 
remedy  or  even  a  placebo.  With  equal  grace  and  skill  and  without 
diminishing  in  the  least  his  professional  spirit,  he  can  dispense  any 
of  these  or  other  medicines.  The  hue  and  cry  against  bona  fide 
dispensing  of  stimulants,  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer,  is  not  justified 
by  any  code  of  professional  ethics.  The  countenancing  of  any  dis- 
pensing that  is  not  bona  fide,  either  alcoholic,  narcotic  or  for  any 
other  improper  motive  or  use,  is  beyond  the  pale  of  professionalism 
and  should  be  outlawed,  and  a  pharmacist  has  at  all  times  the  right 
to  refuse  to  sell  or  dispense  any  or  all  medicines  that  he  either  knows 
or  suspects  are  not  to  be  applied  to  legitimate  practice. 
The  suggestion  has  been  made  by  pharmacists  in  several  sections 
of  the  country  that  the  government  should  establish  dispensaries 
