362 
Editorial. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
June,  1920. 
The  treatment  of  the  subject  of  prohibition  and  the  duty  of 
pharmacy  under  the  Congressional  enactment  for  its  enforcement 
is  in  full  accord  with  the  editorial  position  on  this  subject  assumed 
by  the  American  JournaIv  of  Pharmacy. 
"Pharmacists,  and  revisers  of  our  national  standards  for  drugs, 
have  been  brought  face  to  face  with  problems  connected  with  the 
administration  of  the  prohibition  law.    This  law,  aside  from  its 
strictly  moral  phase,  is  an  expression  of  the  decent  element  of  society 
irrespective  of  party  against  intemperance  and  the  saloon.  One 
of  our  English  writers  has  said  that,  speaking  from  a  European 
point  of  view,  one  of  the  curious  things  about  the  adoption  of  pro- 
hibition in  the  United  States,  extremely  characteristic  of  the  American 
temperament,  is  the  good-natured  way  in  which  it  was  accepted. 
Men  who  were  not  prohibitionists,  many  who  had  drunk  all  their 
lives  and  believed  that  liquor  was  necessary  for  their  well-being, 
have  made  willing  sacrifice.    Whether  this  critic  understands  the 
American  psychology  or  not,  the  liquor  interests  are  practically 
out  of  business.    This  is  a  condition,  not  a  thoery,  the  public  faces, 
whether  good-naturedly  or  not.    As  to  the  pharmacists,  they  have 
as  a  class  been  advocates  of  prohibition,  and  they  very  naturally 
resent,  after  being  recognized  by  the  Government  as  legal  custo- 
dians of  medicinal  alcoholic  liquids  (including  medicinal  liquors), 
being  classified  as  retail  liquor  dealers.    It  is  worthy  to  note  in  passing 
that  the  Volstead  Act  is  a  distinct  recognition  of  the  pharmacist  as  a 
proper  dispenser  of  medicine  and  that  the  dispensing  of  alcoholic 
liquors  can  be  controlled  through  the  profession  of  pharmacy. 
Since  the  Volstead  Act  recognizes  the  sale  of  distilled  spirits  and 
wines  for  medicinal  purposes  and  other  prescribed  non-beverages 
and  places  upon  the  pharmacist  alone  the  responsibility  of  dispensing 
them  for  medicinal  use,  the  contention  may  fairly  be  held  that,  the 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  for  beverage  purposes  being  no  longer 
lawful,  to  license  a  pharmacist  as  a  liquor  dealer  as  now  prescribed 
by  statute  makes  him  appear  to  be  a  violator  of  the  purpose  and 
intent  of  the  prohibitory  law;  this  is  unjust.    If  the  Government 
wishes  to  recognize  as  a  public  need  the  sale  of  spirits  and  wines  for 
medicinal  purposes  and  places  this  task  (and  it  will  be  a  task)  on  the 
pharmacist,  it  should  not  begin  by  prejudicing  the  public  against 
the  pharmacist  by  designating  him  as  a  vender  of  the  very  articles 
the  sale  of  which  the  country  has  specifically  chosen  to  prohibit. 
"Council  letters  presenting  the  situation  indicate  that  a  protest 
