'^SptemberT^92o; }  United  States  Pharmacopoeial  Revision.  645 
Some  workers  have  objected  to  the  standards  adopted  by  the 
Pharmacopoeia  for  Cannabis,  claiming  that  they  are  too  high. 
Personally  we  have  found  no  difficulty  in  meeting  the  U.  S.  P.  re- 
quirements for  preparations  of  Cannabis. 
The  method  of  stating  the  standard,  however,  is  open  to  criti- 
cism.   The  U.  S.  P.  states: 
"When  assayed  biologically  Fluid  extract  of  Cannabis  produces 
incoordination  when  administered  to  dogs  in  a  dose  of  not  more 
than  0.03  Mil.  per  kilogram  of  body  weight." 
According  to  the  above  statement,  a  dose  larger  than  0.03  Mil. 
per  kilo  would  not  produce  incoordination.  The  words  "not  more 
than"  should  either  be  omitted  or  changed  to  "in  a  minimum  dose 
of  0.03  Mil.  per  kilo." 
Some  workers  have  objected  to.  the  action  of  the  Committee  in 
making  the  test  for  Cannabis  compulsory  because  it  is  one  of  the 
least  satisfactory  of  the  pharmacodynamic  tests,  and  would,  there- 
fore, be  a  hardship  on  the  retail  druggist  in  that  he  would  be  held 
accountable  for  the  activity  of  his  Cannabis  preparations  when  only 
an  expert  could  satisfactorily  carry  out  the  test. 
This  criticism  would  be  justified  had  the  Committee  adopted  a 
standard  reading  "the  minimum  dose  of  Fluid  extract  of  Cannabis 
necessary  to  produce  incoordination  should  be  not  less  than  —  Mils 
per  kilo,  nor  more  than  —  Mils,  per  kilo." 
The  standard  adopted,  however,  only  specifies  a  minimum 
activity  in  order  to  guard  against  fraudulent,  inert  or  badly  de- 
teriorated drugs  and  does  not  specify  "limits"  as  in  the  chemical 
assays  for  alkaloidal  drugs. 
No  hardships  are  imposed  upon  the  inexperienced  operator, 
therefore,  because  it  is  only  necessary  that  Cannabis  preparations 
possess  a  certain  minimum  activity  and  it  is  not  compulsory  that 
they  actually  be  standardized. 
Unlike  most  chemical  assays,  the  assay  for  Cannabis  is  such  that 
a  preparation  which  passes  the  inspection  of  an  inexperienced  operator 
is  more  active  than  one  passed  by  the  expert  because  the  expert  can 
notice  marked  signs  of  incoordination  in  dogs  before  the  first  signs 
are  appreciable  to  the  inexperienced. 
Of  course,  the  expert  is  better  qualified  to  actually  standardize 
these  preparations,  but,  as  before  stated,  a  person  need  not  be  an 
expert  in  order  to  determine  whether  or  not  a  particular  prepara- 
