The Taihape Daily Tines. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1918. A SALE OF POISONS QUESTION.

Taihape Daily Times, 7 February 1918, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Tines. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1918. A SALE OF POISONS QUESTION.

(With which is incorporated The Taihapo Post and Waimarino News).

The initial statement of the spokesman for a deputation from the New Zealand Pharmacy Board to the Minister for Public Health, at Wellington on Tuesday, constitutes a public alarm, a warning to the people far removed from chemists' shops to ,be on the alert in looking after their rights and privileges in, matters that are frequently of life and death importance to them > The Pharmacy Board desires to have the "Poisons Act" amended, it is "unanimous in that respect, and in innocent frankness the spokesman told the Hon. G. W. Russell that he was the third Minister for Public Health that he had interviewed. In searching for evidence wKy it has been necessary to deputationise a third Minister one has not far to look. It is seen from Ministerial and other discussions that if the amendments hitherto sought by j the chemists had been granted that many family medicines that have been used for many decades in country districts to where the chemist does not penetrate would be unprocurable. It would become a breach of the law for storekeepers to stock them. Perhaps the most dangerous of these remedies was selected by the Board's spokesman in urging his case, and no person with knowledge of the subject can help sympathising with him to some extent. He emphasised that chlorodyne was a dangerous poison which should be added to the schedule, but how many accidents or deaths are there from the sale of this compound in the country, where, oftimes, its presence on storekeepers' shelves has rendered it available for relieving intense pain, and perhaps in saving life. Whether ehlorodyne is sold by chemist or storekeeper it would similarly be purchasable and used for the purpose for which it was purchased. After it leaves the seller there is no control of use. We are referring to ehlorodyne because it is the drug, or rather compound, instanced by the Pharmacy Board, but there are many other proprietory compounds that would leave the country storekeepers' shelves if the prayer of the chemists was granted The contention is that no person other than a registered

chemist should be allowed to sell

chlorodyne and other questionably

dangerous poisonous compounds. No man should be licensed to sell poisons unless -he could legally practice as a chemist, but what does a chemist know about these secret proprietory compounds that the person in the country the Department issues a license to does not know? Would the chemist, if there were one, in the backblocks refuse to- sell these proprietory compounds any more than the storekeeper now licensed to sell them? Not at all! Then where is the added safety, what good purpose would be served by inflicting such hardship upon backblock settlers? The Board puts up a very bad case before the Minister when its representative states that chemists cannot distinguish between a prescription and a compound as understood by the Act, and it argues rather in favour of allowing any intelligent person to prescribe than for preventing them from selling proprietory compounds. It is indeed questionable whether Court records will not disclose more mishaps and death from prescribing than from the sale of all proprietory poisons put together. In stating this it must not be assumed that we are in i favour of greater looseness in the sale of poisons, in fact, if it is shown that mere effective handling can be accomplished without interfering with the country's industries it would have our support, but it must be something different from the chlorodyne story. The Minister was not impressed witn the idea that a storekeeper should be possessed of technical knowledge of poisons to sell a bottle of chlorodyne He could not believe that any man, whatever his calling, could get a license, and he asked for a'case of an improper person being licensed. A grocery company was mentioned. The Minister said he was thinking of such places as Taihape and Taumarunui, and wondered whether blacksmiths and such-like had been licensed to sell poisons. It is not the restriction of sale of such poisons as chlorodyne, however, that would give the most trouble in the country. Some sheepdips, many disinfectants, paris green, London purple, arsenate of lead, and the thousand and one things could' not be obtainable by backblock settlers from their merchants and storekeepers that are essential in farming, for

carrying on production. To grant what chemists ask for would revolutionise the country chemists' business. They would have to build large stores to house the stocks of insecticides, disinfectants, sheep-dips and the thouands of compounds that are used on farms in the raising of crops and for the treating of animals. In Wellington even, we think, it can be shown that accidents in the use of arsenic have been more frequent in chemists' shops than elsewhere, therefore it was not wise for the Board's representative to quote the sale of that poison in support of his contention We need not go into further detail to show how the work or men on farms would be hampered and rendered almost impracticable in some cases by restricting the sale of all potent poisons to two or three chemists in a district like Taihape, and we cannot think that such chemists are party to the Pharmacy Board's present action. The point is that no matter who the farmer purchased his insecticides and disinfectants from, that person would have no control of its,use, therefore we 'cannot see that it matters whether such proprietory compounds are purchased from chemists, mercantile firms, or grocers. The convenience of the user, and aid to production must 'in the interests of the country take precedence of any desire by any person or body to obtain a legal monopoly such as the Pharmacy Board's representative was seeking. The Minister said he took it the underlying objection which the deputation wished to make clear was that grocers and others were allowed to sell classes of goods which in the opinion of the Pharmacy Board should be confined to chemists. Farmers and people in the country cannot afford to let a matter of this importance escape their notice because it proposes to prevent horticultural dealers, seedsmen, stock and station agents, and others from selling such goods as they are experts in, and to whom farmers and orchardists go for advice and Information thereon. We cannot picture an old experienced farmer going to the chemist's shop and asking, what he should do with affected wheat or turnip crops. What the deputation asked for might be conceded to some extent only in a densely populous city, but it would be disastrous in the country to disturb present arTangements, and it is because we realise fully the trouble if would cause we ask the Minister to thoroughly consider the farming and backblbcks claims to have the sales of articles covered by the deputation left as they are, in the hands of that class of vendor which the Department thinks of sufficient responsibility to be entrusted with a license.