VOLUME 23. DECEMBER, 1905. American Pharmaceutical Association. NUMBER 12. "Just as certainly as the citizen who holds himself aloof from political affairs will be punished for his neglect of the plain duties of citizenship by misgovernment and the evils resulting from political corruption, so will the pharmacist suffer loss of prestige and profit by neglecting to participate in the efforts of his fellow craftsmen to elevate and reform the commercial and professional status of his calling.” Officers. President-JOSEPH L. LEMBERGER,.. .5 N. 9th St., Lebanon, Pa. .787 Broad St., Newark, N. J. .853 Main St., Hartford, Conn. .2728 Prytania St., New Orleans, La. University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md, .134 Huntington Ave., Boston, Mass. 776 Massachusetts Ave., Indianapolis, Ind. Reporter on the Progress of Pharm.-C. LEWIS DIEHL, 1346 E. Brdwy., Louisville, Ky. Local Secretary-F. H. CARTER.... 2342 Albion Place, St. Louis, Mo. 230 W. Washington St., South Bend, Ind. Texas Drug Co., Dallas, Tex. .43% Whitehall St., Atlanta, Ga. .256 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, O. Madison, Wis. .820 Main St., La Porte, Ind. .Scio, O. Boonville, Mo. ALBERT M. ROERIG.........U. S. M. Hospital, Stapleton, Staten Island, N. Y. Chairman Secretary CHAS. E. CASPARI, ..... Scientific Section. .712 Whittier St., St. Louis, Mo. University of Maryland. Baltimore, Md. .356 Superior St., Cleveland, O. Section on Education and Legislation. Chairman OSCAR OLDBERG. Secretary Associates Chairman Associates Chairman - F. C. GODBOLD JOSEPH W. ENGLAND....... J. T. MCGILL F. B. HAYS........ Commercial Section. .423 N. Charles St., Baltimore, Md. H. P. HYNSON,. Indian Territory ....Waterbury, Conn Hartford, Conn' .Detroit, Mich Section on Practical Pharmacy and Dispensing. W. C. ALPERS........ Secretary H. A. DUNNING.... Associate W. O. GROSS, Pharmaceutical Legislation During 1905. By Harry B. Mason. I have been asked by the editor of The Pharmaceutical Review to give a brief resumé of the pharmaceutical legislation of 1905, and I may properly begin by saying that the most important and significant law enacted during the year has been the graduation prerequisite amendment of Pennsylvania. A new legislative and likewise a new educational era was opened by New York in 1904 when a bill was passed making graduation from an accredited college or school of pharmacy compulsory on the part of future pharmacists. Pennsylvania has been quick to start out on the path thus blazed. Her amendment provides that a candidate for the board of pharmacy examination who desires to become the proprietor of a store "must present satisfactory evidence of being a graduate of some reputable and properly chartered college of pharmacy." This language vests the power of discrimination in the board of pharmacy, and the latter has decided the "reputable" institutions to be the 23 or 25 comprising the membership of the "Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties." In order that the progress made by the graduation prerequisite movement may be properly understood in this connection, it may not be out of place to say parenthetically that Hawaii enacted the the A. Ph. A. model pharmacy law two or three years ago, including even its graduation requirement, and that during 1905 the Wisconsin Board of Pharmacy has passed resolutions making a year of high school work compulsory at once, a year of 32 weeks in a school or college of pharmacy compulsory after July 1, 1906, and a full pharmaceutical course compulsory after July 1, 1907. Thus we see that three States and one territory have now taken the advanced step and have led in the vanguard of the new movement for higher educational requirements in pharmacy. The Pennsylvania amend ment and the Hawaiian law affect the proprietor only, but the New York act and the Wisconsin resolutions make no distinction between proprietor and clerk. Accepting the Pennsylvania prerequisite amendment as the most significant law enacted during 1905, we may place as next in importance the group of five anti-narcotic and anti-cocaine measures passed in North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri, Connecticut and Texas. These bills are all of them open to criticism in one or more particulars; nor can it be said that their enactment has suddenly and completely stopped the illegitimate sale of narcotic drugs. But on the whole they are fairly efficacious, and they form gratifying evidence that pharmacists realize the necessity of curbing an evil which seriously threatens their good name and which in many sections of the community is more ominous even than the liquor curse. Altogether about 20 States now have some sort of anti-cocaine or antinarcotic laws on their statute books, not to mention the city ordinances which may be found particularly in the leading southern communities. A careful examination of the five new laws shows that the Beal or A. Ph. A. model anti-narcotic bill has been adopted with modifications in two cases. With the vital and unfortunate exception that proprietary articles are virtually exempted, the Texas measure is practically a replica of the model, and is on the whole doubtless the most satisfactory bill of the group. The Connecticut law, on the other hand, forms a brilliant exemple of how most of the starch in the model bill may be successfully extracted. A German on seeing the law would doubless exclaim in surprise: "Such a limpness!" Two particular sources of strength in the model are conspicuously absent: 1) No jail punishment is provided for, the highest possible penalty being the imposition of a fine of $25 or $50; and 2) there is no provision against the disreputable physician or dentist who may choose to defeat and nullify the law by furnishing prescriptions to habitués by the dozen at a nickel or a dime apiece. Analizing the five anti-narcotic measures, we find them possessed of the following characteristics: Restriction of sales: All 5 laws confine the sale of the proscribed narcotics to physician's prescriptions, and declare that these must in no case be repeated. Scope of the law: The Minnesota and Missouri acts involve the sale of cocain only; the Connecticut act cocaine, opium, and morphine; and the Texas measure, broadest in scope of them all, mentions cocaine. morphine, opium, and chloral hydrate, failing, however, to follow the A. Ph. A. model and add encaine and heroin also to the list. Enforcement of the law: No one is charged with the duty of enforcement in the Missouri and North Carolina acts Ia serious defect; in Texas it is the duty of the grand jury to make presentments; in Connecticut certain courts are specifically given jurisdiction; and in Missouri the county attorney shall prosecute all complaints and shall have authority to examine the books of any manufacturer or jobber to aid him in obtaining evidence a very good feature. Curtailment of the physician's rights: The very important principle of the A. Ph. A. model, that the physician as well as the pharmacist shall be held responsible for pandering to the cravings of habitués and assisting in their downfall, is recognized only in the laws of Texas and Minnesota. Proprietary Preparations: Another important principle of the model, that any preparations (proprietary or otherwise) containing more than certain specified quantities of the proscribed narcotics shall be involved, is recognized by more or less definite inference in the acts of Minnesota, Missouri, and Connecticut. The Texas measure specifically exempts proprietary articles unless they are compounded or sold for the evasion of the act," while the North Carolina law has a ridiculous provision exempting preparations containing "less than 30 per cent of cocaine, morphine- or opium!" Penalties: The Texas measure follows the A. Ph. A. model in providing for fins of $25 to $50 for the first offense, $50 to $100 for the second offense, and $100 to $200 and six months in jail for the third offense. The Missouri measure provides for fines also, but makes 90 days in jail discretionary with the court after the first conviction. The North Carolina measure makes 30 days imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $50 optional with the court for the first offense. The Minnesota act makes from 30 to 90 days imprisonment in jail discretionary, and also makes mandatory the additional penalty of a revocation of the license of any physician, dentist, or pharmacist convicted of violating the law. The Connecticut act provides only for a fine ranging from $25 to $50. Leaving the group of new anti-narcotic laws, which I have reviewed at some length because of the supreme importance of the subject, let me pass on to mention the related topic of liquor legislation. After five or six years of the most strenous and determined effort, the Michigan pharmacists have at last secured a new pharmacy law completely succeeding the old and unsatisfactory statute which has been in existence for many years. It is of the greatest import ance that this law provides for the compulsory establishment of a standard of preliminary education representing two years of finished high school work. The law has several other valuable features, but possibly most important of all is its adoption of what might be called "the Massachusetts idea" with respect to the sale of liquor in drug stores. The board of pharmacy is given power to suspend the certificate of registration of any druggist found guilty in a responsible court of law of violating the State liquor act. Furthermore, the board is charged with the duty of enforcing this act, and it will have the appointment of "an assistant secretary" who shall not be a member of the board proper, but who shall devote his entire time to ferreting out violations of both the pharmacy and the liquor laws with the purpose of seeing that proper action is taken against the offenders. This severe penalty for violation of the liquor law finds its duplication in a measure enacted in New York State. The New York law provides that whenever the liquor tax certificate of a pharmacist is cancelled in consequence of any violation of the law, his license to practice pharmacy shall be cancelled also. The measure was opposed vigorously by the druggists of the State and every possible effort was made to prevent its passage in the legislature and afterwards its signature by the governor. Thus we see that the pharmacists of New York bitterly fought a law which the pharmacists of Michigan strove with equal determination to obtain for several years, and which they consider themselves very fortunate to have secured at last. The Michigan druggists believe that in no way can they so well head off undesirable liquor legislation, and likewise pull the fangs of radical critics, as by showing their willingness to correct the liquor abuses which admittedly exist within their own ranks. It is not without significance that "wood" or methyl alcohol has figured seriously for the first time in the legislation of 1905. Four laws involving the use and sale of this substance were enacted, and a number of unsuccessful measures appeared in still other states. A Minnesota measure provides that the substance shall always be labeled "Wood Naphtha, Poison;" a Massachusetts measure provides similarly that the article shall be labeled as a poison; a Connecticut measure puts methyl alcohol in poison schedule A, which means that it must be labeled "Poison;" and a New York law prohibits the use |