Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1883-06-30
DRUGGISTS AND WHISKY SELLING.

e We print on the outside of this issu
the new law regulating the sale of liq
nor by dramshops, known as the Down
e ing high license law. We reproduc
e it exactly as it is found in the sessio,
0 acts, so that it may be seen where tn
amendments have been made. We al
l SO print the druggists law. This Law
should be carefully read by all interest
l Under the law a druggist has n,
right to sell less than a gallon of alec
holic liquor under his retail liquol
dealers license, except incidentally ant
, according to the terms of the druggists
law. If druggist sells q pint or a quart
of whisky to a customer he violates
the law, unless he first takes out
dramshop license. People who buy
liquors should remember this, for every
time they buy a bottle of whisky from
a druggist who has not q dramshop
license they cause him to violate the
law, and r themselves particeps Grim
inSs.
While the state pursues the policy of
requiring high licenses from dramshops
it is but fair and proper that they
should be protected in the rights which
are conferred upon them by the law and
for which they pay so roundly. Under
the new order of things all honest peo-
pie, not to speak particularly of the
officers of the law, should see to it that
there is no selling of liquor unlaw-
fully.
A drug store is now no place for liz
uor drinking. Considerats men must
see this, and not annoy the proprietors
for whisky. The law says, "No drug
gist or pharmacist shall, directly or in
directly, sell, give away Or otherwise
dispose OF Intoxicating liquors in any
quantity less than one gallon, for any
purpose, except on a aOritten prescrip-
ton, dated and signed, first had and
obtained from some regularly register
ed and practicing physician, and then
only when such physician shall state in
such prescription the name of the per-
son for whom the same is prescribed,
and that such intoxicating liquor is
prescribed as q necessary remedy" Al
violation of this Law IS made a INSIDE
meanor punishable by a fine of from
one hundred to five hundred dollars,
and in the case of a second offense by a
similar fine and the revocation of the
pharmacists license.
There are other persons than drug
gists who sell liquor without license.
They should be punished to the fullest
extent Of the law for every o~ffense. The
keepers ofdram shops who pay their
licenses are entitled to protection from
that sort of unfair and illegal COMPETE
In consequence of a decision by the
supreme court on the druggists law a
or SO ago, there prevails in the
minds of some druggists the idea that
The present druggists law is not of any
'orce and may be evaded. This is an
error. In 1881 the legislature passed a
law which permitted
druggists to sell liquor without a pre-
'cription. The old druggists' law
orbidding this was still on the statute
looks, and the supreme court held that
Is the pharmacists law had been passed
asst its provisions must be enforced.
anee that time both, laws have been
'mended with care. to. cover this defect,
nd will stand the test Of the closest
crutiny as to that point. The case of
state vs.. Arthur Brown, from this
ounty, sometimes cited, has moi vet
zen determined by the supreme court.
one OF the benefits expected to be de-
ived from the high license system is the
losing up of numberless places where
.quor ia sold unlawfuIly. For the
enerai good, and in simple justice to
ramshep keepers who pay their
censes all good citizens should endeav-
r to have. the law enforced. {
lac 1ntelligeneer does not propose to
saft for anybody to tell it what posi- -,
|on' to take on the whisky question. :
Is opposed to prohibition, not be- ,
ause it does not sympathize with all
roper efforts for temperance, but !
ecause it does not believe that prohi- l
ltion prohibits, and because it does
OF believe it has a right to say that its
eighbor shall not drink all the whisky i
e wants. The Intelligencer does not f
elieve in prohibition, and is not afraid L