Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-03-07
WARNING DRUG MEN.
They Break the Brooks Law in Re-
filling Liquor Prescriptions.
A CIRCULAR SOON TO BE ISSUED.
Local Druggists Comment on Some of the
Laws Harsh Features.
EXCEPTIONS MADE TO NEAR FRIENDS

The general public will be surprised to
learn that many druggists in the State have
been violating the Brooks law, and laying
themselves open to fine of $780, The very
general practice of refllipg prescriptions for
spirits is the violation in question, and that
the heads of the Pennsylvania Pharmaceuti-
cal Association intend issuing cautionary
circular is considered significant.
The Chairman of the Legislative Com
mittee of the association, M. n. Kline, of
Philadelphia, has written letter to men,
Der of the State body in which he says: II
am preparing circular which will send
to all members of the association and all
State druggists, calling attention to the de-
cislon of the Supreme Court as to the response
bllity of retail druggists under the Brooks high
license law, which. think, will be of great in.
terest to the druggists of this State, many OF
whom have doubtless overlooked its provis-
IONS"
NO REFILLING ALLOWED.
The gentleman who received the letter said:
While this allusion to the Brooks law may
seem somewhat vague to the general public
the druggists of Pennsylvania know very well
what it means. BY the decision of the Supreme
Court, to which Mr.. Kline refers, it has been
definitely decided that prescription for spirit
ous yinous or malt liquors cannot be refilled
upon any pretense whatever. These prescrIp-
tions are issued by the thousands and are rehlled
endlessly in majority of cases. Those druggists
who have been refilling the prescriptions have
been violating one of the StrlcIest provisions OF
the Brooks law, and if few WIsharts take hold
of the matter it would be extremely unpleas-
ant. Mr. Kline is issuing the circular so as to
antedate the annual renewal of druggists licen-
ses. and to post the druggists as to question
which, if honestly answered, might deprive
them of licenses. am not quite clear in my
mind as to who is charged with interrogating
the druggists, but no chances will be taken by
the trade"
At the Duquesne pharmacy the clerk in
charge stated that they were fully aware OF
the existence of the phase of the Brooks law
referred to- and had always endeavored TO live
up to that provision. There might be cases,
however, in which druggists reflled such pre-
scriptions if they were the property OF near
friends or relatives. while under belief that
they had such right under a common rule with
some dealers of using their own judgment in
such matters. As far as they were concerned
they had not, nor would they, refill whisky
prescription.
RATHER HARSH LAW.
4. w. d. Hieber, of Penn avenue, said: II
may best illustrate the rule which follow in
such case by relating an instance that occurred
a short time ago. A poor woman who had
a whisky prescription. to be used in the case OF
a sick child, came to me and endeavored to
have me fill the bottle, and was compelled
to refuse her, although she begged hard to
have me do so, arguing that it
would cost so much to go to a physician,
and fee him for duplicating his former work.
must say that 1 felt sorry for the woman, and
am of the opinion that the law is considerably
off in that respect but obeying it as l under
stand it, l refused her. really think there are
some druggists who freely duplicate a former
prescription OF the kind, but who cannot posi-
lively say"