Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1915-10-23
PROVISIONS OF DRY
LAW EXPLAINED BY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Laws Relative To Druggists
After January |, 1916,
Are Interpreted

quirles 70 ga a'so.ney .',; .! vehersi brown rel
49, W - o%.ioi In"o;,, " 'no p.oniui
eioh "a" " "ssiss' me attorney
sehel"i naS "Dil.t ne questions
asNou as INV A fNes'ious Wnieh cover
.no 9"'.io i"se VI INJURY auo ans
on;n;o, ";,Io foIIows. "' opii''o"' H'
'pt"'o" i
l. In the ease of the owner and pro
prletof oi u urug store VINO is not q
druggist put en1pioys registered phar,
"laclst ~ set uluss' ana dlspense ana
Pou"o pesIiip'iohs Vi hieule",
p., l@0 'i.ionS ~. "aso a" WY n,"st execute anu
ing 'ne q P-So.yu t ounu proNlueu ior IN
seotlon u 'noP.e' iot. ~, general laws
Sl Srcson u i'lo' pelore aicohol can
w i""tuN' 'o'u ''' Tue ur"s s'ore'
10 TING question our answer is tnat
the bond must be executed and filed by
registered pharmacist. Section of
the prohibition act provides that il shall
be unlawful Tor any person to manufac-
ture, sell, or barter intoxicating liquor
wlthin the state, except as provided
for IN said act. Section of said act
provides that registered pharmacists
may sell ethyi alcohol for medicinal,
pharmaceutical, selentltic and mechani-
cal purposes, and for external use and
application, only upon complying with
lhe PROVISIONS Oh !he act, and that be-
fore s9ld pharmacist may sell ethyl al
cohoi he must file with the county
clerk IN the county IN which he resides
pond running TO the state of Oregon
IN tne sum OF $2oo'o0 The next para
graph OF sald secu0n provides that the
clerk snah tneh issue to the pharmacist
TWO BOOKS OF my attldavits each, up
On tne payment OF Sz.o0 Tor approving
anu iliihg salu nohd ana the sum OF %
cents Tor eaeh oook OF attldavits.
10 my mind u ~ manifest that the
pond must be gwen by the registered
pharmacist where the proprietor of the
store Is not authorized by the laws Of
oregon TO Pracuce pharmacy,
2 II the proprietor ~ the above ease
ihsists on naVlhg prescription filled
prescribing alconol IN the ease OF the
prescription haVihg been written by n
'hysie"h, VINO ls at the time OF writ
ing the prescription man or ntem,
peIa.e napits OF addlcted to the use OF
i,. rhreo'lc urugs, VINO OF the two is
gul,ty Oh violating the lawf
10 tnis questoA our answer is that
Siuor ine IA" OF tnis state Doth would
oe euiIly oI AZ oitehse' The propri-
etor VINO dlrected tle sale and the phar'
n'aS,S' VIM 1lliei tne prescription and
''Sso 'ne suls-aae equaly Snllty'
9ee secs'on GOV, Lord oregon
'""S, wnlch reads as foilows'
All persons concerned in the com
mission OF a crime, whether it be fel
o1ny or mlsdemeanor, and whether Ihes
ulfectiy commit the act constituting the
CRIME, or @id and abet in jts commission
though rot present, are principals and
to De tried and punished as suea. "
oaid section mas recently been inter
preted by our supreme court in the case
OF the state vs., Gear, 72 Oregon SOL,
and IN many prior onses.
D.. II the sale is made upon an affi.
daVlt TO a person of Incorporate habits
by pharmacist who did not know
that the person to whom the sale was
inade was person OF intemperate hab-
lts would ignorance Of such habits be
u deIenSe'
TO TINS question our answer is in the
negative. Tne pharmacist sells alcohol
at ms peril, and II he sells without
knowledge OF the person S habits, he
takes his chances, Ignorance Of such
habits is not lawful defense, but it is
a matter that the court can properly
consider IN mitigation Of the penalty
10 De lnihcted' The Oregon supreme
court mas held IN many cases that in
purely statutory crimes, unless there is