3 ms·

I suppose it's better than strychnine in that there is a chance for antidote. But that presumes there is the time/knowledge to apply the antidote for the pet. A

• hilbert42 5y ago
  Yeah, right. As I said, I'm no expert on the subject but I don't understand why metal phosphides, zinc etc., aren't popular either. My gut reaction is that some of the 'inappropriate' regulation of poisons (and chemicals generally) has to do with the process of regulation itself. In earlier times, regulations almost inevitably resulted in response to incidents (blue glass bottles introduced in Victorian times to reduce accidental/mistaken swallowing, thallium removed in the 1950s when too many abusive husbands were being bumped off by unhappy wives - thallium being so easy to administer, etc.). Such responses always left patchwork regulations with anomalies - such as why was strychnine available to anyone from my local pharmacy when I was a kid (that was mad even back then). Lately, chemical companies and governments do regulations 'deals' in a more formalized bureaucratic way (which both parties prefer - as chemical companies see regulations as being protective of them and keeping the GP and other vested interests away from the process is desirable. Thus not all issues are covered. There's also the 'change' problem - changing regulations can involve much work - thus the well-known axiom comes to the fore 'don't change anything unless compelled to do so.