shall not be an offense under this section, nor shall it be an offense for established wholesale or retail dealers in drugs to sell, lend, supply, give away, exhibit, possess, or transfer, to one another, in the regular course of legitimate business, or to a duly licensed physician or to another person upon the written prescription of a duly licensed physician, any article, drug, instrument, or thing, designed, adapted or intended for preventing conception. Any person obtaining any such article, drug, instrument, thing, or information in pursuance of this section may lawfully possess and use the same. The vital difference between this bill and the previous one lies in the permission granted to medical publishers, and in the fact that “reprints” from “standard medical and scientific journals” are to be made “not non-mailable,” although they contain matter which is classed as obscenity in the law to which this bill would add amendments. This bill is technically much better drawn than the previous one, but while it has filled some of the gaps in the other one—such as the provisions regarding publishing and importing—and has ironed out some of the absurdities, it still contains phrases like “bona-fide patient” and “bona-fide printer or publisher” and “standard” medical works, no one of which is defined by law. The enforcement of such a bill, if enacted into law, would therefore be built upon shifting sands, which would be just about as hopeless to deal with as have been the multitudinous interpretations of “obscenity” by censors, judges and juries for generations. What is a “bona-fide printer”? And what constitutes a “_standard_ medical or scientific journal”? Whose standard would the law sanction? Standards vary widely at any given moment, and from decade to decade they vary prodigiously; indeed it is not so long ago that it was not “standard” to relieve the suffering of childbirth—it was not orthodox, it was “irreligious.” Perhaps there were some who deemed it “obscene.” Laws should contain explicit terms, and not those whose interpretation can vary so as not only to nullify the intent of the law, but so as to result in limitless injustice to the public and to the individuals against whom they are enforced.