What no tobacco at CVS Drug Stores?

[Airbrush]

Smart move, why don't the other "drug stores" do this? How about remove alcoholic drinks, junk foods and sugar drinks? Because that is mostly what drug stores have to offer people to eat and drink, in the food deserts, and everywhere else. Then folks can also buy the medicines they need to take AFTER and WHILE they screw up their health by a life-time of poor eating habits.

 

For most of human history, food has been a scarcity, until now. It is still scare in many poor nations, but here in the good old USA we have plenty of processed foods with a long shelf life, junk food and drinks available for most people. So eat a lot and enjoy your FREEDOM to frequent culinary orgasm from salt, sugar, and trans-fats. People eat for entertainment now, not for sustenance. That is why they need to go to the convenient drug stores to get their fix of processed foods, salt, sugar, fats, alcohol, but no longer tobacco at CVS.

 

The cost of health care will certainly go sky high in the future, thanks to human willingness to eat too much junk food, just for FUN, because when it comes to eating, all that matters is it is a lot of FUN. Then they can buy their pharmaceuticals and see their doctors frequently. But don't worry, they can afford it because their health care will be paid for by our taxes.

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure "fun" is the culprit here. Convenience is an attractive concept for many, one that often dances fancy with our health. And honestly, I think a lot of people eat just because it's a certain time of day, or because they're at a certain location ("We're at the mall, oh! there's the food court"), and healthy choices are limited.

 

I can see the "fun" aspect on a vacation. People seem to flock to all the kettle-fudge-ice cream-dog-on-a-stick places, willing to pay tourist prices for the good goo.

 

I quit smoking twenty years ago, but I still can't begrudge folks their bit of poison, in whatever form it takes. But eating isn't drinking or smoking or doing drugs, it's sustenance and it's important to get it right more often than not.

[swansont]

Smart move, why don't the other "drug stores" do this?

Because they'll see a drop in income? I'm guessing that smoking rates have dropped low enough (~20%; a drop of more than half since WWII)and smoking has become socially unacceptable enough that the goodwill from this outweighs the income loss.

 

But don't worry, they can afford it because their health care will be paid for by our taxes.

Congratulations on making >$200k a year (or you and your spouse making $250k).

[For Prose]

Why does this news bother you?

 

If you dig a little deeper, you will read about how CVS has done this so they can focus resources to healthcare; makes sense to me.

[Popcorn Sutton]

CVS decided to discontinue the sale of tobacco products because it contradicts the companies philosophy. They're in the business of helping people on their way to achieving better health, and cigarettes don't do that. You can make the argument that alcohol also contradicts that philosophy, but the company is making MUCH more money off of alcohol than cigarettes, and people flock to CVS for their very cheap prices. However, alcohol has been proven to be beneficial if used properly. It prolongs life if it is used in the right dosage. You'll notice if you go into a CVS, half of the liquor isle is purely wine.

[CaptainPanic]

Although I don't know what CVS is (I live in Europe), I think it's pretty simple: The company wants to be a little bit more ethical about their business, but going 100% ethical and right would hurt their business too much.

[Airbrush]

Because they'll see a drop in income? I'm guessing that smoking rates have dropped low enough (~20%; a drop of more than half since WWII)and smoking has become socially unacceptable enough that the goodwill from this outweighs the income loss.

 

 

Congratulations on making >$200k a year (or you and your spouse making $250k).

Sorry, your estimate is way over what we make a year. Are you saying that in the future, when health care becomes 75% of a nation's economy, from an aging population, and certainly everybody needs to be taken care of whether they can afford it or not, only people that make over $200k will contribute anything towards paying for a nation's health care costs? I have the suspicion that SOME of my taxes currently are applied to health care. Am I wrong?

Although I don't know what CVS is (I live in Europe), I think it's pretty simple: The company wants to be a little bit more ethical about their business, but going 100% ethical and right would hurt their business too much.

I congratulate CVS for this move. Healthy alternatives should be easily accessible, and unhealthy alternatives should not be so easily accessible. They might consider replacing their junk food department with government-subsidized cheep healthy food and drinks, that is paid for by a junk food tax.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

Although I don't know what CVS is (I live in Europe), I think it's pretty simple: The company wants to be a little bit more ethical about their business, but going 100% ethical and right would hurt their business too much.

 

CVS is like (or used to be like) many US pharmacies. They make the sick people walk all the way to the back of the store for the pharmacist, but the ciggies and candy bars are right up front near the registers.

 

And you're right, CVS obviously thinks the goodwill they'll garner from this move offsets the hit to sales. I hope it works out for them, then other drug stores may follow suit. Frankly, them selling cigs is like your dentist giving you candy.

[iNow]

The thing with CVS (and it's other large competitors like Walgreens) is they are trying to become more than just a pharmacy with convenient store qualities (where you can buy shampoo and makeup and magazines and cheap toys). They are also moving into basic health clinic activities like provision of vaccines and flu shots, basic checkups and health screenings, etc.

 

They're looking to fill a gap where a trip to the local doctor or hospital for minor illness may cost too much or be too expensive or be located too far away to easily coordinate, and selling cigarettes is opposed to that mission. They also (as evidenced by this thread) are generating positive buzz in the press and social media via decisions like this, so that helps their image and may drive new customers to walk through the doors.

 

While CVS no longer carrying drugs won't have much of an impact on most smokers (who will just purchase from the local gas station instead), the harder it is to get cigarettes and the fewer places people can buy them the less likely it is they will start smoking in the first place... and there will be some small segment of the population who will become more likely to seriously consider quitting when resupplying their smokes becomes too much of a pain in the arse.

 

At the same time, CVS is still a business accountable to shareholders for making profits, and cigarettes/candy/sugary soda/wine/etc. all bring very high margins and tend to have consistently high and steady sales volume. It's tough to give that up for moral and "company image" reasons alone (unless they can replace that lost revenue through other means).

Edited February 7, 2014 by iNow

[swansont]

Sorry, your estimate is way over what we make a year. Are you saying that in the future, when health care becomes 75% of a nation's economy, from an aging population, and certainly everybody needs to be taken care of whether they can afford it or not, only people that make over $200k will contribute anything towards paying for a nation's health care costs? I have the suspicion that SOME of my taxes currently are applied to health care. Am I wrong?

 

No, I'm saying that if you aren't in that income bracket then you aren't seeing any additional burden in tax dollars going to health care for others. You'll be paying what you are paying in now (that you will presumably extract, and possibly exceed, someday). Regular healthcare is being paid for out of insurance premiums.

[Airbrush]

Regular healthcare is being paid for out of insurance premiums.

That's right, and with an aging population, conditioned to impulse eating with over-opportunities for eating-for-entertainment, to morbid obesity, health care costs will rise, and insurance premiums will rise for all of us, healthy or not.

 

Or we can short circuit that trend by not having impulse items in gas stations, for starters.

[swansont]

That's right, and with an aging population, conditioned to impulse eating with over-opportunities for eating-for-entertainment, to morbid obesity, health care costs will rise, and insurance premiums will rise for all of us, healthy or not.

 

 

That's a separate issue, and doesn't change the fact it's not a part of your tax burden

[Bill Angel]

I assume that they will still be selling electronic cigarettes, which are just tobaccoless nicotine dispensing devices.

[iNow]

I assume that they will still be selling electronic cigarettes, which are just tobaccoless nicotine dispensing devices.

They don't currently sell electronic cigarettes, so if they start in the future that would be a new policy for them.

http://nation.time.com/2014/02/05/cvs-tobacco-cigarettes-electronic/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/business/cvs-plans-to-end-sales-of-tobacco-products-by-october.html

[overtone]

The drugstore on University Ave in Minneapolis, MN, a couple blocks west of 280 - an independently owned one, by one of the first of the wave of immigrant pharmicists from India and Pakistan - took the tobacco off its shelves more than 35 years ago (I asked the owner about it when I lived nearby, and he made no speeches - a brief comment about not selling stuff that hurts people).

 

The windows featured leftwing political stuff, much of it from years ago - calls for single payer and old Wellstone banners and the like.

 

I don't know if it's still in business, but if it is and under the same ownership it would also be a very good source of advice on drugs, doublechecks on prescriptions and side/combination effects, interactions with diet, etc. - the guy knew his stuff, had friends at the local University (well known for medical research). And it featured some of the lowest prices in town on the second tier drugs - the generics and stuff a step above aspirin that his elderly customers most depended on.

 

Now that CVS and the like, in combination with the big pharmaceutical manufacturers and their pet legislators, have driven most of those stores under, the elderly and infirm will be getting their drug advice from their eight minutes with the doctor and the delivery driver they pay a surcharge to meet.

 

And now they discover ethics.

[Airbrush]

That's a separate issue, and doesn't change the fact it's not a part of your tax burden

Not now my tax burden, but the trend is disturbing.

 

Health insurance premiums will continue to rise, as the population ages conditioned to the "comfort" of salt/sugar/fat, until only the very wealthy will be able to afford the current accepted level of health care.

 

In a few generations there will be 2 classes of people, the sickies and the celebrities. 99% of the population will be obese and sickly, and most will be unable to afford minimal health care, but they can watch the healthy-fit 1% of people on TV.

 

Why does this news bother you?

 

If you dig a little deeper, you will read about how CVS has done this so they can focus resources to healthcare; makes sense to me.

The news does not bother me, it is good news. Sorry my intro was not clear about that. I think eliminating tobacco is only the beginning of a potential virtuous cycle.

 

Could someone tell my why I got -2 for my intro? Is it that bad? Or was that a couple of obese smokers?

 

.....the harder it is to get cigarettes and the fewer places people can buy them the less likely it is they will start smoking in the first place... and there will be some small segment of the population who will become more likely to seriously consider quitting when resupplying their smokes becomes too much of a pain in the arse.

Thank you. The same can be said for junk foods. I rest my case.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Airbrush

[zapatos]

Could someone tell my why I got -2 for my intro? Is it that bad? Or was that a couple of obese smokers?

 

I don't want to speak for anyone, but possibly because it sounded a lot like you were ranting.

[swansont]

Not now my tax burden, but the trend is disturbing.

 

Health insurance premiums will continue to rise, as the population ages conditioned to the "comfort" of salt/sugar/fat, until only the very wealthy will be able to afford the current accepted level of health care.

Now all you have to do is connect the trend with the purported cause.

[overtone]

 

 

Health insurance premiums will continue to rise, as the population ages conditioned to the "comfort" of salt/sugar/fat, until only the very wealthy will be able to afford the current accepted level of health care.

The US taxpayer is currently paying enough in per capita taxes for health care and its costs to buy the French system per capita, the Netherlands' system, or any other single payer universal coverage system currently in effect in any of the 34 Western countries with healh care systems that yield better results than the US system overall.

 

So the only reason US citizens are paying any health insurance premiums at all, on top of their taxes, is because the US system sucks. There is no reason whatsoever that health insurance premiums must rise in the US - a merely partially effective and somewhat reasonable reform of the insurance and care delivery systems in the US, one that brought it into line with the better performing systems we see all over the place, would be easily expected, on ordinary observational grounds, to cut the current ridiculously extortionate premiums by half at least.

[Airbrush]

Now all you have to do is connect the trend with the purported cause.

People are living longer, so there are more years for them to be in need of health care, especially the later years. Common sense tells you that eating a healthy diet makes you healthier, and eating an unhealthy diet makes you less healthy. Most people need guidance. The absence of junk foods and drinks, and cheep, gov't-subsidized healthy food, or prepared meals in gas stations, will send the message that healthy eating habits are ENCOURAGED. There is a dwindling population of young healthy workers to carry the burden of insurance premiums for the growing army of elderly. This is a definite trend towards ever higher insurance premiums.

[swansont]

People are living longer, so there are more years for them to be in need of health care, especially the later years. Common sense tells you that eating a healthy diet makes you healthier, and eating an unhealthy diet makes you less healthy. Most people need guidance. The absence of junk foods and drinks, and cheep, gov't-subsidized healthy food, or prepared meals in gas stations, will send the message that healthy eating habits are ENCOURAGED. There is a dwindling population of young healthy workers to carry the burden of insurance premiums for the growing army of elderly. This is a definite trend towards ever higher insurance premiums.

 

People are living longer, which in itself means they will incur more medical costs. Treatments for illnesses that previously had no treatments, or improvements, mean people will consume more healthcare. What you have yet to do is show any connection. All there is is conjecture.

 

The government already subsidizes some foods, and it's not clear to me what authority would allow them to ban junk food.

 

The population of young healthy workers is dwindling? Looks to me like there are more young people (any cohort from 15-29) than the thirtysomethings (in 2010). How is that number "dwindling"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USpop2010.svg

 

As a policy, the availability of junk food is only part of the battle. There was a post I read just today on the subject: Food takes time

The availability of better food means little to a population that doesn't have time to prepare it because they need to work multiple jobs, so this all ties in with living wages for workers as well as health care.

[Trumptor]

I had a whole rant going, but erased it because I didn't think it reflected my thinking very well. I used to smoke a long time ago, about 10 years ago, and find it incredible how easily the masses are swayed. Decades ago, smoking was cool, now it's so disgusting that even smoking outdoors is offensive to people in the vicinity.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Trumptor

[Airbrush]

The availability of better food means little to a population that doesn't have time to prepare it because they need to work multiple jobs, so this all ties in with living wages for workers as well as health care.

Then cheep, govt-subsidized, healthy, PREPARED meals should be available in gas stations, drug stores, liquor stores, almost anywhere in food deserts, financed by a junk food tax. Junk food will also be available, but the higher price will sway people to select the healthy prepared meals instead. The junk food tax will be progressive, based upon how unhealthy it is determined to be by a panel of nutrition experts.

 

Of course, you cannot ban junk foods, but you can price it higher, so healthy alternatives become more appealing.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Airbrush

[Trumptor]

Actually, lack of exercise is arguably the worst thing we can do to our health. So definitely, the most urgent and most effective way to keep us healthy is to have forced highly encouraged daily exercise goals for individuals and higher taxes for those individuals that don't meet the government established goal. We should have government installed cameras in our homes and even our bathrooms so slackers can't "cheat" the system. The longer people are observed sitting, the higher their property, sales, and income taxes. This would be batshit crazy awesome! We would create a much healthier society than all the other efforts to date and would take a huge burden off the medical establishment. Since everyone is so interested in influencing individual habits for the greater good of society this should go over great.

[Airbrush]

The govt installed cameras is over doing it, but in the future, after the world's population is about 20 Billion, then controls and "encouragement" WILL be placed on citizens, that we don't have now, including everyone must participate in some athletics. In high school I was on the soccer team and surfed, and at the age of 59 I still love surfing and kicking around a soccer ball. But I'm not going to play 90 minutes of competition.

 

Trumptor, how can you be a "senior member" with only 33 posts?

Edited February 16, 2014 by Airbrush