CVS to Stop Selling Tobacco Products

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
I'm surprised it took this long for a large corporation to do this. Makes sense given the big three drug store chains are remaking themselves as healthcare providers. Do you think Rita Aid and Walgreens will follow suit?

CVS, the largest pharmacy chain in the United States, will stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products in all of its 7,600 stores by October 1, its parent company CVS Caremark CVS +0.49% announced this morning. It is the first time any retailer has ever dropped this deadly cash cow, and it is part of a major shift in direction for the drugstore giant.

“We’ve got 26,000 pharmacists and nurse practitioners who are helping millions of patients each and every day,” said Larry Merlo, the chief executive of CVS Caremark. “They manage conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes — all conditions that are worsened by smoking. We’ve come to the decision that cigarettes have no place in an environment where healthcare is being delivered.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/02/05/cvs-to-stop-selling-tobacco-sacrificing-2-billion-in-sales-for-public-health-and-future-growth/
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
I'm surprised it took this long for a large corporation to do this. Makes sense given the big three drug store chains are remaking themselves as healthcare providers. Do you think Rita Aid and Walgreens will follow suit?
Great news! It is brave of CVS-- I'm sure it will cut into their alcohol sales as well.
 

edk99

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2009
701
710
FL
Funny as we continue to chip away at tobacco with excessive taxes, prohibiting smoking it from everywhere but your bathroom with the door closed and the fan on and now we have a major corporation that will stop selling it. Yet we have a movement in this country to make medical and recreational weed legal and accessible. How can some of you be so anti-tobacco and at the same time be pro-marijuana?

So out with the tobacco lobbyists and in with the marijuana lobbyists?
 

EvilQueen

macrumors 6502
Aug 15, 2013
261
21
In my own world
Funny as we continue to chip away at tobacco with excessive taxes, prohibiting smoking it from everywhere but your bathroom with the door closed and the fan on and now we have a major corporation that will stop selling it. Yet we have a movement in this country to make medical and recreational weed legal and accessible. How can some of you be so anti-tobacco and at the same time be pro-marijuana?

So out with the tobacco lobbyists and in with the marijuana lobbyists?
There are so many examples of stuff like this. It drives me nuts.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Funny as we continue to chip away at tobacco with excessive taxes, prohibiting smoking it from everywhere but your bathroom with the door closed and the fan on and now we have a major corporation that will stop selling it. Yet we have a movement in this country to make medical and recreational weed legal and accessible. How can some of you be so anti-tobacco and at the same time be pro-marijuana?

So out with the tobacco lobbyists and in with the marijuana lobbyists?
You do know that you don't have to smoke marijuana, right?
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Funny as we continue to chip away at tobacco with excessive taxes, prohibiting smoking it from everywhere but your bathroom with the door closed and the fan on and now we have a major corporation that will stop selling it. Yet we have a movement in this country to make medical and recreational weed legal and accessible. How can some of you be so anti-tobacco and at the same time be pro-marijuana?

So out with the tobacco lobbyists and in with the marijuana lobbyists?
Not that I endorse it in any way (because I don't; having asthma indicates where I stand with any kind of smoking), but if you can find a medical need for tobacco, then you will have a point. There is a medical need for marijuana, and is documented in numerous cases. Until then, your reasoning on this doesn't have much medical ground to stand on.

However, I'm sure there is a list of names that would stretch from your home to mine of those who have died from smoking-related illnesses.

BL.
 

rhett7660

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
12,248
2,259
Sunny, Southern California
Funny as we continue to chip away at tobacco with excessive taxes, prohibiting smoking it from everywhere but your bathroom with the door closed and the fan on and now we have a major corporation that will stop selling it. Yet we have a movement in this country to make medical and recreational weed legal and accessible. How can some of you be so anti-tobacco and at the same time be pro-marijuana?

So out with the tobacco lobbyists and in with the marijuana lobbyists?
Easy. Marijuana hasn't been related to lung cancer either via direct or second hand smoke. :)
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,387
UK
Easy. Marijuana hasn't been related to lung cancer either via direct or second hand smoke. :)
Er, source? I thought it did at a rate of around 5-1 per joint/cigarette. The advantage being you smoke much less weed than tobacco.

Edit: that seems dubious see http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer
 

edk99

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2009
701
710
FL
Not that I endorse it in any way (because I don't; having asthma indicates where I stand with any kind of smoking), but if you can find a medical need for tobacco, then you will have a point. There is a medical need for marijuana, and is documented in numerous cases. Until then, your reasoning on this doesn't have much medical ground to stand on.

However, I'm sure there is a list of names that would stretch from your home to mine of those who have died from smoking-related illnesses.

BL.
I can understand the medical need for it under certain circumstances where no other form of medicine is effective. I'm not so sure of the recreational use for it if health wise it is as worse or worse for you then tobacco. I just find it intriguing that for a long time the FDA, CDC and many other organizations have been pounded it in our heads that smoking is bad for you and now a retailer is stopping sale of it because of its health effects and we see this as a good thing. Which it is. But at the same time the same people that frown on tobacco champion the legalization of recreational marijuana. I think it is pretty bizarre.

Easy. Marijuana hasn't been related to lung cancer either via direct or second hand smoke. :)
Lung cancer is the least of your worries.
How Does Marijuana Affect a User’s Life?

Research shows marijuana may cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse. Heavy marijuana users generally report lower life satisfaction, poorer mental and physical health, more relationship problems, and less academic and career success compared to non-marijuana-using peers. For example, marijuana use is associated with a higher likelihood of dropping out of school. Several studies also associate workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
 

rhett7660

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
12,248
2,259
Sunny, Southern California
Is that through evidence of absence, or absence of evidence?
Er, source? I thought it did at a rate of around 5-1 per joint/cigarette. The advantage being you smoke much less weed than tobacco.

Edit: that seems dubious see http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer
Thought the smiley face would have given it away. Sorry this was more tongue in check commenting since I seem to hear this a lot. :)
 

Shrink

macrumors G3
Feb 26, 2011
8,914
1,596
New England, USA
Is that through evidence of absence, or absence of evidence?
It would be, as I see it, through the absence of evidence.

The Null Hypothesis, if I remember correctly (fat chance!:p), assumes a priori, the evidence of absence, or the assumption of the of absence of a relationship between the variables.

I hope...;)
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,388
4,368
Pumpkindale
Thought the smiley face would have given it away. Sorry this was more tongue in check commenting since I seem to hear this a lot. :)
I did get it. I was just a bit tipsy at the time, and couldn't resist the wordplay. It take me forgiver to get the spalling wright, ever with auto-correct.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,672
1,748
Funny as we continue to chip away at tobacco with excessive taxes, prohibiting smoking it from everywhere but your bathroom with the door closed and the fan on and now we have a major corporation that will stop selling it. Yet we have a movement in this country to make medical and recreational weed legal and accessible. How can some of you be so anti-tobacco and at the same time be pro-marijuana?

So out with the tobacco lobbyists and in with the marijuana lobbyists?
I wouldn't want personally want to see restrictions on marijuana that are any less restrictive than those on smoking. There should have been some amount of less politicized research in determining the net effect of subjecting it to the same regulations, as the war on drugs hasn't really succeeded in this regard. A large portion of the campaign against smoking related to initial lack of transparency regarding its side effects and the ability to negatively impact others in the surrounding environment. I would personally hope not to see this repeated with marijuana. I wouldn't personally use it either way, as my own allergy issues already resemble asthma at their worst. There's that and I dislike anything that reduces mental clarity.

I can understand the medical need for it under certain circumstances where no other form of medicine is effective.
In terms of medical use, I could see it where either it's more cost effective and comparable or the severity of side effects is less.
 

rhett7660

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
12,248
2,259
Sunny, Southern California
/snip
In terms of medical use, I could see it where either it's more cost effective and comparable or the severity of side effects is less.
I mean when was the last time you heard the side affect of Marianna was anal leakage! Munchies and a high taco bell and 7-11 doritos bill yes. Anal leakage not so much!
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
I mean when was the last time you heard the side affect of Marianna was anal leakage! Munchies and a high taco bell and 7-11 doritos bill yes. Anal leakage not so much!

Taco Bell causes anal leakage.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,672
1,748
I mean when was the last time you heard the side affect of Marianna was anal leakage! Munchies and a high taco bell and 7-11 doritos bill yes. Anal leakage not so much!
Some prescription drugs have worse side effects than that. I had wanted to point out that it shouldn't be ruled out as a last resort due to preconceptions rather than compared on its own merits to other treatment options.