CVS to Stop Selling Tobacco Products

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    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?


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew...in-sales-for-public-health-and-future-growth/
     
  2. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #2
    It probably provides a big income. Makes perfect sense that no major company has done it so far.
     
  3. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    Their CEO claims tobacco products account for $2.1 billion in revenue, or 1.6%.
     
  4. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #4
    Great news! It is brave of CVS-- I'm sure it will cut into their alcohol sales as well.
     
  5. rhett7660, Feb 5, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2014

    rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #5
    Even though that is a small percentage, that is a lot of money to let go of. But good for them. Makes me wonder what places like Wal-mart/Sams Club/Costco etc make on tobacco sales.
     
  6. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #6
    Putting their money where your health is. (A clumsy play on money & mouth). :eek:

    I applaud this move.

    Release the Tobacco Lobbyists!!!
    :eek:
     
  7. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #7
    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?
     
  8. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #8
    We don't need no stinkin' weed lobbyists. We have green thumbs.

    It's not at all like cultivating/curing/packaging tobacco.
     
  9. EvilQueen macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Location:
    In my own world
    #9
    There are so many examples of stuff like this. It drives me nuts.
     
  10. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #10
    You do know that you don't have to smoke marijuana, right?
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    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.
     
  12. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #12
    Easy. Marijuana hasn't been related to lung cancer either via direct or second hand smoke. :)
     
  13. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #13
    Is that through evidence of absence, or absence of evidence?
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    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
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    Wait what?
     
  16. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #16
    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.

    Lung cancer is the least of your worries.
     
  17. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #17
    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. :)
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    No I think I should have got that.
     
  19. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #19
    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...;)
     
  20. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #20
    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.
     
  21. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #21
    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.

    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.
     
  22. Aspasia macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Location:
    Halfway between the Equator and North Pole
    #22
    Target hasn't sold tobacco in years. Believe they stopped in 1996.
     
  23. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #23
    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!
     
  24. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24

    Taco Bell causes anal leakage.
     
  25. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page