image

CVS Caremark, the nation’s second-largest drugstore chain, plans to stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products at its more than 7,600 retail stores by Oct. 1, a landmark decision that would make it the first national pharmacy company to cease tobacco sales.

It also marks a major turn for one of the country’s biggest healthcare companies, which said it is giving up about $2 billion in annual sales, or about 1.6% of the company’s 2012 revenues.

CVS, which is second only to Walgreen Co. in retail locations, has been steadily increasing its business providing medical care through its pharmacists and a growing number of urgent care clinics at its retail locations.

“As the delivery of healthcare evolves with an emphasis on better health outcomes, reducing chronic disease and controlling costs, CVS Caremark is playing an expanded role in providing care,” Larry J. Merlo, the president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. “Put simply, the sale of tobacco products is inconsistent with our purpose…”

…though pressure on pharmacies has been growing, Walgreen went to court to try to stop San Francisco from imposing a ban on tobacco sales in pharmacies. The challenge was dismissed by a federal court. Boston has enacted a similar ban…

Walgreen’s is one of the pharmacies currently listed as a resource for my one prescription covered by Medicare. I’m reasonably unmedicated for an old fart.

The reason for using Walgreen’s is simple. It is the nearest pharmacy to my home. I will now change to CVS. A little more time and effort is worth it.



  1. LibertyLover says:

    $2B is 1.6% of revenue. That means they make $125B per year in sales. That’s a metric buttload of aspirin.

    And candy. They sell lots of candy.

    Hypocrites.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      You’re an all or none kind of libertarian huh?

      Ha, ha. The thin veil of adolescent idolatry removed to show another dumbass conservative.

      Why don’t you respect their right to do as they wish?

      What would/should a “true” libertarian actually think?==Guess you’ll have to ask one.

      Haw, haw!!!!

      • Guyver says:

        You’re an all or none kind of libertarian huh?

        And what does pointing out a hypocritical “flavor of the day” business model have to do with his political philosophy?

        What would/should a “true” libertarian actually think?==Guess you’ll have to ask one.

        Ask 1,000 “true” Libertarians, and you’ll get 1,000 different answers. Unlike Liberals / Conservatives which have very black and white stances on the issues, the litmus test for how “truly” Libertarian someone is hinges on how they define things. Once things are defined, you can then gauge how Libertarian someone is based off of they pivot off their “baseline”.

        Case in point, you can find people who consider themselves “true” Libertarians from completely opposite positions (i.e. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice).

        The biggest mistake most people make is thinking that a political party (which has hijacked a political philosophy by using its name) represents all Libertarians when they are nothing more than one “denomination” of Libertarianism.

      • Hmeyers says:

        Bobbo, CVS is a company.

        Companies do things for profit.

        CVS gets free advertising from this announcement.

        If CVS were in it for health, they’d also stop selling sugary soft drinks too in a stance against diabetes — except Bloomberg did that and got nuked.

        And don’t worry — CVS will still sell wine and beer!

  2. whipjacka says:

    Why does everyone admire their position so much?

  3. dwd says:

    Hear that Walgreens!? Get ready for record sales of tobacco products.

    • Guyver says:

      They’re convenient, but I wouldn’t shop at Walgreens or CVS unless it’s absolutely necessary. Most of their products are way overpriced.

      I’ve found much to be twice the price of many things you could simply get at a Wal-Mart / Target.

      • So What? says:

        When ever possible I avoid all four and shop local.

        • Guyver says:

          Shopping “local” is nice, but in the end you often times pay more.

          The only way I am incentivized to go local is when I’m being offered superior quality at a reasonable price.

          If you can’t be price, then you beat quality.

          • So What? says:

            You are correct I do pay more. I actually do not paying more as long as I am not paying it to Walmart, Target, etc. The other plus is that they actually know my name when I go to pick something up.

  4. nobutts says:

    Good for them

  5. Jeffy says:

    Catching up to Canada.

  6. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    There is an interesting parallel here. What difference will CVS pulling tobacco from its store make to death from cancer rates in the USA? Probably too small to be measured. In Fact….I even wonder if a more effective program would be to limit the selection somewhat and have health warnings more prominently displayed would be more effective? Pros and Cons.

    The same issue exists with the Dirty Oil Pipeline Report just issued: too small an impact to make a difference….so why bother?

    Its like….whoever wrote that report doesn’t understand that a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step? Single rain drops building the grand canyon? Idiots banding together to form the TeaParty? That kind of thing??

    The liberal Ed says we should build the pipeline as the alternative kills more people because oil is now being transfered using trains. HAH!!! Lets assume that is true? What you gonna do?????

    “If I wuz da Prez”===I would build the pipeline, then not allow Canadian Tar to use it. That would solve both issues.

    ……………………………..♫……….Ta – DA!!!!!!……………………

    The perfect liberal nanny state solution.

    Ya gotta love it.

    • Guyver says:

      There is an interesting parallel here. What difference will CVS pulling tobacco from its store make to death from cancer rates in the USA? Probably too small to be measured.

      Too bad you can’t exercise common sense when it came to your 30,000 deaths due to a firearm comment when discussing gun control.

      What difference will gun control have on crimes when all forms of gun-related deaths combined are less probable than dying from the flu or pneumonia?

      In Fact….I even wonder if a more effective program would be to limit the selection somewhat and have health warnings more prominently displayed would be more effective?

      It’s already been done for years. What rock are you living under?

      Its like….whoever wrote that report doesn’t understand that a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step? Single rain drops building the grand canyon?

      It’s called risk assessment… something Liberals have a hard time grasping (like finding out that the recent CBO report states that ObamaCare could cost Americans nearly 2.3 million jobs).

  7. bobbo, picking fruit from the tree of Libertarianism as only an attentive humanist can do says:

    Well shoot. The internet done ate my much longer response. Gawd does act in very direct ways. He really does have it in for original disagreements, but here comes the regurgitation.

    Guyver, back from Bible School says:
    2/5/2014 at 3:12 pm

    You’re an all or none kind of libertarian huh?

    And what does pointing out a hypocritical “flavor of the day” business model have to do with his political philosophy? /// My commentary shows that his philosophy (sic) is half formed, defective, selective…as Socrates would question: Not really a philosophy is it!

    Libertarian: a person who believes in the doctrine of free will

    Free Will: the ability to act at one’s own discretion

    A true Libertarian will not criticize another’s exercise of free will that does not infringe on the autonomous discretion of another person. Eg–CVS’s stocking decisions. When “a person” does that, they are operating on some other philosoply than Libertarianism.

    What would/should a “true” libertarian actually think?==Guess you’ll have to ask one.

    Ask 1,000 “true” Libertarians, and you’ll get 1,000 different answers. /// Not on the issue that is plainly understood and definitional of the belief system of a Libertarian who is true to the philosophy.

    Unlike Liberals / Conservatives which have very black and white stances on the issues, the litmus test for how “truly” Libertarian someone is hinges on how they define things. Once things are defined, you can then gauge how Libertarian someone is based off of they pivot off their “baseline”. /// Yep…exactly what I did. Ha, ha.

    Case in point, you can find people who consider themselves “true” Libertarians from completely opposite positions (i.e. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice). /// You do know that putting true in quotes means its not really true? Thats the standard usage anyway. Unless you mean them only to emphasize your point? That would make sense, but not good draftsmanship. A work in progress I suppose…. the English language, its grammar, syntax, idiosyncrasies. It can take a life time, or never attained, if you don’t incorporate a few dictionaries, encryclopedias, read something outside your faith sphere from time to time? xxxx ANYHOO–Yes, I agree people that call themselves and think of themselves as Libertarians, Liberty Lovers, or whatever you have…. in point of fact are objectively demonstrably…not. Just as I have done with LL.

    The biggest mistake most people make is thinking that a political party (which has hijacked a political philosophy by using its name) represents all Libertarians when they are nothing more than one “denomination” of Libertarianism. /// Or not Libertarian at all. When you fail the basic definition of the term, you fail to be that term, not a subset of it.

    Silly Rabbit.

    • Tim says:

      The ‘L’ word. I guess I like that Ron Paul guy, even his foreign policy.

      “”…What if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing.
      But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good; And I yeild back the balance of my time.

      Many people have the deep-set idea that they don’t like his foreign policy so here is a little ‘spainer to remind them why they dont —

      What If:
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=57SgvD_IQ28

      • bobbo, students of History find it hard to be relevant says:

        Stupid Speech. I mean…. I kinda liked it until I stopped to think about what it meant.

        What if?….What if just the opposite??? Every position has its pros and cons. If you don’t see that and are as one sided as RPaul, then you lack intelligence, information, or imagination or a combo there of.

        What if?? Any fool can ask a question. WHAT ARE HIS ANSWERS????

        “What if we weren’t bankrupting our economy by invading Iraq etc?”==Easily, a disruption in oil supplies and the destruction of Israel with a quick cascase to World Hyper Inflation, societal shutdown, and the God Ordered Apocalypse.

        Thats one possible what if.

        …..but I dither.

    • Guyver says:

      My commentary shows that his philosophy (sic) is half formed, defective, selective…as Socrates would question: Not really a philosophy is it!

      Your commentary shows an emotional knee-jerk reaction you had simply because you didn’t like that LL was simply calling a spade a spade by pointing out hypocritical “care” / “concern”. For whatever reason, you chose to make it political.

      Libertarian: a person who believes in the doctrine of free will

      Free Will: the ability to act at one’s own discretion

      Said the Liberal trying define Libertarianism in one way.

      Libertarianism at its most fundamental and simplest definition is the belief that anyone should be able to do whatever makes them most happiest (what you call free will) so long as it is not at the expense of someone else (a condition of Libertarianism).

      A true Libertarian will not criticize another’s exercise of free will that does not infringe on the autonomous discretion of another person. Eg–CVS’s stocking decisions.

      Said the Liberal who tried to make a political point from the original post when there was NOTHING political about it to begin with.

      How EXACTLY has LL impeded CVS’s “autonomous discretion” through his criticism of their hypocritical business model which targets tobacco but not sugar because one is not socially acceptable as the other?

      Not on the issue that is plainly understood and definitional of the belief system of a Libertarian who is true to the philosophy.

      An illustration of your ignorance? Ask 1,000 Libertarians what “as required” government is, and you WILL get various answers.

      What do you think is “plainly understood” for “as required” under the context of what you claim a “true” Libertarian ought to say / do? It’s very definitional.

      You do know that putting true in quotes means its not really true? Thats the standard usage anyway. Unless you mean them only to emphasize your point?

      In this context, it’s meant to emphasize your point of what a “true” Libertarian would / wouldn’t do. Anyone who claims to know what a “true” Libertarian IS, is either ignorant or an intellectually dishonest Libertarian.

      That said, Conservatives and Liberals love the divisiveness that Libertarians often go through amongst themselves. It’s hard (if not impossible) to reach any kind of consensus on a large scale.

      Or not Libertarian at all. When you fail the basic definition of the term, you fail to be that term, not a subset of it.

      Assuming your basic definition is considered the most basic and universally accepted.

  8. bobbo, picking fruit from the tree of Libertarianism as only an attentive humanist can do says:

    McGuyver, giving his idiot bone a real work out says:
    2/5/2014 at 3:28 pm

    There is an interesting parallel here. What difference will CVS pulling tobacco from its store make to death from cancer rates in the USA? Probably too small to be measured.

    Too bad you can’t exercise common sense when it came to your 30,000 deaths due to a firearm comment when discussing gun control. //// If deaths from firearms went from 30K to 20K, or whatever number, THAT would be the measurement==easy or not, its objective and its DONE. Jebus McGuyver. That really is Pedro Stupid.
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    What difference will gun control have on crimes when all forms of gun-related deaths combined are less probable than dying from the flu or pneumonia? //// The apt analogy is that we MANDATE innoculations against flu and other diseases while we prohibit common sense gun management. How far up your ass can you cram your Head Guyver? Ha, ha. Yes, I can see your solution to flu: spread more mosquitoes. (Thats a vector joke!)
    xxxxxxxxxxxxx

    In Fact….I even wonder if a more effective program would be to limit the selection somewhat and have health warnings more prominently displayed would be more effective?

    It’s already been done for years. What rock are you living under? //// McGuyver, once again as you SO OFTEN DO===YOU CAN’T READ!!!! What to you think “more prominently displayed” means other than more prominently displayed than is currently done? Jebus McGuyver==you are just trying to look stupid now. My question is…. why?
    xxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Its like….whoever wrote that report doesn’t understand that a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step? Single rain drops building the grand canyon?

    It’s called risk assessment… something Liberals have a hard time grasping (like finding out that the recent CBO report states that ObamaCare could cost Americans nearly 2.3 million jobs). //// Yes, we need a thread on that one. 2.3 Million Americans will stop working at jobs they don’t like and go do something else more fulfilling. For some…read the bible.

    That should give you some comfort.

    Silly Hooman. Cant Read. Cant Think. Head and shoulders above his cohorts here though.

    Ha, ha.

  9. jpfitz says:

    http://lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/whats-in-a-cigarette.html

    CVS is discontinuing the sale of not just cigarettes but more the a few hundred poisonous chemicals.

  10. Dipstick says:

    Once again… Welcome to the BOBBO BLOG everybody!

    Please pay no attention to trolls like this thing that calls itself Bobbo. It clearly likes pretending to be some kind of enlightened political whatever (which really just wants to be your next Uncle Joe Stalin). We all know what a PITA trolls like this can be, but if you leave it alone it might eventually go away.

    IOW, Please don’t feed the ANIMALS!

    • Guyver says:

      Please pay no attention to trolls like this thing that calls itself Bobbo. It clearly likes pretending to be some kind of enlightened political whatever (which really just wants to be your next Uncle Joe Stalin).

      But I enjoy feeding self-absorbed “elitist” liberals. 🙁

  11. Guyver says:

    If deaths from firearms went from 30K to 20K, or whatever number, THAT would be the measurement==easy or not, its objective and its DONE. Jebus McGuyver. That really is Pedro Stupid.

    When you made your original comment way back, it was meant to underscore the severity / gravity of all firearm deaths in this country.

    When put into context with respect to the total population, it’s quite clear you’ve made a very weak / petty argument (statistically speaking).

    You CAN’T be THAT dumb… I prefer to think of you as simply being intellectually dishonest.

    The apt analogy is that we MANDATE innoculations against flu and other diseases while we prohibit common sense gun management.

    I haven’t taken a flu vaccine in years. Is DHS going to come knocking on my door because I violated a “MANDATE”? Liberal stupidity abounds. 😀

    What to you think “more prominently displayed” means other than more prominently displayed than is currently done?

    What ELSE can be done to make things “more prominently displayed”? Packaging, Commercials, Ads (Print / Online), Billboards? What else hasn’t been done that you think has been OVERLOOKED or IGNORED?

    Surely you’re not just spewing “feel good” liberal dogma with no critical thinking behind it…. right? Or maybe you are just that dumb?

    Yes, we need a thread on that one. 2.3 Million Americans will stop working at jobs they don’t like and go do something else more fulfilling.

    ROFLMAO. Said the liberal promoting the spin by the WH press secretary. 😀

    For some…read the bible.

    That should give you some comfort.

    Said the atheist to the agnostic.

    • MikeN says:

      >You CAN’T be THAT dumb… I prefer to think of you as simply being intellectually dishonest.

      It is both.

  12. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Guyver evidently taking a break from his normal heavy work day says:
    2/6/2014 at 8:37 am

    If deaths from firearms went from 30K to 20K, or whatever number, THAT would be the measurement==easy or not, its objective and its DONE. Jebus McGuyver. That really is Pedro Stupid.

    When you made your original comment way back, it was meant to underscore the severity / gravity of all firearm deaths in this country. ///////// Correct.

    When put into context with respect to the total population, it’s quite clear you’ve made a very weak / petty argument (statistically speaking).///// I disagree. The context is USA murder by gun rate compared to other modern societies. From memory…we have 40x the rate of Britain and Australia both of whom (or maybe Oz Only?) had rates/mass murders the same as us until they instituted gun control.

    You CAN’T be THAT dumb… I prefer to think of you as simply being intellectually dishonest. //// No, just focused on the issue at hand.

    The apt analogy is that we MANDATE innoculations against flu and other diseases while we prohibit common sense gun management.

    I haven’t taken a flu vaccine in years. Is DHS going to come knocking on my door because I violated a “MANDATE”? Liberal stupidity abounds. 😀 /// Yea, I knew that would get misconstrued. We mandate kiddie immunizations …. or atleast they can’t go to school until they get them? I also have not taken the flue shots. I haven’t even had a cold now in about 30 years. I am blessed with good health.

    What to you think “more prominently displayed” means other than more prominently displayed than is currently done?

    What ELSE can be done to make things “more prominently displayed”? Packaging, Commercials, Ads (Print / Online), Billboards? What else hasn’t been done that you think has been OVERLOOKED or IGNORED? //// I was thinking a banner sign with pamphlets where the tobacco is sold. When i go into the stores today, I don’t notice any notice that smoking is bad. Small print on a package does help. I make no judgment==this was just brainstorming about what CVS options were. You do consistently confuse questions/suggestions with positions. why you do dat?

    Surely you’re not just spewing “feel good” liberal dogma with no critical thinking behind it…. right? Or maybe you are just that dumb? //// Thank you. A compliment you cant deny. Ha, ha.

    Yes, we need a thread on that one. 2.3 Million Americans will stop working at jobs they don’t like and go do something else more fulfilling.

    ROFLMAO. Said the liberal promoting the spin by the WH press secretary. 😀 //// I agree. Its actually a mix of the two isn’t it?

    For some…read the bible.

    That should give you some comfort.

    Said the atheist to the agnostic. /// BIG DIFF: I’m anti-theist.

    • MikeN says:

      Bobbo, do you have link showing that Britain and Australia had the same murder rate as us before they instituted gun control?

  13. Mr Ed says:

    The Undertakers of America have just filed a suit asking CVS to cover their loss of profit.

  14. deowll says:

    Most likely just making room to sale pot.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4636 access attempts in the last 7 days.