So Long, Cigs: Michelle Obama Praises CVS For Pulling Tobacco

neo96

CVS Caremark pharmacies will phase out tobacco in U.S. retail stores by Oct. 1, a move swiftly embraced by President Barack Obama and the first lady on Wednesday as a step that would save lives and promote good health.

Oh that's nice smokers get hit again. In an EPIC boneheaded move that wreaks of nothing, but the progressive agenda.

If it was nothing but a progressive agenda, pharmacies would be forced to stop selling cigarettes. This is a completely voluntary move by CVS.

Hell between Diet pills,soft drinks,candy bars, chips, and latest dietary fashion statement CVS pulls 'cigarettes'.

I noticed the irony too. But maybe this is the first move into becoming a total health store.

While it is their perogative to sell what ever they want. They are not fooling anyone with this 'statement'.

Exactly who are they fooling and how?

Bout the only thing drug stores sell that has anything to do with health is what their pharmacies do.

Funny, I get my vitamins and first aid supplies from mine, as well as an overpriced wrist support. They also carry baby supplies.

Well Deserved praise ? I don't think so.

A large chain is taking a huge income cut in order to remove something wholly unhealthy from their stock, with absolutely no enforcement, but voluntarily. Since corporations do nothing these days unless it means more money for them, it is nice to see a corporation do something for the betterment of people despite the attack on their bottom line.

Perhaps you should go to CVS and get some Xanax and Lithium, because hating them just because POTUS gives them a thumbs up and you have this irrational, rabid, hate towards POTUS for 24/7.
I still want to know how much you get paid because no one could possibly be on this campaign constantly for free unless there is something really wrong with you.

The chain will lose about $2 billion in revenues annually from sales of tobacco in its 7,600 stores

LOSE $ 2 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR ! ! ! !

And??

This means that the local convenient stores and gas stations will get the business instead. Good for everyone all around.

And in other news:

Democrats Call for Ban on E-Cigarettes on Capitol Grounds..

Hell let's add one more freedom of speech, and assembly has been banned on Capitol Grounds too

The people who scream about freedoms the most, know the least about it.

Funny how people always bring this particular point up, but never get their panties in a bunch over the residents of DC being taxed without representation.

"Freedom of...." Does not equate to being able to do whatever the hell you want. There ARE limits. Not only can you not protest or assemble on the capital randomly, you need to get a permit, you can't assemble in the middle of a highway either. You can't assemble in the middle of a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night. You can't exceed the person capacity of a building, the fire marshal can shut you down.

In a lot of areas you can't picket in school zones, unless that school is involved in a labor dispute.

What freedom of assembly means is that the government can't dictate what issue you are assembling for, or show favoritism or endorse one political point over another.

But the government also has the right to enforce peace, and minimize disruption. Which is why government entities are allowed to permit assemblies and protests.

So the Capitol has every right to permit assemblies on Capitol grounds and for good reason too. so NO, they are not banned. You just love spreading misinformation all over the place.


Why does anyone follow a party that makes them filled with hate and anger all the time? Or is t his a chicken and the egg scenario?

neo96
reply to post by Kali74

 

Great let me opt out of the health care plan my employer pays 80% of and give me the cash value instead. What's hard to understand about this?

So why should employers pay 80% of your healthcare when they are already paying half of your social security contributions, half your your healthcare ALREADY by medicare contributions. They are paying your unemployment insurance, they are already paying for your workmans comp insurance.

So force the employers to pay for your insurance 4 times?

Breathe Neo. My job offers, for full time workers, a health benefits plan and a retirement plan. For the health care plan they pay 80% of it and the employee pays 20%. Because it's a generous health plan, employees make a slightly lower than average hourly wage. If by chance my employer decided they didn't want to risk buying abortion pills or birth control pills, they should be legally allowed to offer employees the cash value of the health plan as part of their hourly wage. Let the employee buy their own healthcare plan.

reply to post by Kali74

Breathe Neo. My job offers, for full time workers, a health benefits plan and a retirement plan. For the health care plan they pay 80% of it and the employee pays 20%. Because it's a generous health plan, employees make a slightly lower than average hourly wage. If by chance my employer decided they didn't want to risk buying abortion pills or birth control pills, they should be legally allowed to offer employees the cash value of the health plan as part of their hourly wage. Let the employee buy their own healthcare plan.

Yeah well from this perspective:

o why should employers pay 80% of your healthcare when they are already paying half of your social security contributions, half your your healthcare ALREADY by medicare contributions. They are paying your unemployment insurance, they are already paying for your workmans comp insurance.

They are already being 'generous'.

totallackey

dfens

totallackey
I can remember in the 1980's when the tobacco companies were forced at the end of a government lawsuit to pay well over 250 BILLION USD to the US Government. I can then remember the US Government (in concert with the state governments following suit) commencing with the institution of "sin taxes," driving up the prices of a pack of cigarettes over 5.00 USD in nearly every state.

Without these taxes, a pack of cigarettes might cost .50 USD...

So now, where are the crooks going to turn for their money??? The printing press...or simply declare it is a sin to be alive and breath...

Dude... In the 1980's my corrupt sister was forging notes from my mom authorizing me to buy cigarettes and giving me a handful of change. I was more than happy to do it because I could get me some candy. I was between 6-9 years old. I think you got your decades mixed up.

I may have given everyone the impression I was placing the 5.00 USD cost in the 1980's...

I was not...The 5.00 USD is the result from the witch hunt started in the 80's...prices i the 80's went from .50 USD to around a 1.00 USD...

Dude, I remember when a pack of smokes was $5.00 here in Canada! That WAS back in the 80's haha!! I pay roughly $14.00 a pack these days

Sovaka
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Reductio ad absurdum.

The OP isn't a result of someone dying because of the decision.

Any decision that would result in harm, loss or death of another is not lawful.
Be it personal, religious or business.

Please provide a valid argument.

When you refuse service to a gay person, you are taking away someone's right to participate in a public accommodation the same way as anyone else. That's why we have current laws on the books that tell you that you can't refuse service to a black person simply because they are black.

My point is, just because it's a so called "religious decision", doesn't automatically mean it's okay, no matter what. There is a limit to what you should be allowed to do to the public with your religious decisions.

BrianFlanders

Goldcurrent
Here in Canada, Pharmacies have been forbidden from selling tobacco for years now.

Is that why Canadians are such assholes? They don't know any better? They're used to everyone else thinking for them?

edit on 5-2-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

Yup! I would pretty much agree. That, and you could understand by seeing my previous post.

kaylaluv

Sovaka
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Reductio ad absurdum.

The OP isn't a result of someone dying because of the decision.

Any decision that would result in harm, loss or death of another is not lawful.
Be it personal, religious or business.

Please provide a valid argument.

When you refuse service to a gay person, you are taking away someone's right to participate in a public accommodation the same way as anyone else. That's why we have current laws on the books that tell you that you can't refuse service to a black person simply because they are black.

My point is, just because it's a so called "religious decision", doesn't automatically mean it's okay, no matter what. There is a limit to what you should be allowed to do to the public with your religious decisions.

THIS^^^

To disagree with this statement is to agree that the Taliban should have been allowed to continue doing whatever it was that they were doing, since it was their religion.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Really? There is specifically a law preventing people from denying service to "Black" people?

If so, perhaps it was try and calm tensions when black people were becoming recognized in the "modern" world.
Can you provide link for said law?


.: ETA :.

The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[6] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments"

AND

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

Source: Wikipedia: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Interesting.

A topic for another thread methinks.
But it does appear to be so...

reply to post by nixie_nox

A large chain is taking a huge income cut in order to remove something wholly unhealthy from their stock, with absolutely no enforcement, but voluntarily

Yep and after 'noticing the irony'.

Perhaps you should go to CVS and get some Xanax and Lithium, because hating them just because POTUS gives them a thumbs up and you have this irrational, rabid, hate towards POTUS for 24/7. I still want to know how much you get paid because no one could possibly be on this campaign constantly for free unless there is something really wrong with you.

Sorry unlike Mr. and Mrs. Obama I do not get paid for my opinions.

That is rather insulting by the way.

The people who scream about freedoms the most, know the least about it.

Indeed.

Funny how people always bring this particular point up, but never get their panties in a bunch over the residents of DC being taxed without representation.

Like gun owners being 'taxed without representation', them evil rich people being 'taxed without representation'. and the millions who were 'taxed without representation' via the Care Act ?

"Freedom of...." Does not equate to being able to do whatever the hell you want.

True there is no 'freedom' in this country. Seems people are only allowed to do what their neighbors, and government tell them they can.

But what the hell did all that have to do with E-cigs ?

reply to post by neo96


You can't see straight dude. I'm saying that employers should be allowed to opt out of paying for health insurance by paying the employee the value of the portion they pay for it. You understand that wages are lower because employers (with more than 50 employees) are legally required to offer health insurance to full time employees, right? Employers should be allowed to pay the employee their full cash compensation instead of a lower wage but included benefits.

kaylaluv

Sovaka
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Reductio ad absurdum.

The OP isn't a result of someone dying because of the decision.

Any decision that would result in harm, loss or death of another is not lawful.
Be it personal, religious or business.

Please provide a valid argument.

When you refuse service to a gay person, you are taking away someone's right to participate in a public accommodation the same way as anyone else. That's why we have current laws on the books that tell you that you can't refuse service to a black person simply because they are black.

My point is, just because it's a so called "religious decision", doesn't automatically mean it's okay, no matter what. There is a limit to what you should be allowed to do to the public with your religious decisions.

When you force a person to perform a service against their religious beliefs, then I guess that it is ok.

snypwsd
reply to post by neo96

 

You think your smokers have got it bad, up here in bc canada, a pack of smokes will on average cost you about 9-10 bucks and cartons are around a $100, plus all the restrictions on where we can and can not smoke.

When you think about it a pharmacy shouldnt be selling tobacco anyways. it would be the same if they sold liqour at a pharmacy, it just should not happen. Its ethics, you wouldnt sell that stuff at a hospital so why should it be sold in a pharmacy. This time around I agree with the Obamas.

Yes it sucks that one company wont sell them, but boo hoo, cigs can be bought at practicaly any store, plus I know americans are paying at least half the price that we do on smokes. Hell you guys pay half the price that we do on practicaly everything.

my conclusion....

Stop whining, walk an extra 30 feet to the next store and by your smokes there.

It sounds very similar to what's happening here in Australia - is this a worldwide phenomenon? A packet of 50 cigarettes costs AU $35 - note: the $AU is roughly on par with the $US. You're restricted as to where you can and can't smoke. Cigarettes are no longer allowed to be openly displayed, and are hidden behind curtains. Cigarettes are never sold here in pharmacies.

A recent news article shows that high deaths rates are attributed to drinking and obesity, as well as smoking; which shows new battle fronts by authorities opening against drinkers and eaters. *L*

In my book, this is pure discrimination against those who smoke - and within the near future those who drink, and/or are overweight. Yet the authorities do nothing to address or rectify the source/s of these problems. Instead they put a monetary value on it, and tax the hell out of your pocket - mafia style!

Hmmmmm.....

Haven't bought a pack of smokes from a drug store in.....well years.

I don't actually by packs of cigs anymore either. Instead, I buy a 16 oz package of pipe tobacco and a couple of boxes of tubes, take them home and use my cig machine to "roll" one.

Costs me about $20 USD for 2 weeks or so. Since loose pipe tobacco isn't in the same tax class....it's WAY cheaper. I can tell a big difference too. The pipe tobacco is way smoother, takes a long time to burn too.
If I break down and actually buy a pack of cigs....they about make me hack my lungs out.

Tried E-cigs, but I actually found myself going through the cartridges pretty fast....and still wanting a cig.

So I'll stick to my "roll my own", costs me about $40.00 USD per month, and I pick it all up at the tobacco store here.

I never use CVS anyway, so no skin off my nose.

Kali74
reply to post by neo96

 

You can't see straight dude. I'm saying that employers should be allowed to opt out of paying for health insurance by paying the employee the value of the portion they pay for it. You understand that wages are lower because employers (with more than 50 employees) are legally required to offer health insurance to full time employees, right? Employers should be allowed to pay the employee their full cash compensation instead of a lower wage but included benefits.

Wages are lower because of fiat currency.

The problem isn't business owners or wages.

Is the money.

reply to post by Sovaka


It is called the Civil Rights Act.

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

42 U.S. Code § 1982 - Property rights of citizens

reply to post by neo96


/facepalm

beezzer

kaylaluv

Sovaka
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Reductio ad absurdum.

The OP isn't a result of someone dying because of the decision.

Any decision that would result in harm, loss or death of another is not lawful.
Be it personal, religious or business.

Please provide a valid argument.

When you refuse service to a gay person, you are taking away someone's right to participate in a public accommodation the same way as anyone else. That's why we have current laws on the books that tell you that you can't refuse service to a black person simply because they are black.

My point is, just because it's a so called "religious decision", doesn't automatically mean it's okay, no matter what. There is a limit to what you should be allowed to do to the public with your religious decisions.

When you force a person to perform a service against their religious beliefs, then I guess that it is ok.

If by "perform a service", you mean make a cake just like any of the other cakes you're in the business of making, then yes.

reply to post by eriktheawful


A little off topic but I tried switching to e cigs simply because my butt was tired of going out in the cold XD

That and I wanted to quit smoking. I am not a heavy smoker at all. A pack will last me a week. So the ecig that I got claimed to be the equivalent of 2 packs. Yet I went through them in 2 days. ????

Yea, not worth the 10 bucks.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Yeah found it before you replied :p

My post has been updated.
Cheers.

kaylaluv

beezzer

kaylaluv

Sovaka
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Reductio ad absurdum.

The OP isn't a result of someone dying because of the decision.

Any decision that would result in harm, loss or death of another is not lawful.
Be it personal, religious or business.

Please provide a valid argument.

When you refuse service to a gay person, you are taking away someone's right to participate in a public accommodation the same way as anyone else. That's why we have current laws on the books that tell you that you can't refuse service to a black person simply because they are black.

My point is, just because it's a so called "religious decision", doesn't automatically mean it's okay, no matter what. There is a limit to what you should be allowed to do to the public with your religious decisions.

When you force a person to perform a service against their religious beliefs, then I guess that it is ok.

If by "perform a service", you mean make a cake just like any of the other cakes you're in the business of making, then yes.

edit on 5-2-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

The case in point was a caterer, who was asked to participate in a wedding ceremony between two men.

One business makes a decision, damn them.

Applaud the other business.

I realize that I will never convince you that your thinking is biased and wrong.

So maybe I'll just walk away, smoke a cigarette, have a beverage, believe in God, and say a small prayer for a better day.