Alcosta Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 CVS Caremark announced that in October of 2014 they will cease the sales of tobacco related products which account for 2 billion in sales. Larry Merlo stated “It's my job at the CEO to ensure that we're positioning the company for not just short term success, but long term success,” "We're evolving into more of a health care company and we're doing many things. We have 26,000 pharmacists and nurse practitioners, who are helping millions of patients across the country everyday, manage conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes - all conditions whose effects are worsened by the impact of smoking.” There is a majority of Americans who oppose smoking. The first national drugstore to ban the sale of cigarettes and related tobacco products might benefit from from being the first to do so, while create a new standard for others to follow. I think this is an example of how the market proactively serves the interest of society before it is demanded of through state compliance. When I was watching this on the news a quote from Barack Obama stating "CVS Caremark sets a powerful example, and today's decision will help advance my administration's efforts to reduce tobacco-related deaths, cancer, and heart disease, as well as bring down health care costs,” . What is the administration proactively doing about tobacco related deaths besides making laws? Source: CBS NEWS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanceD Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Good for them I guess? They can do whatever they want with their business. Though you will still be able to walk in and but enough beer to drink yourself to alcohol poisoning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcosta Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 They also provide sugar, which can be a harmfull substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Unless they fill their shelves with something that provides greater profit, all they're doing is sending business across the street. If you want people to stop smoking, obstructing their access to tobacco won't do this. Making them pay for their own medical costs might though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcosta Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 I agree dsayers, this will not stop people from smoking. This is just small change in the market. If CVS Caremark is seen as good by the majority people because they do not sell cigarettes, then the burden of expectation will be put onto the competitors to conform to the new ideal. People were not rallying to get CVS to ban their selling of tobacco, but CVS was proactive and now gets to look good and can be recognized for being the most 'morally progressive', and might even profit from it. If a majority of shoppers think selling cigarettes is wrong or immoral than holding them in stock could be a net negative, costing a company more. I am not arguing that this will stop people from smoking, even if smoking were illegal I understand a black market would likely develop. I am using this as an example to prove that corporations or companies can proactively do the "good" before it becomes a social standard or a law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 For clarification, I wasn't asking speaking about you. I don't know that it is a "good." For that matter, how do we not know this isn't a case of "insider trading"? If Obama references it, it sounds like it could be foreshadowing that such a legislation is coming and CVS is just dumping their holdings while they can still profit from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegahero09 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 If they really cared about people's health, they wouldn't be selling about 90% of what they have behind the counter in the pharmacy. Their position is just a narrow statist position. What they are promoting is a statist "health." It has nothing to do objectively with actual health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractional slacker Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 If they really cared about people's health, they wouldn't be selling about 90% of what they have behind the counter in the pharmacy. Their position is just a narrow statist position. What they are promoting is a statist "health." It has nothing to do objectively with actual health. Exactly. This is just typical PC crap masquerading as sacrifice for collective health. The first problem is financial. The board of directors has an obligation to share holders to maximize profits. By not selling tobacco, a legal product, they are foregoing some $2 billion in revenue. They are ripping off shareholders. Crazy theory time. Is it possible they, along with Rite Aid, are on the verge of bankruptcy. By doing this 'good deed' they are sweetening the pot for future bailout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tasmlab Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I don't know the details, but CVS stores are all building mini-clinics staffed with para-professionals to take over some activity usually performed at the doctors (flu shots, routine first aid). I've heard (but can't reference) that this is one of the wrinkles of the ACA. CVS will be going pretty big into health delivery services, not just retailing. With this in mind, they might be getting ahead of regulation that they already know is coming. Might as well turn it into a publicity boon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts