CVS is going to stop selling tobacco products

[bex1218]

Some sell beer. It all depends on the area.

[Cats]

My city decided to forbit pharmacies from selling cigarettes last year for this reason.

And I said EXACTLY what was said in this first post. Not a bad idea for image, but a bit messed up if we sitll sell OTHER unhealthy things. Most people consume these things in moderation, but before the ban, my store's top 3 Categoies? Cigarettes, beverages, and grocery. And we're not exactly health food central for those last two. My store sells a SHITTON of junk food. In mass amounts. To the same people.

Look, I do not like smoking in any way, shape, or form. But everyone who smokes KNOWS it's bad for them; it's THEIR CHOICE to keep doing so, regadless of my personal feelings on the habit. Yes, secondhand smoke and all that, but with smoking being banned more and more in certain places, it's less of a concern now than 15 years ago, at least when it comes to general public exposure.

The same of tobacco in this country will never be banned. So if we as a country as a whole want to do something about how unhelathy they are, we can start with forcing the tobacco companies not to put so much carcinogenic crap in them. That's just my opinion on the matter.

At least the articles I've read acknowledged how much money they're going to lose from this decision. I just hope it means paycuts for the big wigs, and not cutbacks on the people who actually WORK in the darn stores. I can tell you my store lost a LOT of business from the city law, especially since we were the ONLY store open in the middle of the night within walking distance for a lot of people (you'd be shocked at how many people came in for a pack at 3 am). Now they have to walk further, and the convenience stores are raking in the dough. Because while this may motivate SOME people to quit, it's only going to be those people who were planning on being serious about doing so anyway, with this being the last straw to break the camel's back. You're not actually going to help make PEOPLE healthier; if they want their smokes, they'll just go somewhere else to get it.

[siead_lietrathua]

i'm more suprised a pharmacy DID sell them. the chain of stores i work for haven't sold cigs in... well, has to be far over a decade.
and when they stopped it was more of a "yeah, i guess that makes sense" reaction from the community. then again, they stopped selling them not because of the nicotine, but cuz of all the other chemicals in them that are hell for the body (like methanol and ammonia). we still sell plenty of stop-smoking aids that are loaded with nicotine.
i'm sure once vaps become more common, if a pharm could sell just plain, unchemicaled tobacco leaves and vaps they may go back to it. but for now there isn't money in it so why bother.

[Gravekeeper]

And I said EXACTLY what was said in this first post. Not a bad idea for image, but a bit messed up if we sitll sell OTHER unhealthy things.

And again, that argument is flawed for reasons that were already pointed out. Also there's no such thing as moderation for smoking anymore then there's such a thing as moderation for heroin. -.-

But everyone who smokes KNOWS it's bad for them; it's THEIR CHOICE to keep doing so, regadless of my personal feelings on the habit.

Addiction is not that simple. Especially not when the drug in question is legal and readily available with an industry behind that has done absolutely everything in its power to convince people to smoke. All the while trying to suppress the downsides.

So if we as a country as a whole want to do something about how unhelathy they are, we can start with forcing the tobacco companies not to put so much carcinogenic crap in them.

They're not putting it in there, its already there. The filter on a cigarette is there to try and stop as much of it as possible. But it can't negate the fact you are inhaling smoke.

Hence the emergence of e-cigarettes. Which will only kill you half as fast. -.-

You're not actually going to help make PEOPLE healthier; if they want their smokes, they'll just go somewhere else to get it.

I don't think they seriously thought this would make people healthier, only that they are in the business of health so maybe they shouldn't sell the leading cause of preventable death in the entire world. Its a matter of principle, not miraculously hoping they can put an end to smoking.

i'm more suprised a pharmacy DID sell them. the chain of stores i work for haven't sold cigs in... well, has to be far over a decade.

Me too. Pharmacies simply don't sell cigarettes up here for obvious reasons. In fact pretty much no one really does outside of convenience stores that I can think of.

[HYHYBT]

A caffeine addiction isn't even harmful; at least, studies range from "slightly bad for you" to "slightly good for you."

[Greenday]

A caffeine addiction isn't even harmful; at least, studies range from "slightly bad for you" to "slightly good for you."

No addiction is good for you. Any study that says otherwise is full of it and probably is getting paid by coffee companies to do their research.

If the study just says, "A cup of coffee is good for giving you enough caffeine to keep you awake until your body catches up to activity", I'd buy that.

[wolfie]

My city decided to forbit pharmacies from selling cigarettes last year for this reason.

with this being the last straw to break the camel's back.

Please tell me that wasn't an intentional pun in a discussion about cigarettes.

Hence the emergence of e-cigarettes. Which will only kill you half as fast.

So you're saying that e-cigarettes are half-fast (try saying it out loud) cancer sticks?

[Titi]

I copied and pasted my reply from another site on this.

Only 2 Billion Dollars for the entire year in cigarette sales? That is why they are dropping it. The last time I was in a CVS (last year) they didn't have many cigarettes at all and their prices for them were way too high (I walked to the gas station across the street and got the same for half the price). The CEO may be saying health but it is just the profit margin. And the fact the distributors won't sell to them when they are making no money.

[Panacea]

What I have a problem is this ----- They STILL sell very unhealthy things like soda, candy , chips, gum, ice cream, "energy" drinks, "modern" parmacutical chemicals that have seriously nasty side effects, etc.

A little hypocritical from my point of view.

As a nurse dealing with the fallout of tobacco abuse for 30 years, I don't care if it is hypocritical. I simply do not care. It's one less place for people to buy cigarettes, and if access is restricted by a limited number of people willing to sell the product, I won't cry any tears (yes, it's a legal product and no I don't support an outright ban).

Those other products are very unhealthy for you, granted. But tobacco use leads to so many adverse health effects, and the consequences of smoking can pop up decades after you quit: just ask Leonard Nimoy, who has been diagnosed with COPD several decades after quitting.

Quitting the other products will actually improve your health. Yes, the many unhealthy food choices have led to an epidemic of obesity in the US, which leads to hypertension and diabetes. But those conditions will actually reverse themselves once you lose the weight.

Quitting smoking will dramatically lower your risks, but the fact is damage to your tissues begins with the first puff, and your risks for cardiovascular disease, lung disease, and cancer go way up and never completely go back down again. It's better never to start.

I'm wondering what my risk factors are after having been exposed to second hand smoke for 20 years (my parents smoked like stacks).

How many people have ice cream or whatever as a treat now and then, as opposed to people who do the same with cigarettes?

Obesity has become an epidemic in developed nations, and food addictions are very real problems. The numbers aren't as high as they were in the 60's when about 47% of the population smoked. 18% smoke now. About 30% of adult Americans are overweight according to the CDC.

People's addiction to caffeine (I'm one of them) are due to the morning-kickoff effects it has, while nicotine historically has had two purposes: To get people hooked on cigarettes and to wean people off cigarettes via patches or gum.

Caffeine is a real addiction; it changes brain chemistry. That's why people get migraines when they suddenly stop taking it.

Historically, tobacco was used by Native Americans for religious purposes. Europeans were exposed to it and liked the kick so much they took it home with them. They didn't care about religious uses; they saw a cash cow.

Tobacco production is time insentive and physicially difficult work. Early settlers planting crops used indentured servants, fellow Europeans who were poor and had their passage paid in return for seven years labor, to start the first tobacco farms but couldn't get the labor they needed. So they started importing Africans. At first the African immigrants had limited indentures as well (even though they were bought by slave traders), but eventually Virginia by law made all indendures for Africans "dura vitae," for life.

In short, tobacco production was the direct cause of slavery in colonial America. When the bottom fell out of tobacco production (never to recover), they switched to cotton.

It wasn't until the 30's or forties that the additive process started with cigarettes.

Sugar might be physically addictive, but it's still a necessary part of one's diet. Obviously candy and soda give your body an excessive burst of sugar, but if you consume candy intelligently and responsibly, there is nothing wrong with the occasional pack of candy.

Sure there is nothing wrong with occasional sugar in our diets. But most of us don't eat occasional sugar (as in processed sugar). Our bodies are wired to crave sugar; it tells us that the food source is safe. We didn't over eat it until we learned to process it in quantity and cheaply. Even as recently as 100 years ago, sugar was expensive. Then food companies started increasing the amount of sugar to improve taste and move more product.

I remember as a child soda was an occasional treat. It wasn't the caffeine I craved, it was the sugar. I also remember when the "Throwback" sodas became available. They are most certainly less sweet.

And processed sugar is NOT a necessary part of our diet. We get sugars (fructose mostly) from fruit and some vegetables. Processed sugars (glucose) is a different molecule and is not a necessary part of our diet.

I totally disagree with the notion that junk food is as bad as cigarettes. What this boils down to for me is cigarettes have absolutely no benefit to one's health or well-being, even if consumed sparingly. Candy can still have benefits if one's blood sugar is low and they want a quick solution to it, or if they simply want a snack that doesn't replace a hearty and healthy meal.

Recent studies don't agree with you. Small amounts of sugar over time lead to cardiovascular damage, increasing your risks for hypertension and diabetes.

The only benefit candy has is to the severely hypoglycemic diabetic who needs the quick boost. Other than that there are NO health benefits.

We can do far better than candy for snacks.

In that sense, alcohol is much worse; second-hand smoke is much less harmful than first-hand, being so much more diluted and (these days, anyway) rare in most places, and being on nicotine doesn't make people act dangerously like alcohol does.

But CVS doesn't sell alcohol anyway. At least, not the drinking kind.

Second hand smoke is very harmful, that's why communities are getting rid of it via legislation. Alcohol can be very bad for you as well, in spite of the fact there are some health benefits to red wine. But it's really not an issue of which is worse. They're both bad for you.

You ever been around someone desperate for a smoke? Aside from turning people into raging assholes, people will do very strange things to keep a tobacco addiction going. I've seen jail inmates smoke their Bibles.

And CVS does sell the drinking kind of alcohol: beer and wine. Last I checked, you do drink that. If you meant they don't sell liquor, then you'd be right.

Caffeine is actually decent against some kinds of cancer and helps with Parkinson's.

Whoa, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. There is some evidence that caffeine does these things. However, it is still an addictive product with real downsides. It stimulates the heart, and is not a great thing for heart patients to take too much of.

. Laws prevent nicotine from being used as an ingredient in medicinals though. Probably because people can and would attempt to smoke it. -.-

Nicotine can't be used in mecidinals, other than nicotine patches, because there aren't any gold standard double blind controlled studies proving the safety and efficacy of it for other uses. On the other hand, there are well documented disadvantages; nicotine is a vasoconstrictor and can precipitate bouts of angina or even an MI.

However, there is no law preventing people from growing their own for their own use. You can't sell it without paying tobacco taxes, but you can sell it. Unlike pot in most states.

So you're saying that e-cigarettes are half-fast (try saying it out loud) cancer sticks?

Just as an aside, I'm not a big fan of e-cigarettes. You are still feeding an addiction that contributes to cardiovascular disease due to the vasoconstrictive effects of nicotine. That it lacks the additives that are so poisonous does not mean they are necessarily safer, and we have little to no long term data on the safety of e-cigs. If you're going to use them, use them knowing you may not be really escaping the health problems caused by smoking.

I copied and pasted my reply from another site on this.

Only 2 Billion Dollars for the entire year in cigarette sales? That is why they are dropping it. The last time I was in a CVS (last year) they didn't have many cigarettes at all and their prices for them were way too high (I walked to the gas station across the street and got the same for half the price). The CEO may be saying health but it is just the profit margin. And the fact the distributors won't sell to them when they are making no money.

I'm inclined to agree. It also equates to about 2% of overall sales . . . sales, not profits. The publicity may well be worth the minimal costs of no longer selling the product.

[s_stabeler]

I always figured the benefit of e-cigs is they primarily have nicotine in them- so it reduces the harmful crap to just the nicotine. Then, if you reduce the amount you smoke them, you can wean yourself off cigs.

[TheHuckster]

I always figured the benefit of e-cigs is they primarily have nicotine in them- so it reduces the harmful crap to just the nicotine. Then, if you reduce the amount you smoke them, you can wean yourself off cigs.

Yes. I worked with someone who got e-cigs and said the gum and patches didn't work for him because part of his "enjoyment" was the actual action of putting a cigarette in his mouth and inhaling. This device was a good substitute, he thought. Plus, the office allowed him to do it indoors and nobody complained, so he liked that he was more productive.

The jury is still out on just how harmful e-cigarettes are, both to the inhaler and secondhand. They keep telling us while there is nicotine in the vapor, the rest is basically just water, and it works similarly to a humidifier. According to Wikipedia, at least in the states, there isn't really any oversight as to what is put in the substances, and there hasn't been enough research to really ascertain the effects.

I, personally, didn't complain because I wasn't right next to him, and when he was using it, I at least couldn't smell it or feel any effects from it. I can't say if I was in anyway harmed by it or not, but frankly, I feel as though I breathe more toxins in the parking garage and busy streets on my WAY to the office than from his e-cig.

[Panacea]

I always figured the benefit of e-cigs is they primarily have nicotine in them- so it reduces the harmful crap to just the nicotine. Then, if you reduce the amount you smoke them, you can wean yourself off cigs.

That was the original purpose of them. They don't work particularly well for that.

Of course, the e-cig companies are flavoring the product to make it palatable and enjoyable with the idea the user will get addicted and continue to use the product.

[Gravekeeper]

Obesity has become an epidemic in developed nations, and food addictions are very real problems. About 30% of adult Americans are overweight according to the CDC.

Obesity in the US is a sort of cruel downward spiral of which food addiction is a rather minor component. The US consistently expands the market and availability of increasingly larger and higher caloric density products for cheaper prices. Specifically more and more carbs. It tariffs the shit out of imported sugar while subsidizing the shit out of failing production crops. Resulting in the product of a ton of high carb foodstuffs that are cheaper and more easily processed than natural foods. This is what caused the switch to high fructose corp syrup to begin with. US tariffs make sugar cost 2-3 times as much as anywhere else, while farm subsidies make it cheap to produce and purchase high carb crops. Hence, HFCS is dirt cheap vs using actual sugar. Processed super shit food becomes cheaper than real food.

When you combine that with America's culture of super sizing the fuck out of everything + its poverty rate + food oasis's + epigenetics you get a death spiral that is going to keep making each subsequent generation more obese until something is done about it.

Caffeine is a real addiction; it changes brain chemistry. That's why people get migraines when they suddenly stop taking it.

I already explained the mechanics of caffeine on the brain and why they're kind of laughable in the face of nicotine addiction -.-

Even as recently as 100 years ago, sugar was expensive. Then food companies started increasing the amount of sugar to improve taste and move more product.

In the US, sugar is still expensive because of your tariffs. That's the problem that lead to the emergence of cheap processed sources.

I remember as a child soda was an occasional treat. It wasn't the caffeine I craved, it was the sugar. I also remember when the "Throwback" sodas became available. They are most certainly less sweet.

They're also more filling as they have a better balance of fructose to glucose. Glucose is filling and has a better effect on appetite control factors in the body. While Fructose can actually fark with the brain by causing a brief spike in hunger and has a weaker long term affect on appetite control.

A cane sugar soda for me is a rare treat because its as heavy as a meal appetite wise. But its much easier to fine cane sugar soda up here than there I imagine.

And processed sugar is NOT a necessary part of our diet. We get sugars (fructose mostly) from fruit and some vegetables. Processed sugars (glucose) is a different molecule and is not a necessary part of our diet.

No, no, no, no. Glucose is not a processed sugar. Its a natural sugar and its the only form of fuel the brain uses unless the body is in a state of starvation. Fructose on the other hand is the one that can fuck the brain up.

Fructose, Glucose and the combination, Sucrose, are all natural sugars and all exist in varying amounts in fruits and vegetables. Good luck finding any fruit or veggie that only has fructose ( and if you did, good luck maintaining mental functions by eating just it ). Cane sugar is extracted as sucrose, which is equal parts fructose and glucose.

"Processed sugar", as in table sugar, is sucrose. So its 1:1 fructose to glucose. So its more filling than a source with a higher fructose ratio such as corn syrup.

Recent studies don't agree with you. Small amounts of sugar over time lead to cardiovascular damage, increasing your risks for hypertension and diabetes.

Small amounts are fine, you need small amounts to fuel the brain. From a general point of view 10% of your daily calories or less is fine. The death quota is 30% or more of your daily calories. At that point your risk of cardiovascular disease triples. Which is actually rather impressive.

The best way to view sugar is as a fuel injector. The brain needs a constant supply, but it needs it at an optimum rate. Too little you starve the engine, too much, you flood it. Hence rate of intake is as important as amount. Which is why things with a lower glycemic index are better because they release sugar more slowly into the system. Its the sudden spikes in blood sugar that are bad such as downing a litre of Coke.

We can do far better than candy for snacks.

I think the immediate problem there is people viewing candy as a snack to begin with. Candy is a once and a while treat. >.>

Whoa, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. There is some evidence that caffeine does these things. However, it is still an addictive product with real downsides. It stimulates the heart, and is not a great thing for heart patients to take too much of.

I'm not getting ahead of myself. Andara commented that there are typically medical benefits to such substances even in the face of their drawbacks. I pointed out what research has shown about caffeine thus far, which is actually rather promising.

Caffeine disrupts the process in cancer cells that controls DNA repair. Hence its being studied to pinpoint the mechanism in the hopes of being able to use it to outright murder cancer cells in the body.

As for Parkinson's, not only does caffeine improve symptoms it also slows the onset and progression. Caffeine both confers some protection to the degradation and blocks some of the misfiring signals in the brain.

[Panacea]

Obesity in the US is a sort of cruel downward spiral of which food addiction is a rather minor component.

The impact of food addictions is often overlooked. Many obese, particularly the morbidly obese, have significant food addictions that greatly inhibit their ability to control their diets and lose weight. Granted, the greater expense of fresh foods complicated by "food deserts" is arguably the greater problem. But I would hesitate to call food addiction a "minor" problem.

I already explained the mechanics of caffeine on the brain and why they're kind of laughable in the face of nicotine addiction -.-

I didn't say caffeine was a worse addiction than nicotine. I'm simply saying it is a real addiction, as in some people simply can't live without it. We see a lot of caffeine abuse in the mentally ill; they'll just drink coffee or soda by the gallon if you let them. And that's bad because it puts them at risk for electrolyte disturbances, and cardiovascular injury.

In the US, sugar is still expensive because of your tariffs. That's the problem that lead to the emergence of cheap processed sources.

High fructose corn syrup. Yeah, I glossed over that.

They're also more filling as they have a better balance of fructose to glucose. Glucose is filling and has a better effect on appetite control factors in the body. While Fructose can actually fark with the brain by causing a brief spike in hunger and has a weaker long term affect on appetite control.

No, no, no, no. Glucose is not a processed sugar. Its a natural sugar and its the only form of fuel the brain uses unless the body is in a state of starvation. Fructose on the other hand is the one that can fuck the brain up.[/quote]

You've greatly oversimplified glucose and where it comes from. While glucose can be synthesized from natural sources, it is actually a metabolite of glycogen. It is metabolized in the body into glucose through a process called glycogneolysis, which occurs primarily in the liver. However, when most of us eat glucose these days, we primarily eat it as a processed sugar; we process it from a variety of sources the most prevalent being corn sources. High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose and 42% glucose. It's in everything that is a processed food. It is very difficult to find any processed food that does not contain it.

Some vegetables are great sources of natural sugars: beets for example. However, that is sucrose, not fructose or glucose. It's still a processed sugar when we eat it in any form other than as a beet: which most of us do (via cane sugar, mostly). However, sucrose lost ground to high fructose corn syrup due to the tariffs you mentioned, so Americans eat more glucose (and fructose) than sucrose these days because of its presence in so many other things.

Like bread. It blew my mind when I realized HFCS is in bread.

Whether or not fructose "farks up the brain" is not settled. The studies are preliminary. All sugars are considered equally bad when consumed in amounts too high, and there is still a lot of debate over whether HFCS is really worse than sucrose, or vice versa.

The best way to view sugar is as a fuel injector. The brain needs a constant supply, but it needs it at an optimum rate. Too little you starve the engine, too much, you flood it. Hence rate of intake is as important as amount. Which is why things with a lower glycemic index are better because they release sugar more slowly into the system. Its the sudden spikes in blood sugar that are bad such as downing a litre of Coke.

This is true. Glucose is a large molecule. It is not easily able to penetrate a cell membrane to be metabolized; it needs help from the hormone insulin to do this.

However, if too much glucose remains in the circulatory system the molecule is large enough to injury the tiniest of blood vessels: the capillary beds. Over time, these injuries result in a lack of perfusion to other tissues that create damage to organs, delay healing, and destroys nerves. This is why diabetics lose their toes first; as the furthest from the body, they are most vulnerable to these changes. It is also why diabetics often have cardiac co-morbidities such as MI and congestive heart failure.

I think the immediate problem there is people viewing candy as a snack to begin with. Candy is a once and a while treat. >.>

On this we agree.

I'm not getting ahead of myself. Andara commented that there are typically medical benefits to such substances even in the face of their drawbacks. I pointed out what research has shown about caffeine thus far, which is actually rather promising.

You got ahead of yourself. Promising research is not the same as medically useful. I do agree that caffeine does have potential, but we are a long way from clinical application in the treatment of these diseases. Since caffeine does have known side effects that can result in angina and cardiac arrhythmias, when I see it being administered in regular hospitals I'll accept that it is in fact moved past promising to actually being useful.

Of course, I'd love to see such a simple and commonly available substance work as billed.

[Andara Bledin]

The impact of food addictions is often overlooked. Many obese, particularly the morbidly obese, have significant food addictions that greatly inhibit their ability to control their diets and lose weight.

I learned recently that about half of all obese individuals are obese as a result of trauma, often sexual, and often inflicted upon them as children. This was discovered accidentally by the head of the obesity clinic at Kaiser while he was investigating why so many people involved in the clinic, including those who were successfully losing weight, dropped out.

It's not that such people are addicted to food as much as food is a comfort to those suffering from trauma, and in too many cases, being fat is a defense against unwanted attention.