14 ms·

I know CVS is not 100% altruistic, with Caremark (sp?) being huge and there being talk from CVS about making prescribers pay more at pharmacies that sell cigare

I know CVS is not 100% altruistic, with Caremark (sp?) being huge and there being talk from CVS about making prescribers pay more at pharmacies that sell cigarettes and whatnot (and how that may help make up for lost cigarette sales) [0] - but way to take a stance and really see it through. In terms of corporate good, this is great. And what a horrible shame on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I'm so sick of the idea of the dollar above all else. Cigarettes kill people. That's it. Deciding it's ok to not only sell these death sticks, but actively fight against the championing of healthier living and longer lives is absolutely, totally, and completely shameful. [0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-270B-850 http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-270B-850

justonepost 11y ago
It's not just shame, this is literally evil. Cigarettes don't merely kill people, they addict them as well. And what's worse, is the US Chamber of Commerce has decades of extremely conclusive research on this matter. It's one thing to kill someone accidentally, but to take a gun and point it for power and profit...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- wpietri 11y ago
  Anybody curious about the topic should check out the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library: https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/ https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/ I once happened to meet a researcher who spent some time with the data set and they had all sorts of horrific stories about how consciously evil the cigarette companies were. The one that sticks with me is the people planning marketing campaigns for mentally handicapped adults. I had no words. I still don't, really.
dailyrorschach 11y ago
A great deal of the Chamber's funding comes from Tobacco companies. In fact there are conference rooms named for them. If you haven't seen Last Week Tonight's take on the international bad behavior of the Tobacco companies I really encourage you to check it out. It's about 18min long, but well worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 They've responded to a shrinking market in the US and other highly developed nations, by doubling down on their efforts to sell to everyone in the rest of the world. And woe to the country with a smaller GDP than Phillip Morris who decides to try to put restrictions on a pack of smokes.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  With passage of the TPP, Tobacco companies may have almost every country on the Pacific Ocean caught inside a legal structure that would consider, respect, and perhaps even sustain the claims they have made against smaller GDP countries.
  - harmegido 11y ago
    You say that like the TPP has passed?
    - RexRollman 11y ago
      It will.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Congress passed fast-track authority for the TPP, and so its approval will be straight up-down vote; it can't be filibustered. The GOP overwhelmingly supports TPP and has majorities in both houses; the TPP also has Democratic support. It's going to pass.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
baddox 11y ago
> Cigarettes kill people. That's it. That's not it. Cigarettes also bring a large amount of pleasure to people. If you think that doesn't matter, replace it with candy bars, or any food that isn't part of the healthiest possible diet.
- justonepost 11y ago
  Cigarettes don't merely bring pleasure, they also bring physical addiction. High fructose corn syrup is also another problem. I generally think everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as they're not being influenced by others in a way they can't control or are not fully aware of, which is what advertising and marketing generally is. When you add in underlying physiological effects like chemical addiction to nicotine and sugar (and an ignorance of), this is clearly a case where individuals freedom and security is being infringed upon. When the day comes that we can structure our society such that might does not make right, I'll agree with you, we should relax our laws and encourage more a more libertarian outlook. Until then, centers of power and capital need to be constrained by our legal system to protect the vulnerable.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    So you also support restrictions on the sale of recreational drugs.
    - jfoster 11y ago
      The cigarette problem does seem to make a compelling case for recreational drugs being a more complicated problem than most people anticipate. Most people put themselves firmly in a pro- or anti- legalization camp, but in reality there are major problems (and solved problems) with both approaches. Fully legalize and you'll encounter this horrible scenario where big companies emerge to profit off addictions. They'll lobby governments domestically and abroad. They'll engage in all kinds of shady practices to protect their businesses, just as cigarette companies have. (the oft-proposed solution to the flawed status quo) Don't legalize and you'll miss many opportunities to help addicts, allow the black market to continue, etc. All the things you're already familiar with. (the status quo) It's complicated.
studentrob 11y ago
I can see how businesses and its representatives (the chamber) may make the case that companies ought to have freedom of speech. Just like citizens united, businesses have lately been able to lobby for certain rights that were originally created for people. But I disagree. Free speech and the right to vote protections were given to individuals as basic human rights, and corporations are not people. More money should not equal more voting or lobbying power. I realize that is impossible to avoid entirely. Still, the more we let stuff like this happen, the more we dilute the value of our individual democratic rights.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
"Cigarettes kill people. That's it. Deciding it's ok to not only sell these death sticks, but actively fight against the championing of healthier living and longer lives is absolutely, totally, and completely shameful." Cigarette makers shouldn't be allowed to lie about their product or mislead the public, but I believe they should still be allowed to sell it. Freedom means having the ability to do something that other people disapprove of or even to do things that are self-destructive, so long as they don't directly harm others. I hate cigarettes but I would not support a legal prohibition against them.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >so long as they don't directly harm others What is second-hand smoke for $300, Jim? E: I say this as someone who suffered a SHS-induced asthma attack that nearly killed me when I was 6 years old. That incident got my father to quit smoking cold-turkey. Smoking can directly harm others and second-hand smoke can travel and affect those around the smoker. Unless the point is that SHS is "indirect" harm. In which case I argue that releasing mustard gas is "indirect" harm. 1 out of 10 smoking-related deaths are non-smokers [0]. We can demonstrate it causes harm to other people and it fails to follow the criteria of "it shouldn't cause direct harm to others". [0] http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/seco...
  - harlanji 11y ago
    Smoking cigarettes does not create second hand smoke, smoking in enclosed spaces with other people does.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      You're thinking third-hand smoke, which is the residue of the smoke that remains on furniture/walls and such in enclosed places. The burning end of the cigarette? That smoke trail is SHS, as is the smoke that the smoker exhales. The exhaled smoke isn't as harmful as the burning cigarette. People are exposed to larger amounts of SHS in enclosed places that traps the SHS inside. You don't have to smoke to create SHS, you merely have to light a cigarette. How much and how concentrated SHS needs to be to be considered harmful is another story. Are designated smoking areas enough? How much distance does there need to be to let the smoke dissipate into smaller amounts and be less harmful? I don't know the answers to the above questions - and I'm not going to trust any study funded by a tobacco company.
colechristensen 11y ago
Cigarettes kill people. I don't care. As long as the public is well informed, I'm strongly in favor of allowing individuals to make their own choices. The cult of anti-smoking needs to come to an end. The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places, and nobody reasonable has any question about the overall health effects of cigarettes. It's time to let people make their own choices.
- baudehlo 11y ago
  There's also some evidence that smokers die earlier and are less of a burden on the health services than non smokers. I mean it's a terrible reason to support smoking, but I kind of support your viewpoint. I don't think there are any smokers out there anymore who don't know it's bad for you. Though I would never ask to go backwards in terms of where we arrived at now - packs with warnings and no indoor smoking is a great thing.
  - Nagyman 11y ago
    > I don't think there are any smokers out there anymore who don't know it's bad for you I suspect this is not necessarily the case in countries with less public health education, especially developing or poor countries which is where Tobacco has shifted its efforts to grow or maintain revenue.
    - baudehlo 11y ago
      For sure. But this article isn't about that.
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        Isn't it? The US Chamber of Commerce apparently supports those actions.
      - URSpider94 11y ago
        That is exactly what this article is about. It talks specifically about fighting smoking regulations in Moldova, for example.
hackuser 11y ago
I've read that the drug store chains don't think they have a future selling products that people can buy online, and are switching to healthcare services (flu shots, mini-clinics, etc.), and that they see advocating for health issues as marketing, while selling something like cigarettes is incompatible with their new image and mission.
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  In the UK drugstores are pretty much extinct, and are most commonly found as a desk in a supermarket. The UK is a bit different though in that supermarkets have sold non-prescription drugs and similar items you'd only find in a drugstore elsewhere for a long time.
- soup10 11y ago
  Cigs bring lots of people in the door, like fuel at a gas station. Probably not a profitable decision. Will lose plenty of regular customers. Could be exec has personal reasons for it, like a family member death.

justonepost 11y ago

It's not just shame, this is literally evil. Cigarettes don't merely kill people, they addict them as well. And what's worse, is the US Chamber of Commerce has decades of extremely conclusive research on this matter. It's one thing to kill someone accidentally, but to take a gun and point it for power and profit...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wpietri 11y ago
Anybody curious about the topic should check out the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library: https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/ https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/ I once happened to meet a researcher who spent some time with the data set and they had all sorts of horrific stories about how consciously evil the cigarette companies were. The one that sticks with me is the people planning marketing campaigns for mentally handicapped adults. I had no words. I still don't, really.

dailyrorschach 11y ago

A great deal of the Chamber's funding comes from Tobacco companies. In fact there are conference rooms named for them. If you haven't seen Last Week Tonight's take on the international bad behavior of the Tobacco companies I really encourage you to check it out. It's about 18min long, but well worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 They've responded to a shrinking market in the US and other highly developed nations, by doubling down on their efforts to sell to everyone in the rest of the world. And woe to the country with a smaller GDP than Phillip Morris who decides to try to put restrictions on a pack of smokes.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
With passage of the TPP, Tobacco companies may have almost every country on the Pacific Ocean caught inside a legal structure that would consider, respect, and perhaps even sustain the claims they have made against smaller GDP countries.
- harmegido 11y ago
  You say that like the TPP has passed?
  - RexRollman 11y ago
    It will.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Congress passed fast-track authority for the TPP, and so its approval will be straight up-down vote; it can't be filibustered. The GOP overwhelmingly supports TPP and has majorities in both houses; the TPP also has Democratic support. It's going to pass.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

baddox 11y ago

> Cigarettes kill people. That's it. That's not it. Cigarettes also bring a large amount of pleasure to people. If you think that doesn't matter, replace it with candy bars, or any food that isn't part of the healthiest possible diet.

justonepost 11y ago
Cigarettes don't merely bring pleasure, they also bring physical addiction. High fructose corn syrup is also another problem. I generally think everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as they're not being influenced by others in a way they can't control or are not fully aware of, which is what advertising and marketing generally is. When you add in underlying physiological effects like chemical addiction to nicotine and sugar (and an ignorance of), this is clearly a case where individuals freedom and security is being infringed upon. When the day comes that we can structure our society such that might does not make right, I'll agree with you, we should relax our laws and encourage more a more libertarian outlook. Until then, centers of power and capital need to be constrained by our legal system to protect the vulnerable.
- tptacek 11y ago
  So you also support restrictions on the sale of recreational drugs.
  - jfoster 11y ago
    The cigarette problem does seem to make a compelling case for recreational drugs being a more complicated problem than most people anticipate. Most people put themselves firmly in a pro- or anti- legalization camp, but in reality there are major problems (and solved problems) with both approaches. Fully legalize and you'll encounter this horrible scenario where big companies emerge to profit off addictions. They'll lobby governments domestically and abroad. They'll engage in all kinds of shady practices to protect their businesses, just as cigarette companies have. (the oft-proposed solution to the flawed status quo) Don't legalize and you'll miss many opportunities to help addicts, allow the black market to continue, etc. All the things you're already familiar with. (the status quo) It's complicated.

studentrob 11y ago

I can see how businesses and its representatives (the chamber) may make the case that companies ought to have freedom of speech. Just like citizens united, businesses have lately been able to lobby for certain rights that were originally created for people. But I disagree. Free speech and the right to vote protections were given to individuals as basic human rights, and corporations are not people. More money should not equal more voting or lobbying power. I realize that is impossible to avoid entirely. Still, the more we let stuff like this happen, the more we dilute the value of our individual democratic rights.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

"Cigarettes kill people. That's it. Deciding it's ok to not only sell these death sticks, but actively fight against the championing of healthier living and longer lives is absolutely, totally, and completely shameful." Cigarette makers shouldn't be allowed to lie about their product or mislead the public, but I believe they should still be allowed to sell it. Freedom means having the ability to do something that other people disapprove of or even to do things that are self-destructive, so long as they don't directly harm others. I hate cigarettes but I would not support a legal prohibition against them.

Nadya 11y ago
>so long as they don't directly harm others What is second-hand smoke for $300, Jim? E: I say this as someone who suffered a SHS-induced asthma attack that nearly killed me when I was 6 years old. That incident got my father to quit smoking cold-turkey. Smoking can directly harm others and second-hand smoke can travel and affect those around the smoker. Unless the point is that SHS is "indirect" harm. In which case I argue that releasing mustard gas is "indirect" harm. 1 out of 10 smoking-related deaths are non-smokers [0]. We can demonstrate it causes harm to other people and it fails to follow the criteria of "it shouldn't cause direct harm to others". [0] http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/seco...
- harlanji 11y ago
  Smoking cigarettes does not create second hand smoke, smoking in enclosed spaces with other people does.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    You're thinking third-hand smoke, which is the residue of the smoke that remains on furniture/walls and such in enclosed places. The burning end of the cigarette? That smoke trail is SHS, as is the smoke that the smoker exhales. The exhaled smoke isn't as harmful as the burning cigarette. People are exposed to larger amounts of SHS in enclosed places that traps the SHS inside. You don't have to smoke to create SHS, you merely have to light a cigarette. How much and how concentrated SHS needs to be to be considered harmful is another story. Are designated smoking areas enough? How much distance does there need to be to let the smoke dissipate into smaller amounts and be less harmful? I don't know the answers to the above questions - and I'm not going to trust any study funded by a tobacco company.

colechristensen 11y ago

Cigarettes kill people. I don't care. As long as the public is well informed, I'm strongly in favor of allowing individuals to make their own choices. The cult of anti-smoking needs to come to an end. The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places, and nobody reasonable has any question about the overall health effects of cigarettes. It's time to let people make their own choices.

baudehlo 11y ago
There's also some evidence that smokers die earlier and are less of a burden on the health services than non smokers. I mean it's a terrible reason to support smoking, but I kind of support your viewpoint. I don't think there are any smokers out there anymore who don't know it's bad for you. Though I would never ask to go backwards in terms of where we arrived at now - packs with warnings and no indoor smoking is a great thing.
- Nagyman 11y ago
  > I don't think there are any smokers out there anymore who don't know it's bad for you I suspect this is not necessarily the case in countries with less public health education, especially developing or poor countries which is where Tobacco has shifted its efforts to grow or maintain revenue.
  - baudehlo 11y ago
    For sure. But this article isn't about that.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Isn't it? The US Chamber of Commerce apparently supports those actions.
    - URSpider94 11y ago
      That is exactly what this article is about. It talks specifically about fighting smoking regulations in Moldova, for example.

hackuser 11y ago

I've read that the drug store chains don't think they have a future selling products that people can buy online, and are switching to healthcare services (flu shots, mini-clinics, etc.), and that they see advocating for health issues as marketing, while selling something like cigarettes is incompatible with their new image and mission.

lucaspiller 11y ago
In the UK drugstores are pretty much extinct, and are most commonly found as a desk in a supermarket. The UK is a bit different though in that supermarkets have sold non-prescription drugs and similar items you'd only find in a drugstore elsewhere for a long time.
soup10 11y ago
Cigs bring lots of people in the door, like fuel at a gas station. Probably not a profitable decision. Will lose plenty of regular customers. Could be exec has personal reasons for it, like a family member death.