CVS Pharmacy 'milestone'

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by ronmatt, Sep 5, 2014.

  1. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well another retail outlet, CVS Pharmacy, went the way of so many other retailers and removed all tobacco products from their shelves. That's fine, it's their business what they sell and don't sell. Apparently they see it as being a sound PR move. Or is it a PC move seeing how smoking isn't politically or socially correct activity. Sure smokers endanger their own health and may be slowly killing themselves and they're offensive to non-smokers. And granted, second hand smoke is injurious to others.
    But CVS Pharmacy didn't take beer, wine and the hard stuff off their shelves. A pack a day over time can kill someone. A 6-pack a day can kill a lot of people in one fell swop. I suggest that CVS Pharmacy, who is suddenly so conscious and aware of it's customers health and safety do the right thing and omit booze as well. And when marijuana becomes legal in all 50 states..don't sell that either. Or soft drinks, or candy or snack foods. Maybe it shouldn't sell medications that contain opiates either. And take those Girly books out of their magazine racks. Eliminate all cosmetics that cause skin rashes on some people. There is so much more CVS can do in it's new campaign to 'provide only health and wellness to America.
     
  2. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,509
    Likes Received:
    7,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a real problem that chemists serve the bureaucrats in the FDA rather than their customers. Pharmacies have been reduced to government establishments, there to enhance the public health rather than providing sovereignty of care to the individual himself.

    This is just a symptom of that.

    [hr][/hr]

    As far as tobacco goes - it's really quite simple. As use decreases, support for oppressing the remainder increases. Same goes for most things.
     
  3. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep.. give 'em an inch..they want a mile. As for the FDA and it's efficiency (or lack there of). I must question all the 'new drugs' on the market that admittedly (by the manufacturer). have so many potentially dangerous side effects. Most of which seem to be worse than the affliction being treated. (or symptom). How do these get the FDA stamp of approval? (Caution; use only as directed for minor headache. May cause paralyses and or instant death)
     
  4. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,509
    Likes Received:
    7,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a good question, given it's the FDA's role to enforce public safety. But I don't think it should be, so I'm not especially worried about it. Let people decide for themselves if they want to use the drug. It's their body, they should be able to put whatever they want in it - from black tar heroin to experimental cancer treatments, and everything in between.
     

Share This Page