It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mass. Wal-Mart Must Stock Contraception

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Wal-Mart can pretty much dictate what people in small towns buy, consume and used.

So what do you call that?

I call it Corporate dictatorship




Marg, that is altogether a different problem...one I'm not unsympathetic to...but it requires a different solution.

What's being done, here, is very dangerous, in my view.


[edit on 14-2-2006 by loam]




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
It's a drug, therefor a DRUG store should carry it!!!! Just like a Cigarette company should sell all cigarettes.. not go "Well God says Malboro is evil, so if anyone asks for it I will find out where they live and kill them for being evil." Like they do with the Pill.

You go to a McDonalds you expect the ability to buy a Big Mac, you go to a book store you expect to be able to buy books, you go to a drug store you expect the ability to buy a drug. What I don't get is the Church has no problem raping their nuns and forcing them to have an abortion but selling a drug at a drug store? EVIL!!!!!

And before anyone jumps on me for what I said, here are links...

Pregnant Nuns in Africa(Used that term in Google)
WASHINGTON - As U. S. Catholic priests returned from the Vatican in Rome recently to discuss the problem of sexual abuse of children by priests, little attention is being paid to reports of sexual exploitation of nuns in Africa by the church's clergy.
www.sacobserver.com...

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican (news - web sites) acknowledged
Tuesday a damning report that some priests and missionaries were forcing
nuns to have sex with them, and were in some cases committing rape and
forcing the victims to have abortions.
members.tripod.com...

VATICAN ADMITS
PRIESTS RAPED NUNS,
FORCED ABORTIONS
mikeblume.com...

More...
www.natcath.com...
www.calltoaccountability.org...
www.priestsofdarkness.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
....Just like a Cigarette company should sell all cigarettes...

You go to a McDonalds you expect the ability to buy a Big Mac, you go to a book store you expect to be able to buy books, you go to a drug store you expect the ability to buy a drug...


Let's play with your examples, shall we?

So as a convenience store owner, should I be FORCED to sell the lowest tar and nicotine cigarettes there are because it might serve the public interest? What if I can't sell them? Why should I have to bear the the cost of inventory?

If I go to McDonalds, should I expect to have them also sell me vitamins to meet the government's daily recommended amounts their food can't provide?

Don't these examples use the same logic? Where do you draw the line? Do you really want to mess with the free market system that much?


I know it sounds awful, but there are alternatives that don't require you to give the government that much power....



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Whether there is a law that requires all pharmacies to stock such things or not, it is still wrong. I understand the desire for people to be able to go to any pharmacy and get whatever they need, but the ability of a private company to do their business as they see fit is more important to me. I'm not saying there should be no rules regulating a company but this is different. if I don't want to sell a product, no one should be able to force me to. There will be pharamcies who will sell everything because they want that business and they'll profit from that.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

I know it sounds awful, but there are alternatives that don't require you to give the government that much power....



What are the alternatives?



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Marg was right in her earlier post. It's no secret that Walmart's corporate strategy for years has been to undercut the little local guys, run them out of business, and then monopolize the local retail trade.

That being the case I have no sympathy for a company that tries to monopolize huge percentages of the market, and then cry foul when they are forced to supply a product that their now-defunct competitors were previousy supplying.

And, IMHO, I am personally happy to see the Mass State Gov't stick it to Sam Walton and his convervative christian BS. You wanna come up north and monopolize business - fine. You wanna undercut everyone else and grab a huge market share - fine. You think you can't run your business in our back yard in the same fashion you do in Hazzard County - your in fer a rude awakening.




posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
I am personally happy to see the Mass State Gov't stick it to Sam Walton and his convervative christian BS. ,

You think you can't run your business in our back yard in the same fashion you do in Hazzard County - your in fer a rude awakening.



bravo pyros, well said



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
So how is this not a violation of the interstate commerce clause? This should go to the "supreme court"................and I hate the supreme court



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I think I am going to open a Drugstore here and there!

I will have whatever is out! I smell money here.
Who wants to help?

I am with the others that know that most medications are used for other things then what most people know. Like Darvocet N-100, Most people know that it is a narcotic painkiller. I was prescribed it once for a very bad cough. It can be used for other thing to.
I to have kids and have done the best I can with them and so fare things are going good, they talk to me about all there problems and use what I tell them. Some of You out there know just how good that makes You feel when your kids come to you for help. Trust is what I keep with them and they with Me.
As for having a store and being told what to put in it........ I say NO!!!!!!!
It's your wright as You own the place as to what you sale.

If I can't get what I want at a store I go some place other then that.
SORRY for the ones have to drive WAY out of there way to get things.

I would tell the Doctors in your town that the drug stores don't have what you ask for and see if they have a starter pack at that office. Or tell the doctors that they need to keep them on hand so people can order them online.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
This one is a no brainer, IMO. Wal-Mart's drug store should be forced to carry, these drugs. A drugstore has the responsiblity to carry drugs that Doctors prescribe. If Wal-Mart doesn't, they shouldn't be allowed to have a drugstore. It would be different if we were talking about Tylenol.

I don't understand why people are angry about this, but aren't angry about Walmart's monopoly. We have a store that has effectively coke-bottled most consumer spending into its store, yet we have people trying to place more power into this monopoly, by saying they should be allowed to control what's available to patients that are prescribed a certain medicaton.

This is one of a long list of things, Walmart has done to abuse it's power. Another, is their obvious censorship of music, but I won't veer off into another topic, at this time.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
This lawsuit was a shoo-in in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. No big surprise there.

There are some here who believe that WalMart had chosen not to stock the drug because of religious reasons. There is no proof that that is true.

The main problem I have with this litigation is that it allows, but does not require, pharmacies to dispense the drug without a prescription. That makes it an OTC product, imo. No gov't. agency should tell me I have to sell a particular OTC product.

A couple of comments:
Chakotay, I find your list of "sin products" amusing. Blankets and pillows?

curme, your comment about WalMart shoppers was petty and childish. Many ATS'ers shop at WalMart.

marg, while I applaud your parenting, I can still see intrepid's point of view. Count your blessings; there's a little luck mixed in there along with your influence on your kids. And promiscuity has nothing to do with it - it only takes one time.




posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I really am surprised by how many people support this strictly because the government is sticking it to Wal-Mart. Just because Wal-Mart is the one named in the suit, doesn't mean that they are the only ones affected. This ruling applies to every pharmacy in Mass., be they big or small.

I am the last person to defend Wal-Mart on anything, they are a despicable corporation. I am also not a proponent to the anti-abortion crowd, and do not believe Plan B or Preven are abortion pills. This issue however has nothing to do with abortion rights or Wal-Mart, but with the right of a private retailer to decide what he/she will sell in their business.

No pharmacy can stock all of the different types and brands of drugs that are taken, but they generally stock the most commonly used prescription drugs in order to provide good customer service. If they didn't, people would go elsewhere for their medications. It doesn't make business sense to refuse to carry a drug that is heavily prescribed, unless there is not really enough demand to make it worthwhile.

Another thing about Plan B and Preven is that neither drug requires a doctor's prescription to be filled. All that is required is a consultation with a pharmacist, which essentially makes this an over the counter medication, in which case the government REALLY has no business forcing ANY pharmacy to sell it. Private businesses have the right to sell or not sell whatever they see fit, as long as it's legal. The government has no right to force a retailer to sell something they don't want to sell.

As for people not being able to get their morning after (EC) pill because the only pharmacy in town won't sell it, all they have to do is get their doctor to write a prescription for a pack of birth control pills and take the dose that is equivalent to the EC pills (which their doctor can tell them). I don't know of any pharmacies that don't carry at least one brand of BC pill. Morning after pills are not a new thing. They just got an official name and a lot of publicity. Doctors have been giving women morning-after treatments for years now thru high-doses of BC pills.

Here are the dose equivalents:

Progestin Only

Brand Number/Color Pills per Dose*

Plan B 1/white
Ovrette 20/yellow
Progestin-Estrogen Combined

Brand Number/Color Pills per Dose*

Alesse 5/pink
Aviane 5/orange
Cryselle 4/white
Enpresse 4/orange
Lessina 5/pink
Levlen 4/light-orange
Levlite 5/pink
Levora 4/white
Lo/Ovral 4/white
Low-Ogestrel 4/white
Lutera 5/white
Nordette 4/light-orange
Ogestrel 2/white
Ovral 2/white
Portia 4/pink
Seasonale 4/pink
Tri-Levlen 4/yellow
Triphasil 4/yellow
Trivora 4/pink

* Pills per dose: Ideally, the first dose is taken within 72 hours (and not more than 120 hours) after unprotected intercourse, followed by a second dose 12 hours later. Recent research indicates that both doses of Plan B can be taken at the same time.
www.nyc.gov...

[edit on 16-2-2006 by jezebel]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
jezebel summed it up perfectly for me and if I had a WATS vote left this month, I'd vote for the previous post.


Just because people hate Wal-Mart doesn't make the ruling right. And, as a quick side-note, for some people the only place there is to shop is Wal-Mart. Where I live, the closest town is 50 miles away and Wal-Mart is the only non-specialized grocery store. To go to any other grocery store would take two more hours. I don't know why I said that, but I did.

In closing: Anything forcing a private company to sell things they don't want to is wrong.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Welp, maybe Massachusetts should have said to Walmart........."We respect your right to not sell or provide contraceptives to the public based upon your corporate policy, and we will not force you to sell those products.........However, because in our opinion your actions are detrimental to the health of our citizens, as of this moment your license to distribute controlled substances within this state are herby terminated. Have a nice day"!

Walmart will sell the drugs because in the end their worship of EPS and DPS are more important than their dogma.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

marg, while I applaud your parenting, I can still see intrepid's point of view. Count your blessings; there's a little luck mixed in there along with your influence on your kids. And promiscuity has nothing to do with it - it only takes one time.



Thanks Jsobecky, but the truth is that you can only show the light and hope for the best.



Originally posted by Pyros

Walmart will sell the drugs because in the end their worship of EPS and DPS are more important than their dogma.



You bet that wal-mart been all for the corporate profits will never let that littler Problem with conscience stopping them from making a buck.:Lil:



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
I really am surprised by how many people support this strictly because the government is sticking it to Wal-Mart. Just because Wal-Mart is the one named in the suit, doesn't mean that they are the only ones affected. This ruling applies to every pharmacy in Mass., be they big or small.

I am the last person to defend Wal-Mart on anything, they are a despicable corporation. I am also not a proponent to the anti-abortion crowd, and do not believe Plan B or Preven are abortion pills. This issue however has nothing to do with abortion rights or Wal-Mart, but with the right of a private retailer to decide what he/she will sell in their business.

No pharmacy can stock all of the different types and brands of drugs that are taken, but they generally stock the most commonly used prescription drugs in order to provide good customer service. If they didn't, people would go elsewhere for their medications. It doesn't make business sense to refuse to carry a drug that is heavily prescribed, unless there is not really enough demand to make it worthwhile.


Well, if this is basically OTC, then I will have to say the government has no business forcing Wal-Mart or any other company, for that matter, to sale it.

mod edit: shortened quote



[edit on 17-2-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by trudginup
This one is a no brainer, IMO. Wal-Mart's drug store should be forced to carry, these drugs. A drugstore has the responsiblity to carry drugs that Doctors prescribe.


I agree 110% - I find it really odd that so many people are for not having this medication stocked. Drug stores certainly are in it for a profit but they are obligated to have certain drugs on hand - if this is one of those drugs the FDA has requested to be in stock...then DO IT. It's not about stocking socks, car batteries and everything else, it’s about MEDICATION. If people, groups and pharmacist have a problem with this, they need to take it to a high court.
My gosh religious extremism comes in MANY forms other than Islamic...thanks for reminding me because I was forgetting this fact. For those of you who are hiding behind ..."its stores right to not stock this and the gov't should stay out" ...that is such a cop out...let your religious anti pro-choice selves shine through...don't be ashamed!



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
It is a personal right to choose not to sell something you don't want to. ESPECIALLY because this is an over the counter drug that doesn't require perscription.

I have no problem whatsoever with people using it or selling it IF THEY WANT. But I always have a problem with government forcing someone to do something like this.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Morning After Pill - Emergency Contraception - Offered Over the Counter

Currently this is not an OTC drug. When it does become OTC they have the right to not stock it...as long as its behind the counter controlled by a pharmacy...it should be stocked!



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
It's not OK for the government to look in our windows, to tap our phone calls, read our mail......................... But it's OK for the government to tell me what can and can not sell in my store!

Next thing you know they will telling you what kind of things to buy to keep tabs on you and you have to pay for it all.

A wright is a wright......... not a left, get it



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join