So Long, Cigs: Michelle Obama Praises CVS For Pulling Tobacco

Cuervo
reply to post by neo96

 

I don't understand why a large corporation exercising their right to carry what they want is a "liberal agenda" thing. Isn't it ironic that anti-liberals are the ones saying they shouldn't do this? Shouldn't you be supporting their decision? I bet if they were choosing not to sell birth control, those same people would be saying "it's their damned right!"

What is not to understand about the 'liberal agenda' ?

It is the antithesis of liberalism.

That has exactly zero freedom.

beezzer
reply to post by muse7

 

People who have a constitutional right to carry guns are. . . um. . . people.

Smokers are. . . oh what's the word?. . . people.

True, if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

But that should apply in all cases, not just cases that don't support a progressive agenda.

Nobody ever said a business should be able to refuse service to gun owners just because they're gun owners. Gun owners are welcome in any establishment. It may be that the GUNS aren't allowed in.

I don't see CVS refusing to allow smokers into their stores just because they are smokers. Smokers are welcome to come in purchase all the prescription drugs they want.

But a business refusing to do business with a gay person simply because they are gay is a totally different story - and you know that.

reply to post by neo96


Yes wrong...
Lip service is saying one thing and doing another that isn't in the direction of what was stated.

They chose to stop selling cigarettes based on their beliefs.
They never said: "We are no longer going to sell anything that can kill you".

In regards to diet pills and the industry;

A total of twenty nine cases of liver failure and acute hepatitis have been reported in Hawaii in the last six months, all of them linked to dietary supplements. The Department of Health had been reluctant to pinpoint any specific supplement in the past, but now acknowledges that at least 24 of the patients reported using OxyELITE Pro before being hospitalized.

Source: HuffPost: OxyELITE Pro

So a single product had 29 reported linked cases to liver failure... Of which, 1 resulted in death.
I wouldn't call that a cause for concern... Hell, even CDC have a minimum infected (and death) number before they get involved unless specifically called.

It is a 40 billion dollar industry.

It may be a $40B industry, but that $40B isn't on Diet Pills... Most of it goes into Books, Foods, Supplements, Businesses (Gyms, Spas) et c.

And you haven't addressed Pharmaceutical drugs... I went back through all your posts in this thread to make sure.
You don't mention them ONCE.
The only time the part of the word ("pharma"), used by you is in description that the company is a pharmacy.

Well, in response to the OP, it actually doesn't make any sense at all for a pharmaceutical company to sell cigarettes.

Pharmacies are in the business of promoting health and healthy lifestyle choices, and cigarettes are not part of this in any way at all.

You think it's all part of some liberal agenda because someone decided to stop selling cigarettes? Are your beliefs in your right wing agenda that fragile that even the simple stopping of selling a certain product is a threat?

Wookiep

Cuervo
reply to post by neo96

 

I don't understand why a large corporation exercising their right to carry what they want is a "liberal agenda" thing. Isn't it ironic that anti-liberals are the ones saying they shouldn't do this? Shouldn't you be supporting their decision? I bet if they were choosing not to sell birth control, those same people would be saying "it's their damned right!"

It's a "liberal agenda thing" because of this as quoted in the OP-

a move swiftly embraced by President Barack Obama and the first lady on Wednesday as a step that would save lives and promote good health.

That and the fact that the liberals want to ban e-cigs for some reason, don't ask me why..

It SHOULDN'T be a "liberal thing", but this president and his wife like to poke their nose into every little issue while his minions cheer and praise him. It's pretty freakin freaky and weird if you ask me.

edit on 5-2-2014 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

So because a retail chain decided to practice their freedom of commerce, it becomes a "liberal" thing just because a liberal puts her stamp of approval on it?

I think it's a dumb decision but nobody made them do it. As far as the E-cigs getting hate, that's not a strictly democrat thing, either. I'm a nicotine enthusiast so I'm biased but that doesn't make me blind to the health cost of tobacco or the ignorance of old politicians who can't read studies on nicotine vapors.

Bottom line, they made a business decision and I guess we will all see the results soon enough.

kaylaluv

beezzer
reply to post by muse7

 

People who have a constitutional right to carry guns are. . . um. . . people.

Smokers are. . . oh what's the word?. . . people.

True, if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

But that should apply in all cases, not just cases that don't support a progressive agenda.

Nobody ever said a business should be able to refuse service to gun owners just because they're gun owners. Gun owners are welcome in any establishment. It may be that the GUNS aren't allowed in.

I don't see CVS refusing to allow smokers into their stores just because they are smokers. Smokers are welcome to come in purchase all the prescription drugs they want.

But a business refusing to do business with a gay person simply because they are gay is a totally different story - and you know that.

They have that right based upon their religious beliefs.

Or is freedom to practice religion now gone?

I don't know. I was busy today.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Depends.
If its selling non gay products then no excuse.

If your itsselling a product that actively promotes the gay lifestyle then no it should be a choice for the buisness owner.

reply to post by babybunnies

Well, in response to the OP, it actually doesn't make any sense at all for a pharmaceutical company to sell cigarettes.

It is not a 'pharmaceutical company'. That would imply that is the only thing they sell.

They are a retail outlet that has federal license to sell pharmaceuticals, and other things.

They also have a federal license to sell Tobacco, and Alcohol.

reply to post by beezzer


No... They are allowed to refuse service to anyone that owns a firearm.

But unless they are carrying, how would they know?
Would they institute a questionnaire at the front door?

How could they tell if someone lied?

Well most of you are kind of missing the OP's point here. YES it is the companies choice to not sell cigarettes for various reasons, unless things like this get some opposition, soon your precious capitalistic freedoms will soon become "socialist" much like many policies of your historically socialistic neighbours to the north Canada.

Our businesses were NOT given the choice to sell or not sell tobacco! They were told by LAW that they cannot sell. Yet, go into any major drugstore chain and you'll see tonnes of unhealthy stuff being peddled. From junk food, diet pills, animal tested makeup, etc. etc...

If you want the U.S to tread near socialist waters, you're gov't is doing a great job!