General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould there be a ban on the sale of cigarettes in drug stores?
Why should a thing that is known to cause cancer and increase the risk of countless other health problems be sold in a place people traditionally associate with health?
Shouldn't a drug store be a place of health?
With fattening foods and candies, it is at least technically possible to consume these in moderation, and not completely ruin one's health. But is there really a healthy cigarette?
It really is ridiculous to walk into a drug store and see racks and racks of cigarettes.
niyad
(112,434 posts)a lot of the drugs sold in drugstores are unhealthy, not to mention, in some cases, immediately fatal.
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)Aren't there tons of other places that sell them?
Why should a place that is intrinsically given a reputation of being associated with health sell something that is so harmful?
niyad
(112,434 posts)prescribed drugs, amoung other things.
by the way, you do know that native americans use tobacco in ceremony, yes?
and I know a number of people who use it to reduce stress--figuring they are less likely to pack on pounds and die of diabetic complications. not EVERYONE who smokes dies of some respiratory ailment, you know.
and by the way, since you keep talking about "moderation" in terms of the junk food they sell in drug stores, are you proposing limits on how much of that stuff people can buy and consume? slippery slope, you know.
Yeah, we know they are the same thing.
Perfectly clean water can be fatal too if you drink too much of it.
On the other hand, cigarettes are always harmful.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)my dad died of lung cancer; I know cigarettes are harmful.
But misguided attempts to run peoples' lives for them are a waste of time.
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)Maybe I want tainted food. Should I be able to buy food with e.coli?
Or lead based paint?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I doubt there's a big market for food with e.coli; the issue is people having dangerous food and not knowing about it.
Cigarettes have been clearly indicated as exactly what they are- addictive and deadly- for a long time.
So is this really about not selling them in drugstores, or do you want them outlawed entirely?
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and then, you're a grown up. You decide.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)It was about 17 years ago. I didn't care for it and didn't have another. Since I did have one, and they are always harmful, what symptoms should i be looking for?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)one place where we don't have to see them hawked? You can get them everywhere. Not there.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Cigarettes, alcohol, and pot, among other things, should be legal, regulated, and taxed for adults.
A 'drug store' is not necessarily a mecca of healthy shit. Most sell cheetohs, too.
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)and there is no sign that they have the same exact magnitude of addictiveness.
On the other hand...
And alcohol can be used in very sparing quantities as well.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Consenting adults are going to sometimes make bad choices. This is the price we pay for living in a world where we don't get to tell everyone what to do, even if we know better.
It's legitimate to regulate where people smoke the cigarettes, because that impacts other people. But banning them (or coming up with some arbitrary rule about not 'selling them in drugstores') is counterproductive.
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)Hey, maybe we should just do away with getting a prescription for drugs and let people do it over the counter.
Why not let adults buy what they want?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In fact, while having 1 Million+ people in prison for non-violent drug offenses is a good start, many of them for simple possession, just think of the fucking fun we could have once we start locking up the cigarette smokers as well!
Honestly, if the ONLY choices are an excessive drug war/prison-industrial overbearing nanny state or letting "adults buy what they want", I'll go with let the adults buy what they want. Every fucking time.
Right now we have a situation where terminally ill pain patients can't get adequate palliative care because doctors are terrified of the DEA. In florida, a quadriplegic was sent to prison for trying to manage his OWN pain.
Yeah, actually, I'll side with 'let the adults buy what they want'. Thanks.
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Because every time there's a product that large numbers of people want, banning it works so well.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)be BANNED everywhere! Thus spake the person whose mom and dad BOTH died horrific deaths as a result of their smoking! Ms Bigmack
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)This war on drugs is going great.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Nicotine does have its uses. I knew an old lady (she's dead now, made it to 101) who was the great aunt of a friend. She used to smoke a cigarette every day. She had low blood pressure, and her doctor prescribed it to tighten up her veins or something.
He also, because she had trouble sleeping, prescribed a shot of brandy in the evening.
Of course, this was in UK, and she was on the NHS.
If you go to the WALGREENS in San Juan, Puerto Rico, you can buy rum and champagne. Too much of that is bad for you as well.
Everything in moderation, adults can make decisions about their own lives, too much nanny-stating just creates black markets.
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)ret5hd
(20,433 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)of the DEA.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)People would buy things that they didn't need and those who did need it would not be able to get their medications.
Costs: My one med costs $500/month (which I can't afford right now), $100 w/insurance. Those things would walk off a lot more than a 4.50/pack of smokes and cost the store a lot of money in loses.
If you don't like smokes, don't buy them. If you don't like smoking in bars, go to ones that don't allow it. If you don't like a store that sells them, shop elsewhere.
choice, it's not just for aborting.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)People should do what they want? No way. Everything that everyone does should be controlled by a select few. If some people don't like the smell of grilled meat, grills should be banned. Don't like the look of red cars? BANNED!!
TheCruces
(224 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)At Rite-Aid you can buy a box of wine for the evening and some Tylenol for the next morning, along with the prescription you're gonna wash down with wine . It's called one stop shopping.
Maine-ah
(9,902 posts)There are plenty of towns where there is only one store. That one store will be not only a drug store, but also a liquor store, prepared foods, gas, clothing and cigs, rolling papers etc....
No, I don't think that drug stores should be banned from selling cigs. It's choice. Cigs are legal.
Jean V. Dubois
(101 posts)A drug store can sell anything it likes. If they choose not to sell cigarettes, fine. If they choose to sell cigarettes...also fine.
Why should the heavy hand of The State even be involved in the first place?
edhopper
(33,205 posts)period.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)edhopper
(33,205 posts)completely different.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Prohibition is prohibition. Authoritarian paradise.
edhopper
(33,205 posts)smoking is something that a small minority do, yet kills more than anything else.
Banning the sale would stop most young people from starting and save countless lives.
If any other product were half as dangerous as cigarteete, they would be banned.
Not the same.
there are many things which kill more people than smoking..alcohol by a wide margin, obesity by a wider margin just to name two. Banning the sale would do no such thing as, "stop most young people from starting and save countless lives". Name one single prohibition of an addictive product which has been successful..hint: there are no examples. What it would do is drive the trade underground. People would war over territories, and kids or people who wanted cigarettes would meet savory characters who make other prohibited items easily available. And if any other intoxicant had the same adverse side effects as pot, it would be legal.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I don't think an authoritative, prohibitive law is in and of itself, the reason for the non instatement or repeal of a law. As we have many efficient, effective and collectively good laws which do in fact, prohibit many courses of action, regardless of whether people give allowance to the prohibition or not.
I imagine a large handful of additional qualifiers are needed.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)that our society would be better off if, rather than prohibiting access to certain substances, instead, making those substances available in a controlled environment. Prohibitions are far worse for public safety than restricted availability. The authoritarian approach to dealing with chemical use and dependency is to legislate criminally against the substances, driving the demand underground. A more liberal approach might be to treat the causes of dependency, allow adults access in a controlled way, quit funding terrorism by removing the consumers of the black market. I detest prohibitions in the name of public safety which have historically lead to a more dangerous society.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Alcohol abuse kills some 75000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years.
Does not factor in crime/DUI caused by drinking.
So at least be consistent, you think things you don't like that can harm others should be banned.
edhopper
(33,205 posts)moderate drinkers do not suffer from drinking. Moderate smoking causes considerable health problems.
I have heard ALL the excuses for this deadly addiction. I don't accept any of them. It is the most deadly consumer product ever produed in this country by far. Defend it all you want. I have heard it before.
For now they are legal to but, go kill yourself all you want. Just don't smoke near me.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)"It is the most deadly consumer product ever produed in this country by far."
DDT sold to gardeners, lead based paint, asbestos, automobiles, firearms,..need I list more?
Oh, and nonsense on the 500,000 deaths too..got a link?
edhopper
(33,205 posts)go out take a deep puff and cough.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Oh, and I'm a civil libertarian not a smoker or an authoritarian (the opposite of a civil libertarian).
edhopper
(33,205 posts)before you accuse someone without looking at the facts yourself.
from the CDC
Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1
443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men
173,940 deaths annually among women
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/
That is more per year than the total estimated deaths from Asbestos in total. Though I suppose you disagree with banning that too.
Talking to smoking advocates is like talking to Republicans about tax cuts. No amounts of facts can change their mind.
I can never figure out why people want to post numbers and statistics without linking to something..but completely don't get those who when asked, reply with a snarky "google it" response, as if it is incumbent on the reader to take time from their life to verify someone's assertions. See how easy that was..
Then to follow with a 'if you don't agree with me you are a republican' canard is really entertaining in this case, what with the accuser attempting to defend an authoritarian position, calling the civil libertarian position, republican..funny..what party affiliation do you suspect the vast, vast majority of ACLU members associate? Hmm..thinking Google might be a good starting place, but no time now..
edhopper
(33,205 posts)Ignore the facts I presented please.
And confirm that your ideology trumps public safety.
niyad
(112,434 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think I finally see a way for DU to move beyond the porn/prostitution/rape threads.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Driving on icy roads (needs no explanation).
In-ground swimming pools (tens of thousands of injuries from diving into the shallow end, not to mention getting hair caught in drains etc).
Trans-fats, sugar, caffeine, my goodness but there are THOUSANDS of decisions we can take out of the hands of otherwise responsible results!
Bonhomme Richard
(8,992 posts)You could make the same argument for all of them.
MADem
(135,425 posts)deadinsider
(201 posts)Drug Stores should be banned from refusing to sell contraceptives and the morning after pill.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Is the urge to buy some so overwhelming you can't take the sight of them? Who would go to the drug store for..say..vagasil and decide to start smoking because the drug store has cigarettes? Bottom line, who the fuck cares if they sell them if they are available elsewhere anyway? Who would fret over this? And why?
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)at least here in Florida they do. If they sell meds, should liquor be banned too? How how candy, potato chips, etc.?
SOS
(7,048 posts)Walgreens was a small chain of drug stores in the Chicago area prior to prohibition.
They had 12 stores in 1919.
A little known fact about prohibition is that you could get one pint of whiskey
every 10 days for "medicinal" purposes with a doctors prescription.
Millions of these prescriptions were filled by the good folks at Walgreens.
By 1933 (the end of prohibition) Walgreens had 600 stores nationwide.
Walgreens not only sells booze, it exist because of booze!
Texasgal
(17,029 posts)chocolate and the five hour energy drinks, oh yeah and tylenol and advil too.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I say no, unless the store owner chooses not to sell them, then that's fine by me.
fishwax
(29,146 posts)Drug stores sell plenty of things that aren't healthy.
obliviously
(1,635 posts)All we are saying is give Darwin a chance!
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Instead of yet another ban on cigarettes, there should be a requirement that wherever cigarettes are sold, e-cigs must be sold too alongside them. Tobacco use would be a thing of the past before very long.
If we really want to end tobacco use, e-cigs are the answer. But do we really want that? As of now, the answer is 'no', because TPTB are trying to restrain e-cigs' popularity from growing, when if health was really the issue, it would be promoted.
jmowreader
(50,451 posts)The device itself is expensive to buy. Even the disposable ones are $10 to $20 apiece, and the ones you can replace cartridges in are REALLY high. They claim to save you money over the long term, but the initial buy-in will stop a lot of people.
That, and eventually Our Congress will figure out they need to be taxing these things.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)I get mine here... www.bloogplanet.com (no connection to company at all).
I first vaped in July 2010 and never smoked again - not even one cigarette even though I had a full carton which I let sit around where it was in a drawer for more than a year. I never even thought about it. Know why? Vaping is waaaaay better than smoking ever was. It's everything I liked without everything I didn't like. It's a no-brainer. It costs me an average of $10/month in batteries and $4 per week in cartos and "juice" to refill them (I make my own juice, it's easy and cheap), so roughly about $25/month. At the time I quit, cigarettes were costing me @ $250/month. Would it be better if I spent zero? Yes. But then, this is what I choose to spend a bit of money on just because I want to, I don't go out to movies or eat out, etc., as most people do.
That's my personal experience with e-cigs, which I heard about here btw. I had smoked for 30 years, 2-3 packs a day, with no end in sight before e-cigs. As just proved in a recent study, patches and gum didn't affect me at all. And I'd much rather use e-cigs, my way and as I see fit, than take Chantix or any other drug. IMO, e-cigs are much safer than that.
I have had no negative "health" effects from e-cigs at all. Nothing, nada. Thousands die from tobacco each year. And people have died from using Chantix and other drugs. E-cigs have killed no one. Nobody, not ever. No houses ever catch fire from falling asleep with an e-cig. They're cheap, safe to use (helluvalot safer than tobacco), they get people off of tobacco, and they save lives. And btw, I live with my adult daughter and she says it smells like air freshener (I only use clear "chocolate" flavoring, which doesn't have much of a taste to me at all, except that there's no bad taste about it, just neutral).
Any "health authorities" who want to restrain or dampen e-cigs' use are prima facie hypocrites, liars, and frauds. They care nothing about health, but only want to profit from their investments in patch and gum companies which are largely ineffective. Ineffective alternatives are fine of course because they do nothing to threaten tobacco companies' profits, oh but we can't have an alternative which actually WORKS. Then not only tobacco profits would dwindle but the "cause" of condemning cigarette use would disappear. All of these "advocates" and "experts" would be unemployed. So the tobacco companies and the anti-smoking campaigners realize that their bread is buttered on the same side. It's the 1% against the 99% again. As usual. Nothing but garden-vaiety corporatism at work. Health schmealth.
Taxing e-cigs would be absurd. On the contrary. Smokers ought to be able to get a tax-subsidized COUPON for e-cigs with every pack of cigarettes. Every smoker has paid unbelievable taxes on cigarettes through the years, the government should be making sure that THEIR MONEY paid does something for THEIR HEALTH for a change.
That's if there is any honesty at all in this issue.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)Why do people not understand this?
-- Mal
barbtries
(28,702 posts)any vendor can choose what they sell.
niyad
(112,434 posts)the ken burns series, "prohibition". if you cannot see the parallels, then you are in total denial.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)The commonwealth has survived.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)associated with health? Really? Drug stores sell quack weight loss stuff, t-shirts, books, toys, cleaning supplies, makeup (full of harmful chemicals), and all kinds of bullshit.
You aren't required to buy cigarettes just because they are on display.
Blacksheep214
(877 posts)Now you must see a Doctor first. What's that?
No health insurance to see the Doc? But you can afford smokes?
Watch how fast smokers support our Presidents health care plan!
valerief
(53,235 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Many people find tobacco to be their favorite vegetable, to paraphrase Frank Zappa.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I think they should.
And I think cigarettes should be regulated as follows:
Post the bad chemicals in them, offer all natural brands.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Familiar Chemicals in Cigarettes
----------------------------------
carbon monoxide also found in car exhaust
nicotine also found in bug sprays
tar also found in material to make roads
arsenic also found in rat poison
ammonia also found in cleaning products
hydrogen cyanide also found in gas chamber poison
cyanide also found in deadly poison
acetone also found in nail polish remover
butane also found in cigarette lighter fluid
DDT also found in insecticides
formaldehyde, used to preserve dead bodies
sulfuric acid also found in car batteries
cadmium also found in used to recharge batteries
freon, damages earth's ozone layer
geranic, a fragrance
methoprene, a pesticide
maltitol, a sweetener not permitted to be used in foods in the U.S.
Sources: Dr. Joel Dunnington, Tobacco Almanac, Revised, May 1993.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Don't buy 'em.
Works just fine for me. There's lots of places I go into selling products I think are detrimental to people's health. So what? Is the world supposed to cater to my tastes? How about if it's a product YOU want to be available, but I don't like? Are you okay with me telling the place you purchase it to stop carrying it?
Good grief. I promised myself that when I finally kicked the smoking habit after years of trying, I'd NEVER become a "anti-smoking preacher," now I remember why. There's certainly something "ridiculous" here and it sure isn't "racks and racks" of a LEGAL product in a store.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Tikki
(14,538 posts)procure cigarettes, the more expensive they are..the more places banned from smoking
the more a smoker may think clearly about what the habit is actually accomplishing.
Worked for me and others I know....
Tikki
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)just pay more. Thereby increasing public profits and private taxes.
Tikki
(14,538 posts)over the years have quit..one way or another.
I have lived in the same place for over 40 years
and have known most friends that long.
I only know a few people who have never quit.
Tikki
valerief
(53,235 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Oh, wait...
mwooldri
(10,291 posts)I'd much prefer to see cigarettes sold only in drug stores. Take them out of the supermarkets, the convenience stores, the gas stations and other places.
Let's put the harm back into pharmacy!
taterguy
(29,582 posts)Not if the goal is improving public health.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts):sarcHasm:
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I think we should boss people around as little as possible.
Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)I associate them with candy, aisles of make up, cheap dollar bin stuff and film processing.
So, I'd say no.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)these type of stores will call themselves 'convenience stores' or some other category to get around the law.
rucky
(35,211 posts)MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Look, if you don't like cigarettes, don't buy them. Pretty simple. They should be sold wherever the store owner wants them sold.
jmowreader
(50,451 posts)Considering how expensive the things in drugstores are now, I shudder to think of how much higher they'd be if the drugstore owners didn't have cigarette profits to rely on.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is a supermarket a "drug store" if it sells OTC drugs? If it has a pharmacy?
What about a Wal-Mart? Is that a "drug store"?
kctim
(3,575 posts)Just open up a Drug Store and ban them from your store. Give others the same freedom.
I'm pro-choice though, so that is probably not the answer you are hoping for.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)That is really what it comes down to. Let's ban everything that is not good for people; from junk food to booze to cigarettes.
Mayor Bloomberg is a perfect example of all this. First he started with cigarettes. Next he went after junk and bad for you foods. Now it's alcohol. He want to limit the amount that people can drink, not because of driving accidents, but because drinking is bad for your HEALTH.
Is really what we want in a free country? NO personal choices on anything that might be bad for you? We are starting to see companies not hiring smokers. Do you think it will stop there? Next, they will refuse to hire OVERWEIGHT people. Add your particular vice to that one. You know we are on verge also of the Bedroom Police, from the opposite side of the pollitical aisle, who use HEALTH as an excuse to promote an agenda. Listen to how "bad" for you contraceptives are.
When you start letting "others" chip away at a freedom you think is a vice, it will only be a matter of time before they chip away at one, or all, of YOUR "vices".
Read the writing on the wall.