Boycott Walgreens! UPDATE: If They're About Making You Healthy, There Are Certain Things They Shouldn't Sell
ORIGINAL POST 10/10/08: There are many people angry at Walgreens, especially the anti-abortion people who are either offended that pharmacists are forced to sell certain products or that the store sells certain products they see as chemical abortion.
Add me to the list, for another reason. The city of San Francisco instituted a ban on the sale of tobacco in pharmacies, on the basis that it sends the wrong message for businesses that promote health to sell products that kill. Walgreens and Phillip Morris (who usually pretends that they want Americans to quit smoking while they market the crap out of tobacco worldwide) filed a lawsuit to prevent the ban. And Walgreens took the extra step of putting out fliers to mobilize smokers to fight it as well. Nice message to the kids.
Being a loudmouth, I sent a message to Walgreen's website letting them know my disgust. I received the following e-mail. It's probably a form letter, but I'm not mad about that. Just means a lot of people have contacted them. My reply follows it.
If you need something "convenient" or a health product, find another store besides Walgreens. Maybe Target. I like them. Even if they are a big corporation.
UPDATE: Walgreens responded with another form letter, but a different one. They still make it clear that profits are the most important thing on their mind. Their response and my response (as if they read any of it) follow the originals.
Walgreen's reply:
October 10, 2008
Dear Lee Cameron,
Thank you for writing us about your concern over the sale of tobacco at our
stores.
We realize how important this issue is to you and others in the community.
And, yes, we do care very much about all the people - smokers and
non-smokers alike - that smoking affects. Many of us at Walgreens have
personally lost good friends to smoking and cancer.
At the same time, we also consider ourselves a convenience-oriented
retailer. And the reality is, a large portion of our customer base expects
to be able to purchase tobacco products at our stores. While we've made a
business decision (but not a personal one) to continue selling cigarettes,
it's a decision we constantly review.
As long as we sell cigarettes, we won't promote them in our advertising and
we do everything we can to prevent minors from purchasing them.
If Walgreens stopped selling tobacco products, we'd lose sales from the
other convenience items that smokers normally would purchase while at our
stores. That's not good for our employees, our shareholders or the
convenience of the more than 20 percent of Americans who still smoke.
We're aware of the ordinance that has been introduced in San Francisco that
would ban tobacco sales from drugstores with pharmacies. We're very
concerned that the ordinance discriminates against drugstores and doesn't
include other retailers (such as grocery stores and "big box" retailers)
that also have pharmacies and employ pharmacists. That creates an unfair
competitive environment.
We also believe it's better to have people buying tobacco products at a
store like ours (where we also have a complete line of smoking cessation
products available and pharmacists on duty to counsel on ways to stop
smoking) than to allow people only to purchase tobacco products at
convenience stores or gas stations that typically don't have smoking
cessation products available nor anyone available on staff to counsel and
provide information on how to quit smoking.
Thank you for letting us know your concerns. Again, this is an issue that's
constantly under review, and we'll continue to evaluate how tobacco
products fit into our entire mix of products. I realize you may still
disagree with our decision, but at least you'll know our reasoning.
Sincerely,
Anna K.
Consumer Response Representative
My reply:
Dear Anna K.:
Thank you for your response to my complaint. I'm really troubled, though, by the hypocrisy you show.
First, you state that you've "made a business decision (but not a personal one) to continue selling cigarettes." I'm not sure whether you mean that you, personally, haven't made the decision, or if you mean the corporation finds the practice distasteful. If it's the latter, then the corporation needs to review its code of ethics and its mission. Right now, the message you send is that your mission is to maximize profits, regardless of health consequences.
Second, you state that you don't advertise the products and try to make sure you don't sell to minors. When I go into Walgreens all around the country, I see the cigarettes prominently displayed behind the cashier (and the candy), often with kids products on top of and next to the displays, and paid logos featured prominently. Again, I understand this maximizes profits but it's against what a pharmacy is supposed to be about. It also belies your claim of advertising. Perhaps they aren't in the circulars, but they are certainly being marketed, and to kids on top of that, when they are juxtaposed with products that entice kids.
Third, you might lose some profits from smokers not coming for convenience items, but you may find some people finding your stores more pleasant and family friendly to make up for it. This would be similar to the bars and restaurants complaining they would lose business if smoking were banned from them. They didn't lose business, and in fact many gained business because they were more comfortable to be in. I certainly would shop pharmacies for my convenience items if they didn't sell tobacco, assuming they were convenient. After all, it's about convenience. This is why I doubt you would lose much business. Another point: Target has sold no tobacco for years and isn't hurting for business from Wal-Mart, which unfortunately does.
It's interesting that you put the "convenience of the more than 20 percent of Americans who still smoke" ahead of their health. You'll find the percentage of people in San Francisco who smoke is much smaller than 20 percent. It's estimated that less than 14 percent of Californians smoke; SF is one of the localities that helps pull it lower, I'm sure. Further reducing the places cigarettes are available will help more to quit. Pharmacies, which we've been taught since we were very young are places of healing, are a logical place to take off the list of places they're available.
Fourth, I understand it's not fair. You are correct. Stores with pharmacies should not sell tobacco products. Period. It does make sense, however to first focus on the stores than market themselves primarily as pharmacies, companies that are concerned about our health.
Fifth, the argument about smoking cessation counseling is disingenuous at best. It will be much easier for someone who's trying to quit to get the smoking cessation products and counseling at a place where the thing they're addicted to is not available. Even the liquor stores I've been to have many stop smoking products alongside the cigarettes. I don't know how many people buy them, though. I think if someone is serious about it, they will come to a pharmacy. It's even a marketing opportunity for you!
Lastly, your loud protest, including your attempt to mobilize smokers, sends a terrible message, especially to young people. By doing that, you are enabling the smokers and advertising to young people who see your fliers that it should be important to smokers that cigarettes be sold in your store--again, a place that's supposed to help people be healthy.
I understand your reasoning. Most of it is rationalization in the interest of profits. You have made this clear. I will be posting our correspondence online. And I will make sure everyone I know understands your unfortunate priorities.
Sincerely,
Lee Cameron
UPDATE 10/14 CONTINUED: Walgreens' second letter:
Dear Anne K.:
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I need to respond to your points.
Your first point is reasonable, if lacking ethics and morality. It is a discriminatory law and does create an uneven playing field. I would think, though, a business whose primary reputation, if not primary income, is as a pharmacy would embrace the opportunity to promote health instead of death and disease.
This may not have an impact the sales of cigarettes in the short term, but could help some to quit. The impact on your business and that of your competitors is largely unknown and your response is overheated. And for you to claim you don't actively promote the sale of tobacco is disingenuous. You certainly do with the logos prominently displayed behind the counter (at a minimum--I've also seen them in windows and doors in the past). And the side-by-side display of cigarettes and stop smoking products gives young people the impression that it's okay to start because it's easy to quit with these helpful aids. So that further promotes the sale of tobacco. If people are looking for help, they'll come to you; in fact, they may be more likely to and have a better chance of success without cigarettes staring them in the face when they come in for the stop smoking products.
The perspective you continue to show is that you favor profits over public health. In fact, outside the weak argument about pharmacists being on hand to help smokers, you only discuss money. And your enlistment of smokers to stop the city from depriving them of a place to buy cigarettes is unconscionable, and sends a bad message both to smokers and young people.
I understand you're a business, but you need to decide what business you're in. If you're simply a convenience store that happens to sell prescription drugs, you should stop marketing yourself as "Walgreens Pharmacy" and deemphasize the pharmaceutical aspect of your business. It's a disservice to the public.
These correspondences will also be posted on the internet.
Sincerely,
Lee Cameron
UPDATE 2/9: First of all, Walgreen's lawsuit was thrown out by a judge, rightfully so.
Second of all, Boston has followed SF's lead, banning tobacco sales in pharmacies, and Walgreens is going along. Good. Boston's also going after the cigar bars. Good. Those things (along with a lot of celebrity and media hype) have sucked in a lot of people who decided cigars must not be so bad. They are.
Thank you for your response to my complaint. I'm really troubled, though, by the hypocrisy you show.
First, you state that you've "made a business decision (but not a personal one) to continue selling cigarettes." I'm not sure whether you mean that you, personally, haven't made the decision, or if you mean the corporation finds the practice distasteful. If it's the latter, then the corporation needs to review its code of ethics and its mission. Right now, the message you send is that your mission is to maximize profits, regardless of health consequences.
Second, you state that you don't advertise the products and try to make sure you don't sell to minors. When I go into Walgreens all around the country, I see the cigarettes prominently displayed behind the cashier (and the candy), often with kids products on top of and next to the displays, and paid logos featured prominently. Again, I understand this maximizes profits but it's against what a pharmacy is supposed to be about. It also belies your claim of advertising. Perhaps they aren't in the circulars, but they are certainly being marketed, and to kids on top of that, when they are juxtaposed with products that entice kids.
Third, you might lose some profits from smokers not coming for convenience items, but you may find some people finding your stores more pleasant and family friendly to make up for it. This would be similar to the bars and restaurants complaining they would lose business if smoking were banned from them. They didn't lose business, and in fact many gained business because they were more comfortable to be in. I certainly would shop pharmacies for my convenience items if they didn't sell tobacco, assuming they were convenient. After all, it's about convenience. This is why I doubt you would lose much business. Another point: Target has sold no tobacco for years and isn't hurting for business from Wal-Mart, which unfortunately does.
It's interesting that you put the "convenience of the more than 20 percent of Americans who still smoke" ahead of their health. You'll find the percentage of people in San Francisco who smoke is much smaller than 20 percent. It's estimated that less than 14 percent of Californians smoke; SF is one of the localities that helps pull it lower, I'm sure. Further reducing the places cigarettes are available will help more to quit. Pharmacies, which we've been taught since we were very young are places of healing, are a logical place to take off the list of places they're available.
Fourth, I understand it's not fair. You are correct. Stores with pharmacies should not sell tobacco products. Period. It does make sense, however to first focus on the stores than market themselves primarily as pharmacies, companies that are concerned about our health.
Fifth, the argument about smoking cessation counseling is disingenuous at best. It will be much easier for someone who's trying to quit to get the smoking cessation products and counseling at a place where the thing they're addicted to is not available. Even the liquor stores I've been to have many stop smoking products alongside the cigarettes. I don't know how many people buy them, though. I think if someone is serious about it, they will come to a pharmacy. It's even a marketing opportunity for you!
Lastly, your loud protest, including your attempt to mobilize smokers, sends a terrible message, especially to young people. By doing that, you are enabling the smokers and advertising to young people who see your fliers that it should be important to smokers that cigarettes be sold in your store--again, a place that's supposed to help people be healthy.
I understand your reasoning. Most of it is rationalization in the interest of profits. You have made this clear. I will be posting our correspondence online. And I will make sure everyone I know understands your unfortunate priorities.
Sincerely,
Lee Cameron
UPDATE 10/14 CONTINUED: Walgreens' second letter:
And finally, my reply:
October 13, 2008
Dear Lee Cameron,
Thank you for contacting us regarding the San Francisco ban on drugstores
selling tobacco products. Please realize that we are against this ban for
one reason -- because it unfairly targets only drugstores with pharmacies,
as opposed to treating all retailers with pharmacies fairly. That makes
this a discriminatory law and creates an uneven playing field on which to
compete with other retailers.
The city admits that this ordinance won't impact the amount of tobacco
products purchased and also admits that businesses that are allowed to
continue selling cigarettes could be rewarded with more sales and more
jobs. So in effect, the city is rewarding retailers who continue selling
cigarettes and penalizing retailers that don't. The ordinance also will
discourage smokers from coming to our stores -- where they can be helped by
pharmacists trained to counsel smokers on smoking cessation products that
we sell -- and instead sends them to retailers such as tobacco shops that
actively promote the sale of tobacco. That makes this law unfair and
ineffective, which is why we opposed it.
Thank you for contacting us on this matter. Although you may still disagree
with us, we hope we're able to provide some additional perspective on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Anna K.
Consumer Response Representative
Ref # 1712561
Dear Anne K.:
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I need to respond to your points.
Your first point is reasonable, if lacking ethics and morality. It is a discriminatory law and does create an uneven playing field. I would think, though, a business whose primary reputation, if not primary income, is as a pharmacy would embrace the opportunity to promote health instead of death and disease.
This may not have an impact the sales of cigarettes in the short term, but could help some to quit. The impact on your business and that of your competitors is largely unknown and your response is overheated. And for you to claim you don't actively promote the sale of tobacco is disingenuous. You certainly do with the logos prominently displayed behind the counter (at a minimum--I've also seen them in windows and doors in the past). And the side-by-side display of cigarettes and stop smoking products gives young people the impression that it's okay to start because it's easy to quit with these helpful aids. So that further promotes the sale of tobacco. If people are looking for help, they'll come to you; in fact, they may be more likely to and have a better chance of success without cigarettes staring them in the face when they come in for the stop smoking products.
The perspective you continue to show is that you favor profits over public health. In fact, outside the weak argument about pharmacists being on hand to help smokers, you only discuss money. And your enlistment of smokers to stop the city from depriving them of a place to buy cigarettes is unconscionable, and sends a bad message both to smokers and young people.
I understand you're a business, but you need to decide what business you're in. If you're simply a convenience store that happens to sell prescription drugs, you should stop marketing yourself as "Walgreens Pharmacy" and deemphasize the pharmaceutical aspect of your business. It's a disservice to the public.
These correspondences will also be posted on the internet.
Sincerely,
Lee Cameron
UPDATE 2/9: First of all, Walgreen's lawsuit was thrown out by a judge, rightfully so.
Second of all, Boston has followed SF's lead, banning tobacco sales in pharmacies, and Walgreens is going along. Good. Boston's also going after the cigar bars. Good. Those things (along with a lot of celebrity and media hype) have sucked in a lot of people who decided cigars must not be so bad. They are.
Labels: Health
posted by --Lee @ 5:08 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home