They still have whole aisle's dedicated to beer and junk food, so it's about more than just eliminating unhealthful offerings from their stores.
Tobacco is on the way out in the US, in 10 or 20 years you'll have to buy tobacco in specialty stores. I think CVS just saw the writing on the wall and seized a convenient opportunity to jettison the business.
I'm not too into the "beer and junk food" line. I see a fairly large difference between offering choices that can be unhealthy if a person overdoes them, and helping to lobby governments to keep markets open for an addictive, harmful drug.
Depends on how you spin it. I know many people who would characterize ethanol as an "addictive, harmful drug". Large food companies spend lots of money trying to make their products more appealing, and by some evidence addicting.
The difference is that people can get drunk and blow out their liver or get fat and blow out their pancreas (usually) without direct effects to those around them. Since 90% of tobacco users have to use it in a way that blows every bystander's lungs out while they are blowing their own out, it gets much more vitriol.
>Since 90% of tobacco users have to use it in a way that blows every bystander's lungs out while they are blowing their own out, it gets much more vitriol.
What's funny about this is that it's not necessarily true. The whole "secondhand smoke" thing appears to be one of those convenient lies aimed at a greater good. It certainly isn't blowing out anyone's lungs. Still, the falloff in smoking is something I'm totally into, just because it stinks.
There is no science at all supporting the notion that the harm from ethanol approaches that of tobacco, so I'm not too worried about the people you know. In particular, the addiction rates are vastly different.
Basically, your opening sentence says it all: your point relies on spin to be sharp.
Many second-hand smoke studies are performed on spouses of smokers, over long periods of time (living w/ a smoker for decades, basically). Second-hand smoke in say, a park (where smoking is frequently banned) is not a factor. It's a convenient lie to discourage smoking.
I think it could be argued that people that drink heavily harm more people around them then people that smoke. I don't have any studies to say which one is worse, but there is no way you can say people that get drunk don't have a direct effect on those around them.
What makes you think they won't address that in the future? They do need to balance the economics of their business. There's no point in removing every negative aisle at the same time if it will destroy (or make them lose control of) their business.
Tobacco is on the way out in the US, in 10 or 20 years you'll have to buy tobacco in specialty stores. I think CVS just saw the writing on the wall and seized a convenient opportunity to jettison the business.