The CVS drugstore chain announced on Wednesday that it will no longer sell any tobacco products in any of its stores nationwide, starting in October.
Back in 2008, San Francisco banned the sale of tobacco products in drug stores. The following year, Boston, Needham, and then Newton enacted similar bans. In the years since, 14 other Massachusetts towns followed suit with similar bans.
The Newton ban was initially proposed by aldermen Ted Hess-Mahan, Vicki Danberg, and John Freedman and then enacted by the full board in November 2009. Since then no cigarettes have been sold in any Newton CVS, or other drug stores.
In Wednesday’s announcement from CVS, there was no mention of these local bans. I imagine though that these community bans may have been what first drew CVS’s attention to the issue.
The local bans in large cities like Boston and San Francisco certainly attracted attention and lawsuits, but even before CVS decided to stop selling tobacco products in its pharmacies it was prohibited in over 60 Massachusetts cities and towns. To date, Acton, Arlington, Ashland, Barnstable, Barre, Bedford, Boston, Brewster, Brookline, Buckland, Chatham, Concord, Dartmouth, Everett, Fairhaven, Fall River, Falmouth, Fitchburg, Gardner, Gill, Gloucester, Harwich, Hatfield, Haverill, Lancaster, Lee, Lenox, Leominster, Lowell, Malden, Melrose, Middleboro, Middleton, Needham, Montague, Newton, New Bedford, North Attleboro, Oxford, Pittsfield, Reading, Revere, Rochester, Salem, Saugus, Somerville, Southboro, Springfield, Stockbridge, Wakefield, Walpole, Wareham, Watertown, Wellesley, West Boylston, West Springfield, Westford, Westwood, Westport, Whately, Winchester, Worcester and Yarmouth have all passed bans.
The local bans and the bills filed in the state legislature have been part of a concerted effort by many people in public health and government. Dr. Alexander White, a friend of mine from church who is a pulmonary physician and an officer in the Massachusetts Thoracic Society, and the folks at the Massachusetts Municipal Association deserve a lot of credit for the Newton ordinance and the other bans on tobacco sales in pharmacies passed across the state.
For an interesting take on CVS’s decision, you might want to check out this political blog by WPRI-TV reporter, Ted Nesi. He says CVS is willing to forgo $2 billion in tobacco sales because the company believes there is a lot more money to be made as a “respected and reputable member of the health-care industry.” In other words, not selling tobacco products in CVS pharmacies that are trying to establish themselves as health care providers as well as health care product retailers is good for business.
Whatever the reason, I applaud CVS for deciding to stop selling cigarettes and I hope Walgreens. Rite-Aid and the other national chains follow suit. Significantly, Walgreens and Rite-Aid both worked with tobacco companies to actively promote and market in-house brands of cigarettes for many years after the the American Pharmacists Association took the position it was unethical for its members to sell tobacco products.
@Ted. You were a trail blazer on this. Thanks.
The corporate decision is more complex than local regulations. First, sales of $2 billion in smokes ain’t what it used to be — there’s a declining profit under national and local taxes and such. Second, the business wants to expand sales through offering direct to consumer healthcare, including offerings to corporations. There are regulatory jumps to be made in some of this, and a basic brand image is part of why people buy from a given provider. The business decision is they can expand profits at a greater clip through improved branding directly by dropping smokes. Makes sense, would you visit a doctor that sold Marlboros? It would be a huge leap to think CVS reacted to Newton or any other market.