September 10, 2008
Walgreens Seeks to Overturn S.F. Cigarette Ban
As one of the top pharmacies in the U.S., Walgreens is often identified by consumers with promoting better health. The chain has sought to cultivate that image with in-store clinics, low-cost prescription medicine programs, consumer counseling and other initiatives. It is that very reputation that makes the chain’s decision to fight San Francisco’s ban on the sale of cigarettes somewhat puzzling.
The chain, recently filed an emergency injunction seeking to stop the San Francisco ban from going into effect on Oct. 1 as scheduled. A Walgreens spokesperson, Tiffani Bruce, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the law was inherently unfair because it forced drugstores to give up the sale of tobacco products while allowing supermarkets, mass merchants and others to continue selling and profiting from cigarettes and other items.
“Our position is based solely on being fair across different types of retailers,” said Ms. Bruce.
“Our pharmacists are trained to counsel smokers on smoking cessation products and how to go about kicking their habit,” she told the Chronicle. “This ordinance will discourage smokers from coming to a place where they can have this type of access.”
San Francisco’s director of the Department of Public Health isn’t buying Walgreens’ story.
“It’s one thing to say you’re doing it for the convenience of your customers, but to actually sue? To say this is your right to sell the substance associated with the No. 1 cause of preventable death?” Mr. Katz said. “It’s unbelievable to me.”
Discussion Questions: Will Walgreens’ suit, successful or not, hurt its standing as a provider of health care products and services in San Francisco? Or will consumers agree with the chain that the ruling is unfair?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
This should help us remember, in the unlikely event that we forgot, that Walgreens is in business to make money, not save lives. What a contrast to the supermarkets that have voluntarily quit selling tobacco products.
I have to agree with most of the commenters above. Much as I am anti-smoking, this statute seems grossly unfair to a particular type of retailer. I see the logic from a social perspective, but that doesn’t make it a good law. But I also agree with the comment above that Walgreens is on dangerous ground here.
Hopefully they did all they could to lobby lawmakers before this became a law, and tried their best to get an industry group with standing to sue to bring it to court before resorting to dragging their own name into it. But I expect they made a calculated risk that whatever PR hit they take now is not nearly as great as allowing the precedent to stand on this type of regulation.
Retail veteran…good point! Maybe CVS will jump on board here as the same thing is happening in Boston.
Is it just me that finds it profoundly ironic that the same retail outlets that purvey tobacco products may also sell a myriad of products designed to mitigate the symptoms of tobacco use–from cough syrup to teeth whiteners?
The same could be said about sales of packaged junk foods and diet aids under the same roof. Or maybe that’s not irony, just smart, cold business in accord with the present rules of the game.
The SF municipal government is testing some interesting limits here in the name of public health. A decade ago it was a ban on smoking in public spaces, now it tries to limit where tobacco products may be sold. Bans on trans-fats in restaurants fall into this category. Maybe next we’ll see high-fructose corn syrup or red meat or non-organic vegetables proscribed.
Walgreens probably has basis to question this ordinance from a legal or fairness perspective. And it certainly means dollars and cents to the company–not just in direct sales of tobacco, but also in aftermarket sales of breath mints and remedies. Taking on this fight won’t do its image as a health provider much good, however.
San Francisco’s leadership is goofy. It is easier to purchase and smoke pot in the city than cigarettes. They tried to pass a law stating that people could not ‘own’ dogs they could just be guardians.
Walgreens is an urban convenience store. If they don’t fight this, they will next be told that they cannot sell candy because it causes obesity. Then they will be told that many of the frozen food products that they carry are not as healthy as the city nutritionist recommends. Then they will be told that they cannot sell any meat products as it is inhumane. Then the will be told that they can’t sell Vaseline petroleum jelly because it comes from offshore drilling. There is nothing that San Francisco would not try to regulate except weirdness. Go Walgreens!
Walgreens made a mistake here. The suit is legitimate but should have been filed by a retail association or a group of retailers. By taking the lead here, Walgreens makes it clear that profits come before protecting the health of its customers.
Living in the Bay Area, it is obvious that the City of SF continues to abuse government authority on a regular basis. The city government is balanced between fascists like Newsom (“private property and free enterprise are fine, so long as businesses do exactly what I, the mayor, want them to do”) and socialists like Daly/Peskin (“profit is always evil–the city ought to run everything”). One company standing up a little bit to them won’t help, but maybe if enough companies do then things might change someday.
No matter what business you’re in, what image you try to portray, what the mission statement is, public or private, what type of employees you hire and who your target consumer is, nothing has changed since the beginning of time…profit trumps everything.
This ban by San Francisco is unbelievable. It is government control at its best. I see it as a form of censorship. Mr. Katz’s claim to Walgreens that cancer is the number one preventable cause of death is arguable. Some might say that heart disease is also preventable, yet stores are still allowed to sell butter and other items full of fat. Using Mr. Katz’s philosophy, Walgreens should not be able to sell candy or anything else that could hurt us.
Since when does San Francisco or Mr. Katz have the right to tell people what is or is not good for them? I am not a smoker, but I find this degree of legislation to be a threat to our civil liberties as both individuals and as companies. Walgreens is NOT Mr. Katz’s company, it is not owned by San Francisco and they are not responsible to the Walgreens share holders.
Politicians should not be interfering with business. I am 100% behind Walgreens in their effort to maintain what is best for their business, share holders and employees. If people want to smoke, we already dictate to them where they can smoke, we shouldn’t dictate to them where they have to buy their cigarettes.
Walgreens should have the right to sell anything and everything that any other outlet is allowed to sell. What becomes the definition of a drug store/pharmacy? What about big box stores that have multiple stores within a store? If pharmacies are excluded, then any store within a store should also be penalized similarly.
As we all pretty much agreed in a thread back on July 31, San Francisco’s ban, as written, is unfair and absurd. Walgreens won’t earn any PR points for its stance, but if the ban is unfair and absurd, why not fight it?
As George wrote back on July 31, “The ordinance, which was initially proposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, will ban the sale of tobacco in chain and independent drugstores while allowing supermarkets, mass merchants and warehouse clubs with pharmacies to continue selling the products.”
Yep, absurd.
The rule in Ontario is that if you sell ANY products related to health, you are not allowed to sell tobacco products. If supermarkets in the SF area sell Tylenol and cigarettes, that seems unfair to me. Should Walgreens sue? Probably not, as this could be an image buster. But like mentioned in a previous post, Walgreens is here to make money and should not be subject to unfair selling practices.
I don’t think this is going away quickly–nor should it–before someone really examines the rule of law here.
You can make the case that many supermarkets also promote healthy living. Should they be banned from selling tobacco products? Or, how much of a healthy image do you have to have before you must stop selling the products? And will the law stop drugstores from selling high fat, high calorie foods?
I don’t think there’s an easy answer here. But I have a serious problem with government–municipal, state or federal–telling stores what they can and can’t sell. Walgreens is going to have to look at its own P&Ls and image-meisters to determine the best course of action.
Certainly I’ve identified Walgreens as a company offering consumers pharmaceutical products to help them get better, to prevent illness, and to facilitate dealing with illness. However, I’ve never made the assumption that Walgreens, as a company, was concerned about promoting better health. It’s the place I go when I’m sick and while I’m waiting for those prescriptions to be filled there are lots of things to look at while waiting. If I read the weekly flyer, I can find convenience items on sale and may go there to pick them up. I never thought anything, one way or the other, about the fact that they sold cigarettes.
So fighting the ban on selling cigarettes because they are a particular type of store and should be not be banned from selling cigarettes because of the type of store they are doesn’t create a problem for me. While this argument rests on my personal assumptions I wonder how many people associate Walgreens with the idea that it is the place to go to stay healthy.
We can all agree that the law is absurd, but the risk to retail is the future enactment of this law in additional cities, or further regulation in SF. It may be expensive to fight, but Walgreens and other drugstores cannot afford to leave the law unchallenged.
The fact that cigarettes and alcohol are legal makes them socially acceptable. If they were illegal, society would consider a person a drug addict that consumed these products. Cigarettes are big business and so is treating the symptoms for the No. 1 preventable cause of death in this country, which is right up there with obesity–which is now considered a disease–only medicine (legal drugs) can cure it. Should we put fast food chains and grocery stores in the same context as drug peddlers? What ever happened to personal accountability? Privatize the profits…socialize the losses.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
This should help us remember, in the unlikely event that we forgot, that Walgreens is in business to make money, not save lives. What a contrast to the supermarkets that have voluntarily quit selling tobacco products.
I have to agree with most of the commenters above. Much as I am anti-smoking, this statute seems grossly unfair to a particular type of retailer. I see the logic from a social perspective, but that doesn’t make it a good law. But I also agree with the comment above that Walgreens is on dangerous ground here.
Hopefully they did all they could to lobby lawmakers before this became a law, and tried their best to get an industry group with standing to sue to bring it to court before resorting to dragging their own name into it. But I expect they made a calculated risk that whatever PR hit they take now is not nearly as great as allowing the precedent to stand on this type of regulation.
Retail veteran…good point! Maybe CVS will jump on board here as the same thing is happening in Boston.
Is it just me that finds it profoundly ironic that the same retail outlets that purvey tobacco products may also sell a myriad of products designed to mitigate the symptoms of tobacco use–from cough syrup to teeth whiteners?
The same could be said about sales of packaged junk foods and diet aids under the same roof. Or maybe that’s not irony, just smart, cold business in accord with the present rules of the game.
The SF municipal government is testing some interesting limits here in the name of public health. A decade ago it was a ban on smoking in public spaces, now it tries to limit where tobacco products may be sold. Bans on trans-fats in restaurants fall into this category. Maybe next we’ll see high-fructose corn syrup or red meat or non-organic vegetables proscribed.
Walgreens probably has basis to question this ordinance from a legal or fairness perspective. And it certainly means dollars and cents to the company–not just in direct sales of tobacco, but also in aftermarket sales of breath mints and remedies. Taking on this fight won’t do its image as a health provider much good, however.
San Francisco’s leadership is goofy. It is easier to purchase and smoke pot in the city than cigarettes. They tried to pass a law stating that people could not ‘own’ dogs they could just be guardians.
Walgreens is an urban convenience store. If they don’t fight this, they will next be told that they cannot sell candy because it causes obesity. Then they will be told that many of the frozen food products that they carry are not as healthy as the city nutritionist recommends. Then they will be told that they cannot sell any meat products as it is inhumane. Then the will be told that they can’t sell Vaseline petroleum jelly because it comes from offshore drilling. There is nothing that San Francisco would not try to regulate except weirdness. Go Walgreens!
Walgreens made a mistake here. The suit is legitimate but should have been filed by a retail association or a group of retailers. By taking the lead here, Walgreens makes it clear that profits come before protecting the health of its customers.
Living in the Bay Area, it is obvious that the City of SF continues to abuse government authority on a regular basis. The city government is balanced between fascists like Newsom (“private property and free enterprise are fine, so long as businesses do exactly what I, the mayor, want them to do”) and socialists like Daly/Peskin (“profit is always evil–the city ought to run everything”). One company standing up a little bit to them won’t help, but maybe if enough companies do then things might change someday.
No matter what business you’re in, what image you try to portray, what the mission statement is, public or private, what type of employees you hire and who your target consumer is, nothing has changed since the beginning of time…profit trumps everything.
This ban by San Francisco is unbelievable. It is government control at its best. I see it as a form of censorship. Mr. Katz’s claim to Walgreens that cancer is the number one preventable cause of death is arguable. Some might say that heart disease is also preventable, yet stores are still allowed to sell butter and other items full of fat. Using Mr. Katz’s philosophy, Walgreens should not be able to sell candy or anything else that could hurt us.
Since when does San Francisco or Mr. Katz have the right to tell people what is or is not good for them? I am not a smoker, but I find this degree of legislation to be a threat to our civil liberties as both individuals and as companies. Walgreens is NOT Mr. Katz’s company, it is not owned by San Francisco and they are not responsible to the Walgreens share holders.
Politicians should not be interfering with business. I am 100% behind Walgreens in their effort to maintain what is best for their business, share holders and employees. If people want to smoke, we already dictate to them where they can smoke, we shouldn’t dictate to them where they have to buy their cigarettes.
Walgreens should have the right to sell anything and everything that any other outlet is allowed to sell. What becomes the definition of a drug store/pharmacy? What about big box stores that have multiple stores within a store? If pharmacies are excluded, then any store within a store should also be penalized similarly.
As we all pretty much agreed in a thread back on July 31, San Francisco’s ban, as written, is unfair and absurd. Walgreens won’t earn any PR points for its stance, but if the ban is unfair and absurd, why not fight it?
As George wrote back on July 31, “The ordinance, which was initially proposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, will ban the sale of tobacco in chain and independent drugstores while allowing supermarkets, mass merchants and warehouse clubs with pharmacies to continue selling the products.”
Yep, absurd.
The rule in Ontario is that if you sell ANY products related to health, you are not allowed to sell tobacco products. If supermarkets in the SF area sell Tylenol and cigarettes, that seems unfair to me. Should Walgreens sue? Probably not, as this could be an image buster. But like mentioned in a previous post, Walgreens is here to make money and should not be subject to unfair selling practices.
I don’t think this is going away quickly–nor should it–before someone really examines the rule of law here.
You can make the case that many supermarkets also promote healthy living. Should they be banned from selling tobacco products? Or, how much of a healthy image do you have to have before you must stop selling the products? And will the law stop drugstores from selling high fat, high calorie foods?
I don’t think there’s an easy answer here. But I have a serious problem with government–municipal, state or federal–telling stores what they can and can’t sell. Walgreens is going to have to look at its own P&Ls and image-meisters to determine the best course of action.
Certainly I’ve identified Walgreens as a company offering consumers pharmaceutical products to help them get better, to prevent illness, and to facilitate dealing with illness. However, I’ve never made the assumption that Walgreens, as a company, was concerned about promoting better health. It’s the place I go when I’m sick and while I’m waiting for those prescriptions to be filled there are lots of things to look at while waiting. If I read the weekly flyer, I can find convenience items on sale and may go there to pick them up. I never thought anything, one way or the other, about the fact that they sold cigarettes.
So fighting the ban on selling cigarettes because they are a particular type of store and should be not be banned from selling cigarettes because of the type of store they are doesn’t create a problem for me. While this argument rests on my personal assumptions I wonder how many people associate Walgreens with the idea that it is the place to go to stay healthy.
We can all agree that the law is absurd, but the risk to retail is the future enactment of this law in additional cities, or further regulation in SF. It may be expensive to fight, but Walgreens and other drugstores cannot afford to leave the law unchallenged.
The fact that cigarettes and alcohol are legal makes them socially acceptable. If they were illegal, society would consider a person a drug addict that consumed these products. Cigarettes are big business and so is treating the symptoms for the No. 1 preventable cause of death in this country, which is right up there with obesity–which is now considered a disease–only medicine (legal drugs) can cure it. Should we put fast food chains and grocery stores in the same context as drug peddlers? What ever happened to personal accountability? Privatize the profits…socialize the losses.