Will Walgreens become the Preferred Drug Store for cigarette smokers?

Will Walgreen's lengthy Chicago-area history help it keep business if tobacco products actually become an issue?

I have to admit to being somewhat amused this week by the announcement by CVS that they will stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products later this year.

It has me wondering if the business battle between newcomer CVS and long-time Chicago-area pharmaceutical retailer Walgreen’s will now turn to trying to gain a business advantage concerning those people who need to have their daily dose of “smokes.”

WILL CVS NOW try to claim a high moralistic attitude because they won’t sell cigarettes? Will they be the start of a trend in which the sight of all those racks of cigarette packs and cartons behind the cash register will become obsolete?

Or something you only see in a seedier sort of business?

Is that what Walgreen’s is destined to become? Since the Deerfield-based retailer indicated this week they do not plan to follow suit on cigarettes.

They’re adopting the line of logic used by convenience stores, gasoline stations and other businesses that include tobacco products on their shelves – they add to the financial bottom line in a way that can make the difference between being profitable or going out of business altogether.

HOW FAR WILL Walgreen’s be prepared to carry this decision out? Because they certainly want to be taken seriously in terms of health care issues.

In fact, there are those industry analysts who contend that CVS’ decision to drop cigarettes from their stores is less about a high-minded moral statement and more about a bottom-line business decision.

As in they can make more money ultimately by having various clinics, vaccination services and other health care options in their stores – services with which the sight of cigarette cartons would just be too much of a clash!

Personally, I don’t smoke. I never have. Just something about the smell was always so unappealing that I never felt compelled to try.

WHICH MAKES ME not so much appreciate a business that doesn’t encourage smoking, as much as dislike a business that does.

I have way too many memories of getting stuck in lines waiting to make a purchase because the person right ahead of me either can’t make up their mind what brand of cigarettes they want, or (more often) are getting all worked up into a frenzy that demands to see a store manager because the sales clerk can’t figure out which of the variety of brands it is that the customer wants.

Invariably, it winds up being a small purchase I was making (sometimes, as little as purchasing a newspaper or two – yes, I still prefer ink on paper to this format).

Which makes such a purchase a bigger deal than it has to be!

THERE’S ALSO THE case that I currently live at a place with both a Walgreen’s and a CVS store within three blocks of me. I can’t say I favored either one of them in the past.

But I may well have to start spending more money at the CVS if this tobacco sales issue actually becomes a controversy.

Because I’m sure the people who want to view their cigarettes as some sort of civil rights issue (never mind the real issues of our society) will be more than willing to make a stink about this – and not just because their clothes and breath reeks of inhaling too much tobacco fumes throughout their lives.

There are times when I wonder if people are willing to “fight to the death” for their cigarette habit as intensely as those who are making an issue of “concealed carry. Perhaps it’s the same people – a cigarette pack in the shirt pocket and pistol tucked in the hip.

OR MAYBE A cigarette pack and pistol tucked in the purse?

While the rest of us consider fighting for issues that really matter in our daily lives. Including which place might help us look out better for our health.

Could that now be CVS?

  -30-

Some people are way too touchy!

Where’s the Tylenol?

I feel like I need to reach for a bottle, after learning of the things that get some people all worked up.

WHETHER IT’S JENNY McCarthy, or the bomber who took out the Boston Marathon with one of his explosive devices. The degree to which some people are upset makes me wonder if they’re just determined to be miserable.

As if they’d be upset with themselves if there wasn’t something (anything) for them to get all upset about.

I think I’m more bothered with the people who have nothing better to worry about than the cover of Rolling Stone magazine – which quite often does serious reporting about issues of great significance to our society.

In the upcoming issue, they’re publishing a story about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – one of the suspects in the explosion in Boston that killed a few participants in the marathon; while also injuring many dozens of others.

I HAVEN’T READ the story yet, although it seems the magazine is trying to write a serious piece of reporting that shows just how an individual can sink to such a contemptible level.

Because it’s the big story, it is the “cover.” Which means Tsarnaev gets his picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

That has the kind of people who spend way too much of their time on the Internet making hostile comments. They don’t want him being “glorified,” even though I don’t see how this is glorification.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Tsarnaev himself were to view this as demonification of his persona. I doubt he’s going to be pleased with the image that will be presented of himself.

YET THE OVERLY touchy amongst us want to complain. And they even got at least two significant business interests – the CVS and Walgreens drug-store chains – to say they won’t carry the magazine’s upcoming issue.

Personally, I don’t buy magazines at either store (their selections aren’t that impressive -- I just don't care about "Shape" magazine). But I’m appalled by both actions.

In the case of CVS, they say their roots as a New England-based company make them sensitive to Boston’s feelings on this matter. So now, Rolling Stone can claim they were “banned in Boston.” Maybe sales elsewhere will compensate for the loss, because such a status makes this appear to be a big deal that it really isn't.

I suspect the people who do wind up reading the story will find themselves disappointed. Which is why I wish the Chicago-area-based Walgreens had not made such a decision. I’d always like to think Chicago interests are more common-sense than the rest of the country.

APPARENTLY, THEY’RE NOT always such.

Then, there’s the case of McCarthy – who earlier this week got herself a bigger media platform than the weekly advice column she writes for the Chicago Sun-Times. She’s going to be on Barbara Walters’ television creation – The View.

She’s going to be a regular hostess. But while most of us think of her as nothing more than the Mother McAuley girl who turned a Playboy spread into fame as a not-quite actress but definitely a pop-star, she has in recent years come up with the theory that her son’s autism was caused by vaccinations.

That has the medical community now upset that McCarthy would get a permanent place on a prominent daytime TV show. Even though I’d like to think that real people are too busy working during the day to actually watch The View, it seems they think Jenny is now going to be using the airwaves to spew her theories on the matter.

PERSONALLY, I THINK the people who actually watch the program would be bored to death if she actually did become the single-note clown that they’re predicting she will be. She'd get fired if she actually tried to use the program for an autism crusade.

Do I see the fate of the Republic being threatened by McCarthy’s new job? I can’t!

I’m actually more frightened by all the people who felt compelled to pounce on this issue right when it happened at the beginning of the week. Talk about having way too much free time on their hands.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, I don’t really see any resemblance to Jim Morrison. Then again, I’m the type of person who never really thought one-time Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin bore any resemblance to Tina Fey. I just don’t see it.

 

In either case!

 

Chia Obama just tacky, not offensive

I’m starting to think I made a mistake earlier this week when I was at a Walgreen’s pharmacy.

While waiting in line to pay for a newspaper, I happened to look up and see a row of boxes containing the “Chia Obama,” the takeoff on the Chia Pet that is made to look like a bust of our nation’s 44th president.

IF I HAD known then what I know now, I would seriously have considered walking up to the row, taking all of them and making a large purchase.

Of course, I would have made sure to do nothing that would construe opening the boxes. I wouldn’t have even removed the price stickers from the boxes, and I would have kept my receipt. For I would have wanted it to be clearly evident to anyone who looked closely that these particular “Chia Obama” figurines were purchased from a Walgreen’s.

Because now, Walgreen’s has stopped selling the items.

One can purchase all kinds of souvenir magazines, designer plates, caps and t-shirts depicting Obama’s visage or his campaign logo at a Walgreen’s – and not just the one located in the Hyde Park neighborhood.

SOME OF THESE items are extremely tacky looking and cheap (in quality, not in price). Walgreen’s stores throughout the Chicago area are a goldmine for people looking to find all kinds of pseudo-souvenirs of this city’s first president (and no, I don’t count Ronald Reagan).

But Walgreen’s officials think it is the “Chia Obama” that reaches the level of potential offensiveness that they decided this week to take a stand and remove the item from their shelves.

It appears some people think the light brown Obama figurine with mossy green hair think is offensive to the president’s reputation. Some think it is borderline racist.

The company that manufactures the figurine are not offensive, but are, “hope, courage and pro-American.”

PERSONALLY, I THINK the truth lies in between these two extremes.

My initial reaction to learning of the “Chia Obama” was that it was a ridiculous concept, in large part because I don’t think the figurine looks anylike like Barack Obama. In fact, it barely looks human.

It looks like a generic face with green-dyed hair. In fact, my first reaction was to think that the figurine was supposed to be some sort of pop musician – rather than a political figure (be honest, most political people try to hide the photographs that show they once had dyed hair).

I didn’t think it offensive as much as just silly. And if being “pro-American” means being silly, then I suppose it is – although I personally would prefer to think that our nation stands for ideals greater than having a hair-like substance that is mossy green.

NOW I REALIZE that the “Chia Obama” will be available for those people who enjoy shopping on the Internet, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find some other retail chain that eventually agrees to carry the item.

It is the perfect impulse purchase for people who want to think they are making some sort of financial investment by buying a piece of memorabilia that will appreciate in value.

Actually, all this will appreciate in is kitsch. But buying this thing is no more ridiculous than buying one of those souvenir plates (complete with its own stand) that depicts Obama in all his presidential glory.

None of these items is ever going to be worth more than the $19.95 (plus tax) that one has to pay for it these days. It may someday be worth exactly that much (but in an era where inflation will make $20 of the future worth about as much as a buck or two is now).

SO PERHAPS NOT even all the Walgreen’s stickers and receipts in the world would add to the value of a “Chia Obama.” It probably is a good think that I just shook my head, moved ahead in line, and plunked down a couple of quarters for my copy of the Chicago Sun-Times (the cash registers at this particular Walgreen’s were not functioning properly, and the paper scanned at its old price).

Then, there’s always the most important reason why I should not have purchased even one of those “Chia Obama” figurines. I would have felt incredibly ridiculous having people see me toss away a perfectly good $20 bill and some change to purchase an item that fits the very definition of absurdity.

I would have been the person with the “Chia Obama” cradled under one arm, while holding my newly purchased newspaper over my face so that perhaps no one would recognize me.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Not only can you read all about the “Chia Obama” here, you also can (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/04/08/Walgreens-says-no-to-Ch-Ch-Chia-Obama/UPI-73961239200664/) watch the television commercials that promote the tacky item.

What will archeologists of 1,000 years from now think of us if they find a “Chia Obama” figurine (http://www.chiaobama.com/) among the rubble of our society.