BANNING ONE TYPE OF "DRUG" FROM STORES THAT SELL THEM

Volume 29, Issue 517 June 9, 2008

Matthew Gever

First, it was smoking on airplanes. Then it was restaurants and bars. Now pharmacies may be the next target in the crusade against tobacco.

Currently, at least four states—Illinois, New York, Rhode Island and Tennessee—are weighing whether to prohibit retail pharmacies from selling cigarettes and other tobacco products. The bills define pharmacies as retailers that sell prescription medications. Not included are convenience stores or grocery stores that sell over-the-counter medications but no prescription drugs. "It is contradictory and counterintuitive to sell such products in an establishment whose purpose is to provide remedies to health problems," said New York Assemblyman Sam Hoyt.

Others oppose the intrusion of government into the private sector. "Banning a legal product from being sold at a privately owned business because government feels that the sale of tobacco goes against what they believe drugstores should promote is a dismal argument," said John Nothdurft of the Heartland Institute, an Illinois public policy think tank. Nothdurft also pointed out that many drug stores sell products such as snack foods and sodas, which many consider part of an unhealthy lifestyle. A spokesperson for the National Association of Drug Stores said that they have not yet taken a position.

If successful, proponents of this nascent idea will follow in the footsteps of the few major retailers who have dropped out of the tobacco business. In January, the northeastern grocery store chain Wegman's (which has in-house pharmacies) ceased all sales of tobacco products in their stores. Target ended the practice back in 1996. However, cigarettes are still sold at the retailers—such as CVS, Walgreens, Wal-Mart and Rite-Aid—that make up the majority of pharmacies nationwide.

"Astronomical…Costs"

In New York, Assemblyman Hoyt's AB 8395 would ban the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies and in stores with pharmacy departments. This includes "big-box" retailers such as Wal-Mart, which operate both pharmacies and retail health clinics in their stores. (Canadian Wal-Mart stores quit selling tobacco products in 1994.) Hoyt says the new policy would help control "the astronomical public health costs posed by tobacco products," as well as help keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors. "In many instances the minor employed at the pharmacy counter is more likely to sell tobacco products to a classmate not eighteen years of age," said Hoyt. The bill is currently under consideration by the Assembly's Committee on Health.

The Land of Lincoln is contemplating a different approach. Representative Michael McAuliffe's HB 5372—a bill that would establish comprehensive regulations for the operation of retail health clinics—originally featured a provision which would have prohibited any store that sells alcohol or tobacco products from operating a clinic. However, McAuliffe said he plans to remove the ban and re-introduce the bill since he thought a ban could get in the way of more stores opening up clinics, which he said would help far more people.

In Tennessee's recent session, lawmakers considered HB 3205, which would prohibit any outlet that provides health services—such as a health clinic—from allowing tobacco products to be sold within its premises. The ban also would apply to chain drug stores and large retailers who provide prescription medications or retail clinics. In May, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom introduced a similar proposal for the city. Rhode Island legislators are considering SB 2356, which would deny a tobacco sales license to any outlet that maintains either a pharmacy or a health clinic.

States take in an estimated $13 billion annually from tobacco taxes, and some say that while bans on smoking and cigarette sales reduce health-care costs (by reducing cases of lung cancer, for example), the bans also reduce direct tax revenues. Fiscal notes on the New York and Tennessee bills project that the fewer sales and increased investigations that would result from the bills would have little fiscal impact on the state.