Massachusetts: Live free or there.

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

A more important question might be: what business is it of MA to tell Walmart or any other pharmacy what drug they will or will not stock? If Walmart decides not to stock the morning after pill, and other pharmacies DO stock it, well, then Walmart loses that business.

But when you accept that governments have the authority to tell private pharmacies that they MUST stock certain drugs, then you must accept the corollary proposition: the government can also force pharmacies NOT to stock certain (otherwise legal and approved) drugs. So while today's Massachusetts government tells Walmart it must stock certain contraceptives, tomorrow's government may take the position that Walmart and every other pharmacy in MA may NOT stock such contraceptives.

Some doors are best left unopened. Wouldn't it be better in the long run to say that what products a private retailer sells are purely within that retailer's discretion, and let the market punish those retailers that, for whatever reason, refuse to stock desired commodities?

I think if you are going to be in the pharmacy business you should make available any legal/approved pharmaceutical that a physician has prescribed for a patient/customer.

For example, I had a minor side effect from a commonly used drug my doctor prescribed. He prescirbed a different, less commonly used substitute.

The pharmacy didn't have it in stock. But they said we'll get it for you and have it here in the morning. They didn't say, sorry, we don't stock that so we can't/won't provide it for you.

Now, you might say so what if they say they can't/won't provide it for you, just go somewhere else. That's fine where I live. There are plenty of other pharmacies. But what if I lived in some rural town, where Wal*Mart or somebody came in and opened a pharmacy and ran all the independents out of business leaving only Wal*Mart or whoever. Then what am I supposed to do?

But that's just the practical argument. The moral/political argument is that Wal*Mart and others may be trying to adopt a policy of "not stocking" something "controversial" to appease a certain customer/market segment/demograpic/advocacy group, and/or to avoid putting their pharmacists in a position of refusing to provide it on "moral grounds".

And if that's the case, see my first point.

I may be wrong, but I believe every state in the country regulates pharmacies. As long as that's true, they need to abide by the state regulations. The Massachusetts law says to carry all "commonly prescribed medicines"; Massachusetts pharmacies should do just that. Now, if pharmacies want to be unregulated, and just let drugs be sold on the open market (i.e., lose their monopoly on prescription drugs), then I might be more sympathetic to the argument that they should be allowed to sell only what they want. But as long as pharmacies benefit by being the only folks allowed to sell prescription meds, then they have to take the regulation that comes with it. IMO.

Walmart has a history of refusing to sell certain products for "moral" reasons whether their logic is consistent or not. Other than ensuring the quality of medications and such, I don't see why the government needs to force a pharmacy to sell a product it wishes not to sell, other than to appease the demands of special interest groups, such as feminists, etc. in this case. The "policy" ""commonly prescribed medicines" is sufficiently vague to probably justify almost any requirement. I wonder how common commonly prescribed is.

 Living in a small town with a SuperWalmart, I don't see any evidence that it is driving other pharmacies out of business. Walmart has no price advantage. Out of pocket costs for prescription medications are generally controlled by insurance and all pharmacies in my town cost me the same for the same medication. Some private pharmacies hurt their own business by shorter business hours than Walmart which is open 9am-7pm M-F, 9am-6pm Sat, closed Sat.  But Kroger Pharmacy is open 9am-9pm M-F, 9-6Sat, 10-5 Sun. Maybe Kroger, the worlds largest grocer, is putting small local pharmacies out of business.

 In the smaller, surrounding towns that are too small for WalMarts, there are also plenty of local pharmacies. I bet many of them, being Christian, conservative types don't carry the morning after pill.

Mettulg - there are two or three privately owned pharmacies. I don't see how the names would mean anything. My point is is that private pharmacies are under pressure from lots of corporations besides Walmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, KMart, etc. In prescription medications, Walmart has no price advantage. Kroger gives better service and is open longer hours.

 The mythical small town that is dominated by Walmart doesn't exist where I live. In the two small towns that have Walmarts in the very rural area where I live, business is thriving on all levels. Sure, some come and some go but the ones that go do so largely due to retirement, poor management, lack of creativity, etc. Local residents now do more shopping locally rather than travel 60 plus miles to the closest metropolitan area and spend there money there.

 Because Walmart keeps more shoppers in town and draws people from neighboring counties, small businesses have done quite well where I live.

Mason County, Kentucky (home of University of Tennessee standout, Chris Lofton)-

1990 (No Walmart) Population 16,666 ( maybe it's the home of the Devil.)

Per capita income $10,179

Median Household income $21,054

Walmart comes in 1991.

2000 Population 16,800 (not really a  growing community)

Per capita income $16,589

Median Household income $30,195

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cp2/cp-2-19.pdf

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21/21161.html

 

 

 Incomes climb better than 50% per capita and nearly 50% per household. I would guess that outpaces inflation. This isn't the richest place in the country or Kentucky but Walmart's not causing any great damage. Additionally, Walmart has forced other retailers to lower their prices to be competitive. Before, locally retailers charged a premium because residents had to drive 60 miles to find a better deal. Groceries, clothes, tools, virtually everything was more  expensive than what you would pay in a city like Knoxville. It gets old paying $1 more for a gallon of milk than your buddy in the big city.

 What has hurt local businesses as much as anything is the Internet. The local book store closed down. People could get books cheaper and faster over the Internet. The same for music CDs, DVDs and such. Sports and recreation equipment is readily available  and cheaper via Internet and they bring it to your door. And this little burg has free WiFi for a 5 mile radius.

Some store that have opened since Walmart came: Goody's, Applebee's, Bob Evans, Burger King, Taco Bell, GameStop, Dawhares (a very nice regional clothing store), Big Lots, Gold Star Chili, AutoZone, Advance Auto, Best Western, Super 8, Hampton Inn, Tractor Supply (Tennessee conglomerate), a new locally owned hardware store, new locally owned lumber yard, several new locally owned restuarants (including two Chinese restuarants and a Mexican restuarant), new tire store (competes with Walmart tires), a locally owned Sears franchise that sells major appliances, tools and lawn and garden equipment, at least two new furniture stores and more. (You should come visit.)

Walmart is the All-American success story. I actually prefer not to shop there but much of the criticism aimed at it is unwarranted. When Walmart started Sears was the largest retailer in the country. Kmart was well established (there's one of those in Mason County also) as well as many other large retailers. Sam Walton simply outsmarted them all. Now we all love to hate Walmart because it's big, rich and successful.

You can stand under a tree squinting but I'll keep my eyes wide open.

 

I didn't say Walmart brought about all these changes. But it sure didn't prevent them and it sure did help and it sure isn't doing the harm you seem to think it is. Indeed your post hoc argument could be well applied to those that claim Walmart is killing small towns.

I am always confused at how some folks get freedom confused with business.  They aren't the same thing.

Just because you own or operate a business does not mean you are no longer required to obey the laws of the place you operate.  Go try to sell pork barbecue in Ar-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia if you think I'm lyin'.  I'd wager they won't let you.

The Commonwealth of Massachussetts has every right to tell businesses (Wal-Mart and otherwise) how they will and how they will not operate within the state of Massachussetts.  Just like Tennessee has every right to tell businesses how they will and will not operate within the state of Tennessee.  States are allowed to do that.  The people who live in those states choose the folks who write their laws, and those laws determine how businesses can act within that state.  If the people of Massachussetts demand that every pharmacy carry thus and such, then you've got to carry thus and such or you won't be able to open a pharmacy legally in Massachussetts.  That's how representative democracy works, last time I checked.  If Wal-Mart wants to do business with Massachussetts, they have to play by Massachussetts rules, Massachussetts don't have to play by Wal-Mart rules. 

There are exceptions that are trumped by Federal regulation, of course.  That's where the people of the whole US get to have a say through our Representatives in Washington.  If Wal-Mart thinks they have a case in such a way, they can take it to the federal Courts.  I don't think they'll get much traction with this, otherwise you'd see Bank of Americas in the state of Louisiana, pharmacists wouldn't be allowed to dispense with lethal prescriptions in Oregon, and no one would be able to stop CVS from carrying marijuana.

I can see that prescription now,

I couldn't comment over the weekend because IE on my home computer crashes every time I try. Andy Axel is correct. All this has nothing to do with the question of forcing Walmart to dispense certain medications against their will. I only responded to comments that broadened the discussion to Walmart is destroying mom and pop pharmacies, etc.

 There is a trend that religious rights don't really matter any more. You can practice your religion as long as your beliefs don't leave the church, temple or whatever. Some states force (or want to force)Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, dispense abortifacient drugs, etc. This seems to trample on religious freedom although I'm sure there are those who  can find plenty of reasons why we should force Catholic hospitals, ob-gyns, etc. to perform abortions. One big reason I hear is that since they accept payment from Medicaid, Medicare, etc. they should have perform abortions. A pretty dangerous argument in that it says that if you accept payment from the government you have to do anything they wish even if it wasn't part of the agreement up front. Sounds like organized crime techniques.

So now we're going to define religion by what standards? Andy Axel's I suppose. If you work on Sunday you're not Christian, if you work on Saturday you can't be Jewish or Seventh Day Adventist or whatever other criteria we can pull out of the air. In one breath religions will be criticized for using antiquated values, in the next breath if someone can't be Christian because they don't meet the antiquated values. Why should I have to be Christian or whatever to have religious beliefs that abortion is wrong? Hinduism teaches that abortion is a great crime and one of the worst sins.

Funny how this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" has come to be interpretted so broadly in preventing the "free exercise." Religion doesn't begin and stop at the church door. This whole thing in MA is about three women ramming their values down others throats which is quite acceptable to many unless it is fundamentalist Christians or Catholics going the other way. I doubt seriously that having 48 pharmacies in MA not providing the morning after pill was an inconvenience to anyone, not that that matters either. Funny how some who (and I'm not saying you, Andy, because I don't know) oppose executing someone who purposely takes the life of another want to force people who believe abortion is killing a living person to participate in the abortion process.

 Maybe these attitudes are why Massachusetts is one of the worst 5 states for small businesses.

In United States v. Ballard, Justice Douglas, writing for the majority, embraced a much broader definition of religion:

Freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of orthodox faiths . . . . Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines of beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law.

 

In 1965, the Supreme Court interpreted this definition, in United States v. Seeger, to allow conscientious objector status to persons bound by a perceived duty to realities superior to man, but not affiliated with any orthodox religion.

source

It's not just about Walmart, what about the small mom and pop pharmacy where the owners might be devout Catholics (there's lots of Catholics in Massachusetts)? The military allows conscientious objector status. Why not the pharmacy board? Are we going to effectively outlaw certain demoninations from certain jobs? Interesting that the liberals are more authoritarian on this than the military. It must be important to kill unborn fetuses than the enemies of our country.