jgriff: As I said, it's the money. It's what's good for the stock holders. More money is good. Less money? Not so good. Grant moneys? It's money, so it's good. Also, I believe CVS is a publicly held company, privately owned.
If they can make more money through reducing, or doing away with, tobacco facings then that is the correct thing to do. Tobacco simply does not warrant shelf space. The return is too small, the time and effort spent figuring and paying taxes probably eats up a great deal of any profit realized. Retail square footage is simply to dear to relegate any of it to products which do not sell, Believe me, if cigarettes generated sufficient revenue, no matter what the governments or the health professionals said, cigarettes would have many more facings than they do today in stores. Right or wrong the perception of tobacco, in any form, is negative and the majority of customers, having no dog in the fight, couldn't care less about the plight of those of us addicted to the demon weed.
Catering to a minority of people who are, these days, despised by the press and the health community simply does not make sense. Dedicating the space formerly occupied by tobacco products with less controversial products which will generate higher profits is a logical move.
Electronic cigarettes have taken up a lot of facings on the shelves in my local Walgreen store. I suspect the profit margin is better, public opinion is less negative, and as the electronics are not regulated as yet, less bother with local taxes and regulations.
On the other hand, large vendors doing away with tobacco is a good thing for the smaller, local tobacco stores. The brick and mortars, who may have ignored the common cigarette smoker in the past, can now expand their customer base should they chose to "abase" themselves by selling the "lowly" cigarette.
