Post of the day (at least)Westy said:It would just be nice to know what stores offer such things so I know where to find the easy chicks to hit on while I get my herpes medicine.
Post of the day (at least)Westy said:It would just be nice to know what stores offer such things so I know where to find the easy chicks to hit on while I get my herpes medicine.
Do they offer herpes medicine?LordOpie said:dude, just hang outside the door to the self-help group of women with low self-esteem. Why complicate matters?
Does this "medicine" require a prescription?Old Man G Funk said:Why not?
Shouldn't equality apply here. We standardize things across states and the country in order to make certain items and services obtainable for all. Medicine falls into this category. In the example of the person in the Bible Belt town, don't you think that it would be a good idea to make sure pharmacies carry things like birth control so that people can actually obtain it?
You know how Boxy Brown do.LordOpie said:quoted for mutha phucking truth and emphasis.
You can move the goal posts, but the fact remains that the government does have a compelling interest in making sure that some things are standardized. If carrying this product is standardized for pharmacies, and Walmart isn't carrying it, for whatever reason, then it is reasonable to take means to correct that and make Walmart conform to the law.Echo said:Does this "medicine" require a prescription?
When I got my Lasik surgery, I was handed several prescriptions on the way out the door, with specific instructions as to which local pharmacies had what I needed. Imagine that.
So she should be punished with pregnancy? What kind of punishment does the douchebag who tapped it without a jimmy get?Echo said:You're confusing a slut having unprotected sex with someone accidentally contracting a deadly virus. I mean if sluts wanna do what they do, more power to 'em, hell I've enjoyed a few in my day. But expecting the government to pick up after them is silly.
Actually, the whole reason for the lawsuit here is because one party feels Walmart is legally required to carry the drug, and Walmart feels they are not. Until a court decides, your statement is incorrect IMO.ohio said:They are legally required to do something if they want to operate this business and they are not doing it.
if you're going to think about it that logically, then you should encourage sluts to abort with a $10 pill... that's the most cost-effective solution. And you darn well know that if said slut has a kid that they'll likely collect some sort of welfare.Echo said:You're confusing a slut having unprotected sex with someone accidentally contracting a deadly virus. I mean if sluts wanna do what they do, more power to 'em, hell I've enjoyed a few in my day. But expecting the government to pick up after them is silly.
Fair enough, but people are making the statement in this thread that Walmart doesn't have the legal obligation to carry ANY drug it doesn't want to, and that is wrong. We'll leave it up to the courts to decide for this one.Echo said:Actually, the whole reason for the lawsuit here is because one party feels Walmart is legally required to carry the drug, and Walmart feels they are not. Until a court decides, your statement is incorrect IMO.
True, the government (and there for you and I) end up paying for it anyway.LordOpie said:if you're going to think about it that logically, then you should encourage sluts to abort with a $10 pill... that's the most cost-effective solution. And you darn well know that if said slut has a kid that they'll likely collect some sort of welfare.
I say, every tax payer should get to sex0r at least 5 sluts on welfare.Echo said:True, the government (and there for you and I) end up paying for it anyway.
25% of his income taken away for the rest of his life, or half the cost of an abortion.ohio said:So she should be punished with pregnancy? What kind of punishment does the douchebag who tapped it without a jimmy get?
.
18 years, 18 yearsBurlyShirley said:25% of his income taken away for the rest of his life, or half the cost of an abortion.
Ya sure, because there is nothing like the millions of deadbeat dads who never pay a single cent.BurlyShirley said:25% of his income taken away for the rest of his life, or half the cost of an abortion.
How about if she could not take the contraceptive pill for medical reasons, had sex with a condom with her husband of ten years and the condom ripped?Echo said:You're confusing a slut having unprotected sex with someone accidentally contracting a deadly virus. I mean if sluts wanna do what they do, more power to 'em, hell I've enjoyed a few in my day. But expecting the government to pick up after them is silly.
In that rare instance, she could go to a pharmacy that carries what she needs.fluff said:How about if she could not take the contraceptive pill for medical reasons, had sex with a condom with her husband of ten years and the condom ripped?
Is she still a slut and should she not be pilloried publicly for not having a more serious complaint? Stick her in stocks and throw rotten bits of aborted foetus at her 'cos she's a woman, dammit.
Oh, and Walmart are breaking the law, should law-breakers be able to get away with it?
So you are OK with Wal-Mart picking which laws they would like to comply with?Echo said:In that rare instance, she could go to a pharmacy that carries what she needs.
The split condom thing has happened to me several times, even on a 'max-protection' job. I considered using a layered system in the end.Echo said:In that rare instance.
Let's see what the court decides. Walmart doesn't see that as a "necessary medicine" and I'm not sure I do either. There are lots of contraceptives available, it's not like the morning after pill is the only option.fluff said:So you are OK with Wal-Mart picking which laws they would like to comply with?
It is by that point. Surely it is better than waiting four months and getting an abortion?Echo said:Let's see what the court decides. Walmart doesn't see that as a "necessary medicine" and I'm not sure I do either. There are lots of contraceptives available, it's not like the morning after pill is the only option.
Acting surprised when boinking causes pregnancy is like acting surprised when sticking your hand under a running lawnmower causes finger loss.fluff said:It is by that point. Surely it is better than waiting four months and getting an abortion?
Would you deny me a post-lawnmower-idiocy finger-reattachment pill just because I'm dumb?Echo said:Acting surprised when boinking causes pregnancy is like acting surprised when sticking your hand under a running lawnmower causes finger loss.
Would you sue a doctor for sending you to a finger reattachment specialist if it wasn't a procedure he normally performed?fluff said:Would you deny me a post-lawnmower-idiocy finger-reattachment pill just because I'm dumb?
Only if he were legally obliged to be able to perform it.Echo said:Would you sue a doctor for sending you to a finger reattachment specialist if it wasn't a procedure he normally performed?
Well according to Walmart, this is not a moral decision but a business decision.BurlyShirley said:IMO, if you want to have a pharmacy, the rules of it should be dictated by medicine, not morals.Simple as that.
Still, I think it makes sense to have things like pharmacies regulated. I dont support sue happy skanks, but it just seems logical that a pharmacy should be required to carry certain drugs. A morning after pill, IMO, should be one of those because the last thing we need are more abortions or neglected kids. How hard is it to put a pill on a shelf? Is Wal Mart going to be that financially hurt by a few pills?Echo said:Well according to Walmart, this is not a moral decision but a business decision.
I friggin hate Walmart. But I hate the government bullying everyone even more.
You are "Poisoning the Well" here. We have no clue whether the plaintiffs are "sluts" or not, and really it has no bearing on whether Walmart carries a legal responsibility to stock certain drugs.Echo said:You're confusing a slut having unprotected sex with someone accidentally contracting a deadly virus. I mean if sluts wanna do what they do, more power to 'em, hell I've enjoyed a few in my day. But expecting the government to pick up after them is silly.
Do you really believe it's a "business decision"? If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you.Echo said:Well according to Walmart, this is not a moral decision but a business decision.
I friggin hate Walmart. But I hate the government bullying everyone even more.
It doesn't matter in this case. One side feels that Walmart is in violation of law. From that standpoint, they are well within their rights to petition the court to have Walmart correct their practices.Echo said:Actually, the whole reason for the lawsuit here is because one party feels Walmart is legally required to carry the drug, and Walmart feels they are not. Until a court decides, your statement is incorrect IMO.
And Walmart is well within their rights to defend themselves. And you and I are well within our rights to form opinions about it.Old Man G Funk said:It doesn't matter in this case. One side feels that Walmart is in violation of law. From that standpoint, they are well within their rights to petition the court to have Walmart correct their practices.
So you say...Echo said:And Walmart is well within their rights to defend themselves. And you and I are well within our rights to form opinions about it.
That's correct, but you were attacking the "sluts" that can't simply go down the street to the CVS. I'm glad you have come around on this.Echo said:And Walmart is well within their rights to defend themselves. And you and I are well within our rights to form opinions about it.