[cripplecreek]

So much for private ownership of business.

[Mears]

I don't have any problem with this at all----don't carry them and you won't have to sell them.

If you work for a large chain you have to abide by their rules or open your own pharmacy.

[softwarecreator]

So much for private ownership of business.

Exactly. It's his business and if he wants to lose the revenues that this provides, it's his choice. I didn't see anyone forcing retailers to sell "Unfit for Command", I couldn't find it anywhere, yet Bubba Clinton's face stared at me from a thousand copies of his book on display.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"So much for private ownership of business."

That's what I was thinking. Also, if the Govenor can decree by fiat action such as this then a subsequent Govenor should be able to decree the opposite. I mean if the govenor has the unilateral power to force such an action then the power must be bidirectional.

[Melas]

So much for private ownership of business.

Wrong, the EO clearly says that a business needn't carry the pills. It must only dispense them if it has them on hand. If the owner doesn't want to dispense, he/she/they would simply opt not to have them in inventory.

I'll bet the owners are lauding this decision. No doubt that pharmacists who were refusing to dispense the drugs on hand, drugs which the owners bought with the hopes of selling for a profit, were a pain in the ass to deal with.

[dit_xi]

But the problem is that pharmacies rely on reimbursement from medicaid and medicare, hence falls into guv'ment control. Just like hospitals, the notion that they are private establishment isn't completely true. The guv't makes the rules.

[bdfromlv]

Yeah like you can buy a beer in kansas on a sunday. oh I forgot thats against the law, you have to wait until one of the other six days of the week.

[television is just wrong]

No rights for the moral fiber of this country. The immoral is all they are concerned with.