Mind boggling response. Please let me know what you think my point was in calling hysteria - hysteria.

I don’t know … maybe you’re being hysterical.

3 Likes

And what about those who depend on them?

This most threads around here. And the sad part is that many of them actually believe it.

The current M.O. seems to be to put more and more merch behind locked cases. Really sucks too because you have to track down an employee just to get something like toothpaste.

Seein’ is believin’. :wink:

Depend on them for what?

But there are areas where DA’s are doing exactly what you are saying you are not arguing for…Dallas for example. When a DA decides they will not enforce existing laws, that DA is the one who has politicized the law. The response will necessarily also be political.

3 Likes

conantoon

Well, for example, my local Walgreens is the closest pharmacy in a over a mile.

Thanks for demonstrating my point. :wink:

2 Likes

If they want a close by Walgreens then the thieves should stop stealing.

Very simple.

If I was Walgreens i would shut down every SF pharmacy.

Are you sure about that one?

Most of Walgreen’s customers aren’t thieves.

If I was Walgreens i would shut down every SF pharmacy.

If I was Walgreens I’d base on whether or not I was still making enough profit after losses.

Yes. Very sure.

And thanks again. :wink:

1 Like

You admit y’all are claiming to see things that aren’t really there?

Just never know when to stop, do you. :smirk:

1 Like

I’m trying to figure out how the cartoon posted proves your point when it does the opposite.

It’s just knee jerk.

It’s nice to see the ducks again, though.

What about under a mile?

And if your local Walgreens is the closest to you, would you not want to revise your local laws so it would be able to turn a profit and stay?

It only takes a few stealing multiple times a day to (1) endanger the lives of the employees and customers and (2) lose profit.

Walgreens isn’t in the charity business. :woman_shrugging:

3 Likes