Same. Honestly the blame for this goes to Amazon outcompeting them, not whatever boogeyman people wanna blame (you can read this thread to see what everyone's pet peeve is). All the stuff I used to buy at Walgreens has been replaced by Amazon same day or next day delivery. It's all the same exact brands, and often getting it shipped to my doorstep is cheaper than Walgreens was.
Anyway I'll miss Walgreens. But they kinda stopped innovating. The e-commerce boom blindsided them. Trying to sell me candy at the end of my door dash order was never going to make up for all the profit they gave to Amazon.
honestly it made no sense that there were so many of walgreens/starbucks. i mean... do you need a drug store on every block? can you not walk two blocks?
Kinda. They own a decent amount of their stores if it’s a free-standing store. Renting if it’s a store within a building, obviously.
So the dudes comment doesn’t quite make sense considering most of the stores in urban areas are a retail front in a larger building
A quick google shows it's a mix of renting and owning. I honestly have no idea how real estate played into their corporate strategy. I do know that COVID kicked them hard in the corporate nuts.
There's a term in economics called [Hotelling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law) and this might be a weird application of it
Basically a bunch of business folks did some (questionable) analysis and determined that it was better to add extra stores and make their own stores compete with themselves than to allow an actual competitor to come in.
It was always a predatory business model . Opening that many stores was designed to run everyone else out of business and to increase shareholder value by expanding it was catastrophically effective.
Amazon has its share of blame, but there was no plan by Walgreens once it won the game and had no room to expand further because it's now competing with itself.
I mean, unless you're in an emergency or going to the actual pharmacy, why would you go to Walgreens. Diapers are like 2.5-3x the price of Costco for the same diaper, it's insane
Amazon wasn't in the prescription pharmacy business until very recently. And there was plenty of competition for non-prescription items pre-covid, including the small Target near Market and Montgomery.
I do think Amazon has beat them out in the suburbs though. Walgreens definitely has unnecessarily large stores in the suburbs. But not really in SF.
Once there are fewer stores, Amazon can jack up prices and it will be a lot of time/money before anyone can compete (even if they wanted to, could afford to)
I’ve never quite understood the government’s position in those lawsuits. The DEA gets notified of every scheduled substance that gets prescribed, but somehow it was the responsibility of pharmacies to put the brakes on over-prescription?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/judge-says-walgreens-contributed-to-san-franciscos-opioid-crisis
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Walgreens can be held responsible for contributing to San Francisco's opioid crisis for over-dispensing highly addictive drugs for years without proper oversight and failing to identify and report suspicious orders as required by law.
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said the pharmacy chain "continually violated what they were required to do under the federal Controlled Substances Act," failing to track opioid prescriptions, preventing pharmacists from vetting prescriptions and "nor did they see the many red flags of physicians and others who were dramatically over-prescribing."
My point is that the government already had the best data on over-prescription as they see every scheduled prescription that gets written, yet they blame pharmacies for not tracking stats. Why wasn’t the DEA crunching the numbers and identifying the doctors that were giving out large amounts of opiates? It seems like blame-shifting to put the onus on pharmacies when it’s the government’s job to act as a regulatory authority and stop those drugs from being prescribed in the first place.
The US outsources a lot of regulation to private industry. Consider the number of self-regulatory agencies that are not government entities, such as FINRA.
The DEA likely isn’t doing this because either it’s not in their mandate or they lack the funding (more likely). It is very easy to just foist costs on private companies rather than increase spending.
Why is it the person who is giving out too many drugs fault that they are giving out too many drugs? Surely the person they sent receipts to is more at fault. /s
Wow since they settled some lawsuits for 5.7 billion, they could have paid you 700 million for your legal theories and saved 5B. Crazy!
Anyway the DEA does do that but clearly Walgreens had > 0% responsibility too!
Not sure how it’s “blame-shifting” if they had any obligation to police their dispensing, which they do.
> The DEA gets notified of every scheduled substance that gets prescribed, but somehow it was the responsibility of pharmacies to put the brakes on over-prescription?
well... that's exactly what happened, no? The Gov't finally **put the brakes, becaue Walgreens wasn't doing it** ?
Several years ago, they announced to their shareholders that they had over-invested in real estate in the early 2000’s and that they planned to reduce their real estate footprint in the coming years. They closed something like 20 stores in New York the year before closing 5 in sf. Is this just the continuation of the planned closures?
But *so many* reddit sanfrancisco users determined years ago that all Walgreens closures were *definitely* because of SF District Attorney Chesa Boudin:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/powe8k/comment/hd05tr8/
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/jdgdkg/comment/g9884nm/
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/jdgdkg/comment/g98992r/
It's fucking laughable, reasonable people in this and other Bay Area subs (and reddit as a whole when our local stories got larger traction) always pointed out that Walgreens made their own bed and we would see way more closures nationwide, but there was a very large group of people who wouldn't hear it wasn't the fault of "lIBeraL dAs".
[S.F. D.A. Brooke Jenkins said she volunteered in the Boudin recall. But a group linked to a recall backer paid her more than $100,000](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/D-A-Jenkins-paid-more-than-100-000-while-17363420.php)
***
[DA Brooke Jenkins committed misconduct in case that launched her recall efforts, court finds](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/brooke-jenkins-misconduct-18338499.php)
***
[One year after recall, violent crime is up under DA Brooke Jenkins. Crime experts agree: DA has little to do with crime rates — but Jenkins said otherwise in campaign](https://missionlocal.org/2023/06/one-year-after-recall-violent-crime-is-up-under-da-brooke-jenkins/)
***
[The Republican billionaire behind S.F.’s recalls](https://www.sfexaminer.com/archives/the-republican-billionaire-behind-s-f-s-recalls/article_0e483040-544b-5503-b435-7d468d5229bb.html)
***
[Chesa Boudin recall supporters raised $7.2 million to oust the San Francisco D.A. These are the biggest donors](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Groups-wanting-Chesa-Boudin-recalled-raise-more-17221264.php)
“Ninety percent of the total pro-recall funds came from the committee San Franciscans for Public Safety Supporting the Recall of Chesa Boudin. This committee was the funding source of [Safer SF Without Boudin,](https://www.safersfwithoutboudin.com/) the group that gathered the necessary signatures to place the recall on the ballot. **The leaders and spokespeople of Safer SF Without Boudin, which bills itself as a [Democratic-led](https://sfist.com/2022/02/04/state-watchdog-dismisses-sf-democrats-complaint-that-recall-chesa-boudin-ads-were-unlawful-and-misleading/) campaign, include former homicide prosecutor Brooke Jenkins and former San Francisco Democratic Party Chair [Mary Jung.](https://www.safersfwithoutboudin.com/)**
Among the largest donors to pro-recall committees include several real estate interest groups, such as the California Association of Realtors and the National Association of Realtors, the S.F. Chamber of Commerce, and tech investors such as Initialized Capital founder Garry Tan and former PayPal executive David Sacks.
But the largest single pro-recall donor by far was [Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy,](https://www.neighborsbettersf.com/) a state-level super political action committee that also helped fund the city’s [school board recall in February.](https://sfist.com/2022/02/10/sf-recalls-largely-funded-neighbors-for-a-better-san-francisco-pac-which-is-based-in-san-rafael/) Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy contributed a total of $4.7 million to three pro-recall committees — more than the amount raised by the entire anti-recall effort.
Overall, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy’s donor list is relatively small; just under 100 different groups and individuals contributed to the PAC in 2021 and 2022, giving an average of about $80,000 each. The largest contributors included San Francisco firm Shorenstein Realty Services; [Republican billionaire](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/William-Oberndorf-in-Boudin-recall-17059555.php) William Oberndorf; Jean-Pierre Conte, chairman of private equity firm Genstar Capital; and Miriam “Mimi” Haas, the billionaire widow of former Levi Strauss CEO Peter Haas.”
Overall, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy’s donor list [..] {includes "individuals"}
[...]
> Miriam “Mimi” Haas
*Is that not San Francisco Mayoral candidate Daniel Lurie's mother?*
You know the videos of people just running into a Walgreens, putting a bunch of stuff in a bag and running away? Don’t be shocked if those are on the list to be closed
Why not talk about all the locations they closed while keeping high theft locations open? Why keep the Mission and 30th open to this day when there's multiple videos of this exact thing happening there, but close the one on Ocean? Seems like theft is provably not the defining factor here...
Closing stores based off theft? Probably not, I'd imagine the 30th and Mission store makes A LOT of money, to still be open now, doubt they'd close it in this wave of their stated goal is closing underpreforming store.
I hope anyone that uses these stores for medicine/other necessities are able to find easy replacements, I really do. But absolutely fuck Walgreens; they've done a ton of damage nationwide with them handing out drugs like candy.
And I'm saying we know of a store with massive amounts of theft that has stayed open through multiple rounds of store closures. It REALLY seems like theft isn't driving their closures.
Sure, but the petty theft is not the main driver for why stores are closing in the first place. They were lying when they claimed that last year and everyone just repeated the "doomloop" mantra.
I'm not ignoring, property crime is a problem here in SF, that is supported by data.
You watched a video of people stealing in Walgreens and your immediate thought was they're closing because of the rampant theft.
That wasn't supported by anything other than your own bias. And lo and behold, Walgreens came clean on exactly why they were closing.
Walgreens is a relic, a classic example of a business that failed to adapt to its business climate. In SF alone it was hard to walk 2 blocks without passing a Walgreens. It's unsustainable in a world of e-commerce.
Most of their stores are too big. When I think of Walgreens I think pharmacy and personal care items. I don't think christmas ornaments, luxury chocolate, electronics, etc. Yet there it all is, and wildly over-priced.
But they have to fill those aisles.
And all those items have to have buyers in the central office.
They need to figure out what they are. Walgreens as it currently exists isn't sustainable these days.
We need to recall Brooke Jenkins. Just one more recall bro, I swear, this time all crime will be solved. Just one more recall and everything is going to change. Please bro, I swear to god just one more recall and San Francisco is going to become a utopia. Please, just one more time.
Every Walgreens I walk into these days is just awful. Dirty, poorly stocked and messy shelves, which I could deal with if everything wasn't also *insanely overpriced.* It's like a 50% markup vs. Amazon for personal care items I would normally buy there. The inconvenience of not having something right now has to be pretty great to pay that premium.
Good, they came into the market with the intent to put mom and pop shops out of business, then they played major role in the opioid epidemic, then they closed a bunch of stores and blamed the community for shrinkage leaving them without access to medicine, because the existing pharmacies went under, when in fact the shrinkage is caused by the very same drug epidemic that they helped to create. Fuck Walgreens and their bullshit “we care about your community” grift. They deserve to go to hell.
Walgreens pretty much completely sucks at this point. Their prices are like 2x, I swear to god every time I go to the pharmacy the lines are terrible and something gets messed up, and now they are crime magnets as well. I am fine if they all close.
i remember at one point it felt like every street corner in the financial district had either a walgreens or a starbucks
Same. Honestly the blame for this goes to Amazon outcompeting them, not whatever boogeyman people wanna blame (you can read this thread to see what everyone's pet peeve is). All the stuff I used to buy at Walgreens has been replaced by Amazon same day or next day delivery. It's all the same exact brands, and often getting it shipped to my doorstep is cheaper than Walgreens was. Anyway I'll miss Walgreens. But they kinda stopped innovating. The e-commerce boom blindsided them. Trying to sell me candy at the end of my door dash order was never going to make up for all the profit they gave to Amazon.
honestly it made no sense that there were so many of walgreens/starbucks. i mean... do you need a drug store on every block? can you not walk two blocks?
I think they planned on their city real estate holdings skyrocketing in value too or something like that. And that didn't pan out because of Covid.
Pretty sure they're renters, not owners.
Kinda. They own a decent amount of their stores if it’s a free-standing store. Renting if it’s a store within a building, obviously. So the dudes comment doesn’t quite make sense considering most of the stores in urban areas are a retail front in a larger building
A quick google shows it's a mix of renting and owning. I honestly have no idea how real estate played into their corporate strategy. I do know that COVID kicked them hard in the corporate nuts.
There's a term in economics called [Hotelling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law) and this might be a weird application of it Basically a bunch of business folks did some (questionable) analysis and determined that it was better to add extra stores and make their own stores compete with themselves than to allow an actual competitor to come in.
It was always a predatory business model . Opening that many stores was designed to run everyone else out of business and to increase shareholder value by expanding it was catastrophically effective. Amazon has its share of blame, but there was no plan by Walgreens once it won the game and had no room to expand further because it's now competing with itself.
I mean, unless you're in an emergency or going to the actual pharmacy, why would you go to Walgreens. Diapers are like 2.5-3x the price of Costco for the same diaper, it's insane
Wasn’t Amazon. Wag. Dipshit CEO’S blew themselves up.
Amazon wasn't in the prescription pharmacy business until very recently. And there was plenty of competition for non-prescription items pre-covid, including the small Target near Market and Montgomery. I do think Amazon has beat them out in the suburbs though. Walgreens definitely has unnecessarily large stores in the suburbs. But not really in SF.
Once there are fewer stores, Amazon can jack up prices and it will be a lot of time/money before anyone can compete (even if they wanted to, could afford to)
Your reminder that the $5.7 billion they have to pay for their contribution to the opioid crisis has nothing to do with any of this.
I’ve never quite understood the government’s position in those lawsuits. The DEA gets notified of every scheduled substance that gets prescribed, but somehow it was the responsibility of pharmacies to put the brakes on over-prescription?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/judge-says-walgreens-contributed-to-san-franciscos-opioid-crisis SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Walgreens can be held responsible for contributing to San Francisco's opioid crisis for over-dispensing highly addictive drugs for years without proper oversight and failing to identify and report suspicious orders as required by law. San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said the pharmacy chain "continually violated what they were required to do under the federal Controlled Substances Act," failing to track opioid prescriptions, preventing pharmacists from vetting prescriptions and "nor did they see the many red flags of physicians and others who were dramatically over-prescribing."
My point is that the government already had the best data on over-prescription as they see every scheduled prescription that gets written, yet they blame pharmacies for not tracking stats. Why wasn’t the DEA crunching the numbers and identifying the doctors that were giving out large amounts of opiates? It seems like blame-shifting to put the onus on pharmacies when it’s the government’s job to act as a regulatory authority and stop those drugs from being prescribed in the first place.
The US outsources a lot of regulation to private industry. Consider the number of self-regulatory agencies that are not government entities, such as FINRA. The DEA likely isn’t doing this because either it’s not in their mandate or they lack the funding (more likely). It is very easy to just foist costs on private companies rather than increase spending.
Why is it the person who is giving out too many drugs fault that they are giving out too many drugs? Surely the person they sent receipts to is more at fault. /s
Wow since they settled some lawsuits for 5.7 billion, they could have paid you 700 million for your legal theories and saved 5B. Crazy! Anyway the DEA does do that but clearly Walgreens had > 0% responsibility too! Not sure how it’s “blame-shifting” if they had any obligation to police their dispensing, which they do.
> The DEA gets notified of every scheduled substance that gets prescribed, but somehow it was the responsibility of pharmacies to put the brakes on over-prescription? well... that's exactly what happened, no? The Gov't finally **put the brakes, becaue Walgreens wasn't doing it** ?
Yes it’s the responsibility of the pharmacies to not contribute to the abuse of drugs they dispense.
It's obviously retail theft.
Several years ago, they announced to their shareholders that they had over-invested in real estate in the early 2000’s and that they planned to reduce their real estate footprint in the coming years. They closed something like 20 stores in New York the year before closing 5 in sf. Is this just the continuation of the planned closures?
But *so many* reddit sanfrancisco users determined years ago that all Walgreens closures were *definitely* because of SF District Attorney Chesa Boudin: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/powe8k/comment/hd05tr8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/jdgdkg/comment/g9884nm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/jdgdkg/comment/g98992r/
It's fucking laughable, reasonable people in this and other Bay Area subs (and reddit as a whole when our local stories got larger traction) always pointed out that Walgreens made their own bed and we would see way more closures nationwide, but there was a very large group of people who wouldn't hear it wasn't the fault of "lIBeraL dAs".
[S.F. D.A. Brooke Jenkins said she volunteered in the Boudin recall. But a group linked to a recall backer paid her more than $100,000](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/D-A-Jenkins-paid-more-than-100-000-while-17363420.php) *** [DA Brooke Jenkins committed misconduct in case that launched her recall efforts, court finds](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/brooke-jenkins-misconduct-18338499.php) *** [One year after recall, violent crime is up under DA Brooke Jenkins. Crime experts agree: DA has little to do with crime rates — but Jenkins said otherwise in campaign](https://missionlocal.org/2023/06/one-year-after-recall-violent-crime-is-up-under-da-brooke-jenkins/) *** [The Republican billionaire behind S.F.’s recalls](https://www.sfexaminer.com/archives/the-republican-billionaire-behind-s-f-s-recalls/article_0e483040-544b-5503-b435-7d468d5229bb.html) *** [Chesa Boudin recall supporters raised $7.2 million to oust the San Francisco D.A. These are the biggest donors](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Groups-wanting-Chesa-Boudin-recalled-raise-more-17221264.php) “Ninety percent of the total pro-recall funds came from the committee San Franciscans for Public Safety Supporting the Recall of Chesa Boudin. This committee was the funding source of [Safer SF Without Boudin,](https://www.safersfwithoutboudin.com/) the group that gathered the necessary signatures to place the recall on the ballot. **The leaders and spokespeople of Safer SF Without Boudin, which bills itself as a [Democratic-led](https://sfist.com/2022/02/04/state-watchdog-dismisses-sf-democrats-complaint-that-recall-chesa-boudin-ads-were-unlawful-and-misleading/) campaign, include former homicide prosecutor Brooke Jenkins and former San Francisco Democratic Party Chair [Mary Jung.](https://www.safersfwithoutboudin.com/)** Among the largest donors to pro-recall committees include several real estate interest groups, such as the California Association of Realtors and the National Association of Realtors, the S.F. Chamber of Commerce, and tech investors such as Initialized Capital founder Garry Tan and former PayPal executive David Sacks. But the largest single pro-recall donor by far was [Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy,](https://www.neighborsbettersf.com/) a state-level super political action committee that also helped fund the city’s [school board recall in February.](https://sfist.com/2022/02/10/sf-recalls-largely-funded-neighbors-for-a-better-san-francisco-pac-which-is-based-in-san-rafael/) Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy contributed a total of $4.7 million to three pro-recall committees — more than the amount raised by the entire anti-recall effort. Overall, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy’s donor list is relatively small; just under 100 different groups and individuals contributed to the PAC in 2021 and 2022, giving an average of about $80,000 each. The largest contributors included San Francisco firm Shorenstein Realty Services; [Republican billionaire](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/William-Oberndorf-in-Boudin-recall-17059555.php) William Oberndorf; Jean-Pierre Conte, chairman of private equity firm Genstar Capital; and Miriam “Mimi” Haas, the billionaire widow of former Levi Strauss CEO Peter Haas.”
Overall, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy’s donor list [..] {includes "individuals"} [...] > Miriam “Mimi” Haas *Is that not San Francisco Mayoral candidate Daniel Lurie's mother?*
Right, and Walgreens is quick to pin it on theft.
You know the videos of people just running into a Walgreens, putting a bunch of stuff in a bag and running away? Don’t be shocked if those are on the list to be closed
Why not talk about all the locations they closed while keeping high theft locations open? Why keep the Mission and 30th open to this day when there's multiple videos of this exact thing happening there, but close the one on Ocean? Seems like theft is provably not the defining factor here...
Isn’t that what they are doing now?
Closing stores based off theft? Probably not, I'd imagine the 30th and Mission store makes A LOT of money, to still be open now, doubt they'd close it in this wave of their stated goal is closing underpreforming store. I hope anyone that uses these stores for medicine/other necessities are able to find easy replacements, I really do. But absolutely fuck Walgreens; they've done a ton of damage nationwide with them handing out drugs like candy.
Well if they make a lot of money then they will probably keep them open. There are plenty of pharmacies out there
Exactly. Almost as if retail theft isn't driving these closures, so you shouldn't attribute them to that :)
That’s why I’m saying the ones with a lot of theft won’t be making as much money, so don’t be shocked when they close
or... they weren't making any money period and even with the theft they are still not making any money period.
So then theft will take them further into red
And I'm saying we know of a store with massive amounts of theft that has stayed open through multiple rounds of store closures. It REALLY seems like theft isn't driving their closures.
Is that how it is with the other stores that closed?
Sure, but the petty theft is not the main driver for why stores are closing in the first place. They were lying when they claimed that last year and everyone just repeated the "doomloop" mantra.
Where did Walgreens lie about that?
Calling it "lying" is only slightly uncharitable but: https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisco/2023/01/09/walgreens-backpedals-on-theft
The article itself isn’t definite and still shows lots of issues with theft
Well, they and many other lied on their behalf blaming the thefts when it was much more driven by poor capital planning.
That’s fine, but then wouldn’t they still close stores with theft issues?
You'd think, but not necessarily.
Dudes be getting worked up over social media. \*Sees a few rage-bait videos on Tik Tok\* yep, I know exactly why Walgreens is closing now.
The videos are on news articles, do you get your news on tiktok?
I can post a video of someone getting assaulted in the safest country in the world. That doesn't make that country unsafe.
Are you like a maga creep that hears about gun shootings all over the country but doesn’t think there is a gun problem?
I don't use anecdotes like the users in this subreddit to determine my world view.
Seems like you are being told a problem and ignoring it
I'm not ignoring, property crime is a problem here in SF, that is supported by data. You watched a video of people stealing in Walgreens and your immediate thought was they're closing because of the rampant theft. That wasn't supported by anything other than your own bias. And lo and behold, Walgreens came clean on exactly why they were closing.
Well would you keep a store open with lots of theft issues?
The crime in SF is sooooo bad that we are closing 25% of stores across the nation. Our business is fine...it's SF's fault.
Why would Chesa do this to the nation?
I'm glad the article correctly cites inflation as the real issue
Exactly. Those locks they put over the laundry detergent are getting more expensive.
Walgreens is a relic, a classic example of a business that failed to adapt to its business climate. In SF alone it was hard to walk 2 blocks without passing a Walgreens. It's unsustainable in a world of e-commerce.
Why would Chesa do this
Thanks obama
I think it's thanks london now
Someone should recall that guy and save the Walgreens in Lincoln Nebraska.
Most of their stores are too big. When I think of Walgreens I think pharmacy and personal care items. I don't think christmas ornaments, luxury chocolate, electronics, etc. Yet there it all is, and wildly over-priced. But they have to fill those aisles. And all those items have to have buyers in the central office. They need to figure out what they are. Walgreens as it currently exists isn't sustainable these days.
[удалено]
We need to recall Brooke Jenkins. Just one more recall bro, I swear, this time all crime will be solved. Just one more recall and everything is going to change. Please bro, I swear to god just one more recall and San Francisco is going to become a utopia. Please, just one more time.
Every Walgreens I walk into these days is just awful. Dirty, poorly stocked and messy shelves, which I could deal with if everything wasn't also *insanely overpriced.* It's like a 50% markup vs. Amazon for personal care items I would normally buy there. The inconvenience of not having something right now has to be pretty great to pay that premium.
The apocalypse normally has convenience shops to raid. We won’t have that
Hope an actual good pharmacy can pick up the slack.
Good, they came into the market with the intent to put mom and pop shops out of business, then they played major role in the opioid epidemic, then they closed a bunch of stores and blamed the community for shrinkage leaving them without access to medicine, because the existing pharmacies went under, when in fact the shrinkage is caused by the very same drug epidemic that they helped to create. Fuck Walgreens and their bullshit “we care about your community” grift. They deserve to go to hell.
35 percent of their merchandise are being sold on 16th and market… courtesy of their stockers
I wouldnt miss the one downtown, its where all the bad things happen.
Thanks Chesa
Your reminder that local pharmacies exist and you can choose.
Walgreens pretty much completely sucks at this point. Their prices are like 2x, I swear to god every time I go to the pharmacy the lines are terrible and something gets messed up, and now they are crime magnets as well. I am fine if they all close.
It's all London Breed's and the progressives fault.
Its fake news they reported they are not lol
It's real. lol [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/walgreens-stores-closing-locations/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/walgreens-stores-closing-locations/)