I would take basic chemistry later in your degree, as it will be a nice simple break from your more difficult physics courses, though you need to budget the time for the busy work that is 90% of your time dealing with chemistry labs. Further, after you have a foundation in basic physics and math I find that you will get much more out of the foundational chemistry course (as well as do much better in the course.) Basically I agree with HeLiXe, but I would extend it beyond just quantum. People may disagree but I feel the axiomatic ground-up progression of physics from very basic principles and the line of reasoning that follows basic physics is much better at getting you into the door of college level natural science than the first year chemistry course (I also think the physics undergrad is the absolute best way to enter the natural sciences just in general..)
It is decently important and decently unique from what one does in physics. The whole course is what chemical reactions can happen, how fast they happen, and to what extent (there's also nuance topics such as the nature of these things we're using called "atoms", nuances of electrochemistry towards the end of the course, etc.) I'd say it's less useful for a career in physics as it is for a general broadening of one's understanding of the natural sciences, but still it does crop up every once in a while. The language chemists use to describe some of the same things in physics is sometimes a little different, so it's an additional background that can be useful in that regard. Also you get to see physics material in a slightly different context which can be useful for further practice with similar material. You may also be glad you have this general science background when you're writing lab reports and proposals on why your carbon nanotube project could have applications in the field of chemistry, etc.
As far as the overlaps with physics, later in statistical mechanics you'll talk about things like the Gibbs free energy which is used in chemistry on the topic of what reactions can happen. How fast the reactions happen is a simple differential equation, and to what extent reactions happen (how much reactants become products, this is a question that can be asked when there is dynamic equilibrium due to a mechanism that converts products back into reactants as in many common reactions) utilizes a law called the "law of mass action" that if you're lucky you might see derived in statistical mechanics. Oh, and of course the nuance topics like the nature of the atom, that's obviously a huge overlap with quantum mechanics, though I didn't like this part of the chemistry course :/ Pedagogically unsavory to say the least. Better to attack this from a physics stand point. Topics like "Why does the electron not collapse into the proton?" is better answered in physics with an better understanding of the Heinsenberg uncertainty principle, "What were the failures of the classical model of the atoms?" are better answerable in electrodynamics and quantum mechanics proper, "Why don't we fall through the floor?" is better answerable with a better understanding of the Pauli exclusion principle (again, would prefer a proper quantum mechanics course), and another related question is "Why do we have a periodic table (where the varying functionalities has to do with the outer shell structures of the electrons in the various atoms)? Why doesn't all atoms just have protons at the center and electrons an equal distance away, all occupying the same spherical shell distance from the center?" (here the answer is again the Pauli exclusion principle), why don't the protons fly apart, I mean it's a deluge of questions. If you're happy with no answers, half answers, and bad explanations, then by all means dive right into general chemistry first year.
Chemistry is kind of like applied physics, and they have to work hard to make the course self contained.
