Home › Forums › West Seattle Rants & Raves › Starbucks ban
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 2, 2013 at 6:53 am #607726
DMAMemberI understand not wanting “real” cigarrettes too close to the building we’ve all heard the secon hand smoke debate and dangers …. but to ban electronic cigarrettes that are perfectly safe and unobtrusive to other customers??? That’s out and out biasis… nicotine may not be healthy for it’s users but as long as they are electronically smoking and not effecting anyone else’s air space it’s their business! Nicotine is addictive sorta like ummmm CAFFINE… but it doesn’t cause cancer any more than caffine does! it’s the by products of regular cigarrettes that have the cancer causing agents. If we are going to ban people that use unhealthy products then lets start with caffine and ban regular caffinated coffee sales!!! Oh, and let’s not forget those that are carrying a few unhealthy extra pounds and the guy or gal nursing a hangover with a shot of caffine the next morning, alcohol is also unhealthy and addictive. Oh and those using caffine to stay awake… not getting enough sleep in also unhealthy… so now starbucks is a perfectly healthy business, with no smokers electronic or otherwise, no overweight or over tired customers, and best of all no caffine addicted customers……bye bye starbucks!
June 2, 2013 at 7:57 am #790958
2 Much WhineParticipantI avoid Starbucks more for the $4 cups of coffee than whether they choose to allow smoking but we all have the right to patronize one place over another for whatever reason we choose.
June 2, 2013 at 2:47 pm #790959
kayoParticipantI doubt electronic cigarettes prevent the off gassing of smoke that occurs after a smoker finishes the cigarette and continues to breathe out the smoke. I am extremely sensitive to smoke and trust me that I can smell it for a while even after someone has stopped smoking their cigarette. Ever been on an elevator with a smoker who has just finished a cigarette? Well, you probably don’t notice the smell anymore, but I sure do, and I resent the exposure I am passively getting to that smoke. If someone is overweight or drinking coffee, it does not have secondhand health effects on people in the vicinity. Sorry, but it is the law, and I am glad Starbucks is enforcing this. Bummer it is inconvenient for you.
June 2, 2013 at 3:54 pm #790960
anonymeParticipantI totally support the ban. E-cigarettes are not regulated by the FDA, and and claims of “safety” are made by marketers – not medical professionals. Nor have any long term studies been done on the effects of nicotine vapor vs. smoke. While some of the carcinogenic effects will undoubtedly be lessened by the absence of burning, there is no evidence to support claims that second-hand “vapor” is carcinogen-free.
Plus, as Kayo mentioned – it still STINKS. Smoking and ‘vapor’ laws should be strictly enforced, regardless of the substance.
June 2, 2013 at 3:58 pm #790961
WSBKeymasterData point, cigarettes’ effects tend to kill some users, while coffee doesn’t. (RIP my mom, pancreatic cancer from smoking, gone 14 years ago this Tuesday.) I am ever thankful to have gotten out of cigarettes’ grip after only six years, more than a quarter-century ago. I like coffee but can go and have gone entire days and weeks without it; if you know a smoker who can just pick one up every so often and then forget about it for a while, I am in awe.
Anyway, for anyone else who wondered what this is related to – I hadn’t heard about the “ban” – here’s the story.
I can’t think of a West Seattle Starbucks where the outdoor seating is NOT already covered by the “not within x feet of the door” already.
-TR
June 2, 2013 at 4:00 pm #790962
trimParticipantlol, you guys should get your heads examined. E-cigarettes don’t have a nicotine smell at all. Any smell that comes from them for instance the “blu” E-cigarettes have cherry/vanilla flavors for them and that’s what the output of the vapor smells like. Please think/read up before you guys talk. Also, no, I do not smoke cigarettes or E-cigarettes but I live with people who smoke from both.
June 2, 2013 at 4:11 pm #790963
Talaki34ParticipantThere is isn’t any smoke because there isn’t any plant material being burned so there isn’t anything to really be smelled. The by product is vapor.
However, there does remain some debate as to whether they are as safe for the smoker as claimed. There are some trace chemicals that from my understanding are present in the atomizing process. Certainly less than the 4000 that a real cigarette produces, but something to be aware of for the smoker. Of course nicotine is still being delivered and that means the reinforcement of the addiction. There are non-nicotine cartridges available.
Four articles to read are:
What are e-cigarettes?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/electronic-cigarette.htm
This is about the first studies that are being released this year.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-electronic-cigarettes-help-smokers-quit
Second-hand smoke:
http://www.abcnews4.com/story/19988309/the-truth-about-e-cigs-are-they-healthy-or-not
What I have been reading about bans that have been implemented is not that there is evidence the e-cigarette really does or does not produce a second hand effect, but rather the perceived threat of encouraging smoking and by default the addiction to nicotine.
As a former smoker, I do see the benefit for some individuals who are just unable to quit smoking and certainly a bonus to anyone standing nearby. On the flip-side I am waiting to see what the research reveals. I would prefer that there be some type of enforceable standard for the devices. Right now anybody can claim and say anything about nicotine levels and if being used by someone as a smoking cessation device that becomes problematic.
June 2, 2013 at 5:00 pm #790964
kayoParticipantI don’t need my head examined. If I can smell it, even if it smells like vanilla/cherries, I still don’t trust what might be in it. No thanks. Keep your vapors to yourself, please.
June 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm #790965
JiggersMemberI haven’t bought Starcoals since that shmuck sold us and the Sonics out. I think Café Darte has the best coffee in Seattle. In regards to the fake cigarette smoking, its still produced with chemicals. I have seen people smoking them and same thing with a real smoker to me, I don’t want to breathe that sht in, especially coming out of your pilau mouth!!
June 2, 2013 at 6:41 pm #790966
cjboffoliParticipantI’ve been waiting at the Starbucks walk-up window in the Triangle with people sitting at the nearby chairs and smoking. So I welcome this move philosophically. But I’m surprised at the inclusion of e-cigs because they lack combustion and as such seem much less plausibly harmful outside (versus cigarettes which can still produce harmful smoke exposures even outside, to people within 30 feet, according to a 2007 Stanford study).
The other issue chain-wide is whether Starbucks would even own or have rights over what are potentially public areas outside of their locations. Other local ordinances might already cover smoking within 25 feet of the door. But it seems like enforcement would be a nightmare.
June 2, 2013 at 6:42 pm #790967
WorldCitizenParticipantCan you smell perfume?
June 2, 2013 at 7:24 pm #790968
JoBParticipantgood point world citizen.
i have had to leave more than one public venue because some people in the crowd splash themselves in enough scent to mask the bathing habits of the renaissance.
even though their scent is not only intrusive but a health risk to many of us.. imagine the furor if they were asked to limit it’s use.
i am highly sensitive to tobacco smoke and most grateful when those who can’t quite give up nicotine silently puff on the e-cigarettes…
June 2, 2013 at 9:00 pm #790969
SonomaParticipantI have to agree with Jiggers about Starcoals versus the good stuff like Café D’Arte. I’m not sure what “pilau mouth” is, but that term cracks me up!
June 2, 2013 at 10:35 pm #790970
JanSParticipantsonoma…
Urban Dictionary: pilau
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pilau‎
1) Stinky, Rotten (of hawaiian origin) 2) refering to rude, illmannered, inconsiderate behavior.
June 3, 2013 at 12:15 am #790971
SKBMemberThis is why Starbucks does not allow electronic cigarettes, taken from the Public Health website. Any establishment in King County allowing customers to smoke these is breaking the law.
“Electronic cigarettes in King County
Electronic cigarettes are battery operated devices that deliver nicotine – the highly addictive substance in tobacco. On 12/16/10, the King County Board of Health passed an ordinance making it illegal to:
•sell e-cigarettes to minors
•offer free or discounted e-cigarettes
•use e-cigarettes in any area where smoking is prohibited by law
This county-wide ordinance, which went into effect on 1/15/11, will promote the public’s health by preventing youth from nicotine addiction and preserving our public spaces as smoke-free.
What are electronic cigarettes?
•Battery-operated devices deliver nicotine vapor to mimic cigarette smoking
•Made of a cartridge filled with flavoring and various strengths of liquid nicotine
•Can cost as little as $10, but a starter kit is typically available for $50 to $100
•Not regulated or approved for use in tobacco cessation by the FDA
Why did the Board of Health ban e-cigarette sales to youth?
•E-cigarettes may appeal to youth because of:◦high-tech design
â—¦placement in mall kiosks, convenience stores and online
â—¦wide array of flavor cartridges, including fruit punch, chocolate and mint
•Use of e-cigarettes among youth can increase nicotine addiction and may lead to use of conventional tobacco products
Why aren’t e-cigarettes a safe alternative to smoking?
•Testing by the FDA1 found products that:◦Contained diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans
â—¦Contained human carcinogens (half of the samples tested)
â—¦Misrepresented of nicotine level
â—¦Had poor product quality control
•Companies continue to claim that e-cigarettes are a safe and effective way to quit using tobacco, without FDA approval or product testing
•Most e-cigarettes don’t have health warnings comparable to FDA-approved nicotine replacement products or conventional cigarettes
For more information, call 206-296-7613.
This fact sheet is also available in PDF format.”
June 3, 2013 at 1:17 am #790972
Talaki34ParticipantThere is a lot of controversy over the e-cigs. However no definitive results from any testing has been published.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/05/fda-warns-smokers-against-using.html
The American Lung Assoc:
There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 4,000 chemicals. At least 50 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous.
Acetone – found in nail polish remover
Acetic Acid – an ingredient in hair dye
Ammonia – a common household cleaner
Arsenic – used in rat poison
Benzene – found in rubber cement
Butane – used in lighter fluid
Cadmium – active component in battery acid
Carbon Monoxide – released in car exhaust fumes
Formaldehyde – embalming fluid
Hexamine – found in barbecue lighter fluid
Lead – used in batteries
Napthalene – an ingredient in moth balls
Methanol – a main component in rocket fuel
Nicotine – used as insecticide
Tar – material for paving roads
Toluene – used to manufacture paint
June 3, 2013 at 2:23 am #790973
Genesee HillParticipantTempest in a Starbucks’ coffeepot. Uff da. ROFL.
June 3, 2013 at 2:23 pm #790974
etohick616Memberwhy are you still going to starbucks anyhoo. friends dont let friends buy starbucks. please purchase your coffee from small independent coffee shops. the ceo of strabucks convinced me a long time ago not to contribute to his way of doing business
June 3, 2013 at 3:09 pm #790975
BreezyParticipantA former smoker (clean for over two decades), I understand the addiction and empathize with anyone trying to break the smoking cycle. The way I see it, Starbucks has the right, just as any other public establishment, to regulate what happens on their property. I’ve been to restaurants that served alcohol but they prohibited alcohol on their decks or outside table areas. I don’t drink much coffee that I don’t make (due to cost), but I do try and frequent independently run businesses when I can. Just got a great cup the other day from a little place next to a laundromat on California Ave.
June 3, 2013 at 3:24 pm #790976
JoBParticipantthe fragrance you wear is as likely to be hazardous to your fellow citizens as e-cigarettes..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=toxic-perfumes-and-colognes
where is the righteous indignation for that?
June 3, 2013 at 3:48 pm #790977
CaitParticipantThis seems like a classic example of simply wanting to control the behavior of others. E-cigarettes are in NO WAY decernable to people around the smoker. Trust me, I’m highly sensitive to smoke and I am not effected by these things at all. It is water vapor, nicotine and sugar water/flavoring. If you’re claiming to be bothered by someone smoking them around you, I’m guessing you’re assuming that no one is going to notice from your description that you’ve just never been around them in the first place. JoB – excellent point about the perfume, too. Just goes to show…
June 3, 2013 at 3:50 pm #790978
VBDParticipantJoB, I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw this thread. I would much rather get a whiff of an electric cigarette, or a regular one for that matter, than some of the nasty perfume I’ve smelled.
People can carry around, and give off, all sorts of disagreeable smells. Many of those smells will contain SOMETHING toxic if you want to get down to molecular level analysis.
I don’t smoke, and don’t like the smell of it. I’m glad the days of walking into a bar and being slapped in the face with a blue haze are over. But this anti-nicotine thing, particularly when it’s smoke free, is going too far.
June 3, 2013 at 5:10 pm #790979
dee kalaniParticipantlol- Pilau mouth means ‘dirty’ mouth haven’t heard that term in awhile. People wearing perfume or smoking e cigs ,cig cig or 420 cigs should be more respectful period. Smoke down wind far away, and chill out on perfume da cheap kine
June 3, 2013 at 5:22 pm #790980
cjboffoliParticipantCait: I don’t think the issue is so much behavior control as it is courtesy. I mean, why would I care if someone I don’t know is smoking? Of course, knowing how dangerous cigarettes are, how many people they kill, and that better than 80% of smokers express the desire to quit if they could, I wish people wouldn’t get hooked on them in the first place. But I have always seen this as an issue of courtesy. If smokers were more courteous about not smoking so close to non-smokers (and doors and windows of buildings) there would be no need for rules and laws about where they smoke.
If people would put half as much energy into being considerate to others as they did asserting their own rights, we wouldn’t need a lot of the laws that make so many complain about living in a “nanny state.”
In this case it sounds like some independent party really does need to look into the actual danger or safety of exposure to e-cig vapor. Applying the same standard to regular cigarette smoke seems extreme to me.
June 3, 2013 at 6:37 pm #790981
CaitParticipantSure, people should be more courteous. And maybe in some cases that means leaving people who are smoking e-cigarettes alone since none of the issues related to cigarette smoking and courtesy have anything to do with e-cigarettes (the topic of this conversation.)
People who smoke actual cigarettes, yes, should be more courteous, I agree. But when it comes to e-cigarettes there are a lot of knee jerk reactions going on here, I’m guessing because folks who are used to being able to justifiably control the behavior of people who smoke, don’t have the same facts to stand on. It doesn’t hurt anyone and it’s not inherently offensive – so where does courtesy come in?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.