Home › Forums › West Seattle Rants & Raves › Starbucks ban
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 3, 2013 at 7:49 pm #790982
JiggersMemberPersonally, I find it more disgusting that smokers don’t care where they flick their cigarette butts after they finished blackening their lungs. There should be heavy,heavy fines for littering since those butts goes straight into our eco-system which then affects us all. A lot of people are disgusting in their own ways though. Sueing those tobacoo companies twenty years ago didn’t do jack sht!!
June 3, 2013 at 9:59 pm #790983
KenParticipantUse of e-cigarettes among youth can increase nicotine addiction and may lead to use of conventional tobacco products
The king county ban is a blanket ban and covers Starbucks here too.
If Starbucks wants to enforce that elsewhere on their own property then that is up to them and what they require on their own property is their choice.
The King County ban is just a blanket health department rule that allows for fines of any business that allows the use of E-cig indoors and within the same 20 ft rule as cigarettes.
This is one reason why there are very few places to buy real e-cig gear and liquids in King county
Electronic cigarettes are useful as a means of harm reduction for current smokers who cannot quit. Note users call them PV’s as in Personal Vaporizers but since the public know them as “e-Cigarettes” then that is what I will use here.
The harm reduction is not questioned by medical professionals that I have talked to. It is questioned by federal, state and local bureaucrats who have jobs, tax income and political constituencies that support myriad nanny state policies.
I smoked 2 or more packs a day for 47 years starting when I was 10 years old. I started as a way to control nicotine withdrawal in the fall after working in tobacco fields during the grow and harvest seasons. (I did not know that at the time, I just knew it made me feel “normal” I absorbed it through my skin. School start was always delayed in NC until the end of the tobacco harvest. If you ever struggled with cold turkey nicotine withdrawal as an adult then imagine what it was to a kid. Cigarettes allowed me to not get expelled from school for fighting. (First day of first grade I spent the day in the office over an episode of defenestration.) (Look it up:)
I never successfully quit for longer than it took to bum the price of a pack until I tried an electronic cigarette. That was May 9th 2012.
My doctors were uniformly happy and encouraging. The primary health issues associated with cigarette smoke are not based on nicotine consumption. The are based on inhalation of smoke containing thousands of natural and artificial compounds including some which are created in the combustion process, 3000 of which are considered dangerous mainly due to the combustion process which created smoke particles which are hundreds of times smaller than the vapor droplets emitted by an e-cigarette. The smoke particles can reach and will often embed in parts of the lung and lung tissue which the larger vapor particles don’t reach. The nicotine in e-cigarettes is mainly absorbed through the mouth and trachea.
pdf’s for more info on Harm reduction
The use of ecigarettes as a harm reduction strategy to benefit public health
Nitzkin
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/pdf/ecigcontext.pdf
Obtained from the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) at http://www.aaphp.org
Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control
Cahn and Siegel
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/pdf/article.jphp.pdf
Anyone who wants more info on e-cigarettes or the hardware used to vaporize e-liquid can ask me. I can also repair some mods and I make my own e-liquid from unflavored nicotine with a vegetable glycerin base. Nothing wrong with propylene glycol which is classified by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) for use as a direct food additive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol
But I prefer the greater viscosity of veg glycerin.
I don’t like the King county ban since each business should be able and willing to ban whatever they see fit and not need third parties using specious science and Federal fear-mongering at the behest of the FDA’s bosom buddies in the Pharmacological industries who even now raise the price of nicotine gum, patches and lozenges to match local carton prices on cigarettes even when the cost increase is due to ever spiraling taxes on tobacco products.
BTW the cost for my e-cigarette supplies for a month are around 30 dollars as opposed to the 300 for what are referred to as “analog” cigarettes.
Yes I am still addicted to nicotine but now I have what I have wanted for a long time: a safe delivery system for nicotine at a fraction of the cost both in dollars and in health consequences.
The damage I have done to my lungs and other parts is still there but it is not getting any worse :)
But back to the topic: Starbucks will gain and lose probable equal numbers of customers for this move and it changes nothing in King County.
In other parts of the country it may be selectively enforced since Starbucks does not own the sidewalk.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
