In a legal sense, I don't disagree with someone banning a behavior based on absolutely nothing but personal bias. I do think that if they do, it's plenty of justification for a boycott of that establishment.
No shoes, shirt laws are laws. They're based on public health an liabiltiy issues. They're not something the proprietor does at his own discretion because he, or his patrons, might be offended. It does present a reasonable chance of adverse consequences. That's why it's a law and not up to the discretion of the business owner.
Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the vaping ban was a result of popular demand among Starbucks customers. It was likely a corporate decision resulting from the conflation of smoking and vaping, as is constantly reinforced by FDA and anti-tobacco nazi propagandists.
There is an entire chain of malls that has instituted a no-tobacco policy, including snus and dissolvalble tobacco products. Technically that would include Nicorette gum and patches. Do you seriously think that ban was the product of customer demand?
A suit like that would be instantly thrown out of court. More likely, it would never see the light of day. To even pose such a scenario is proof of how uninformed some people are of how the civil court system operates. It's as firivilous as taking your neighbor to court for the toxic emissions of his lawnmower. It is an established fact that he levels of nicotine contained in an e-cigarette are well below any amount that could be considered harmful. The amount of arsenic allowed in your tap water is more harmful than the amount of nicotine contained in many, many, cubic meters of vapor. Would you take your water utility to court over arsenic exposure? Do yo only drink bottled water? Should you be forced to only drink bottled water? The fact is that Starbucks serves food and beverages to it's customers that contain higher levels of toxins than would be ingested due to inhaling e-cig vapor.
I don't see any majority of people demanding that we not vape. I see a minority of anti-smoking nazis propagating disinformation in an attempt to create an atmosphere where they do. I see people like you swallowing it hook, line and sinker. I see a bunch of non-sequiturs and arguments based on nothing factual. I see people like you not listening to reason and preferring to believe nonsense and myths and propaganda. The truth has a way of appearing pig headed because it doesn't change, regardless of the hysteria and scare tactics of the absolutists and propagandists.
Drumming your hand on a table can be interpreted as annoying by a reasonable person. The fact that nearly everyone agrees is evidence of that. The fact you used it as an example is evidence of that. Ever heard of the "reasonable man" doctrine? That's how cases like that are judged. You have no right to do something that would annoy a reasonable person. OTOH, if I objected to the perfumed woman next to me and demanded she be expelled, I would not be reasonable and I shouldn't expect to be accommodated. So, it is fairly easy to determine what is reasonableness and that is the criteria used. The fact that I get very, very few objections when I vape in public is prima-facie evidence that a reasonable person does not find my vaping annoying or offensive.
I agree. When someone has the common courtesy to respect my right to do what I want as long as it poses no risk to them, or annoys a reasonable person, then I'll respect them and show them the same courtesy. But if they try to use the law to force me to submit to their unreasonable demands in order to spare their delicate sensibilities, they'll get no respect from me.
Last edited:
