Starbucks bans PVs

[Berylanna]

The ANTZ people should just join up with MADD... they are all going for the extreme, rather than the intelligent.

Turns out MADD is AGAINST lowering the blood alcohol limit to .05 -- they're not as crazy as I thought. They want technology improved so that previously-convicted DUI folks, especially multiple offenders, can have a device installed that won't let them drive drunk. The current devices aren't quite cutting it, I don't know the details.

The drive behind the .05 is the NTSB, possibly being pushed by WHO, since they keep mentioning world standards.

A friend of mine from high school was killed TWICE by drunk drivers. The first time they brought her back, but she never did remember her family or anything at all about her life, and had to change her major from science to art. She just had to take it for granted that these people who said they were her family were telling the truth. And re-learn how to walk, talk, and read.

A few years later, another wrong-way head-on, a drunk nurse, and she was gone for good. They are among the founding members of MADD. So I have to say that if they are in favor of keeping the limit at .08, and since, unlike ANTZ who cannot POSSIBLY have lost people to ecigs, I have considerably more sympathy for MADD members.

 

[Uma]

Why does this not surprise me?
Starbucks is also in Calif.
Calif has Senator Corbett and Stanton Guntz spreading wildfires of misguided studies and propaganda in order to "protect" the public and look like a "hero". (just like Hitler eh).
Corbett is trying to force Vapers into the "designated" smoking areas and when asked why she wants to send non-smokers into the smoking sections she says "we're not forcing them to stand with the smokers, they can go stand somewhere else". Which, as we know, will not work.
Today Starbucks tries to claim the designated areas as well as the "other areas", in order to claim all areas.

surprise, surprise...
I'm beginning to think that Starbucks is the chief hangout for political thugs.

 

[Plettschner]

Turns out MADD is AGAINST lowering the blood alcohol limit to .05 -- they're not as crazy as I thought. They want technology improved so that previously-convicted DUI folks, especially multiple offenders, can have a device installed that won't let them drive drunk. The current devices aren't quite cutting it, I don't know the details.

The drive behind the .05 is the NTSB, possibly being pushed by WHO, since they keep mentioning world standards.

A friend of mine from high school was killed TWICE by drunk drivers. The first time they brought her back, but she never did remember her family or anything at all about her life, and had to change her major from science to art. She just had to take it for granted that these people who said they were her family were telling the truth. And re-learn how to walk, talk, and read.

A few years later, another wrong-way head-on, a drunk nurse, and she was gone for good. They are among the founding members of MADD. So I have to say that if they are in favor of keeping the limit at .08, and since, unlike ANTZ who cannot POSSIBLY have lost people to ecigs, I have considerably more sympathy for MADD members.

Wow, what are the chances...

Good to see they may be getting back on the right track with their agenda.

 

[Pyrate]

You know, the ban says nothing of Chewing Tobacco so this morning a friend and I sat outside with a cup of coffee and a dip. Manager didnt like us spitting on the ground. We said "Your ban only covers Smoking and Vaping so....../spit! " So we spit in the coffee and walked away.
Their coffee is over priced and burnt anyway

 

[DC2]

You know, the ban says nothing of Chewing Tobacco so this morning a friend and I sat outside with a cup of coffee and a dip. Manager didnt like us spitting on the ground. We said "Your ban only covers Smoking and Vaping so....../spit! " So we spit in the coffee and walked away.
Their coffee is over priced and burnt anyway

I like your style.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Please note that Starbucks is headquartered in Seattle, and the Seattle-King County Board of Health banned e-cigarette use in all workplaces in 2011 (via illegal lobbying with federal grant funds from CDC).

Also please note that Starbuck's new policy only applies to property at Starbucks owned and operated stores (not Starbucks that are licensed, and not on public sidewalks or other publicly owned property).

While I understand and support Starbucks' ban on smoking with 25 feet outside, there is no justification for also banning e-cig use.

Someone should inform the Starbucks executives that coffee vapor has significantly higher levels of carcinogens than e-cigarette vapor.

 

[DC2]

Someone should inform the Starbucks executives that coffee vapor has significantly higher levels of carcinogens than e-cigarette vapor.

Whoa!! Hang on a minute... Does it really?

I would like to use any relevant data to blast these folks.
I have no doubt that since you said it, there is some truth to it.

I just need links to pass on to the uneducated.
Which, unfortunately currently includes me.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Interestingly, a gun control group has criticized Starbucks for banning smoking, but not guns, within 25 feet of stores.
Official Statement: Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America On Starbucks' Decision To Ban Smoking, But Not Loaded Weapons - PR Newswire - The Sacramento Bee

 

[Plettschner]

You had to go there!

 

[DC2]

I know this will get me killed... but certain types of moms are the bane of humanity as we know it.

Your precious little gem is not a priceless piece of gold.
Deal with it, and deal with life.

There, I said it, and I'm not backing down from it.
Although I imagine I'm going to really regret saying it.

My mom didn't want me to play baseball.
Yeah, baseball.

She was afraid I might get hurt.
Seriously?

This might be the post I most regret making on this entire forum.
I think I need a vape and prepare myself for the coming onslaught of mad moms.

 

[Plettschner]

Effit man, that's the truth... you're good with me.

 

[DC2]

Effit man, that's the truth... you're good with me.

Thanks. This is one of the few times in my life I have been seriously scared.

 

[AgentAnia]

Well personally, DC2 and Plettschner, I have no problem with it, as long as it's legal and you're a responsible gun owner.

My initial reaction to the article was "Ahhhh, we begin our slide down the slippery slope!" I personally would like to see a policy or law against the wearing of perfumes and other strongly scented personal hygiene products that can be smelled by a bystander standing at least 5 feet from the wearer. In any enclosed space. This triggers my allergies and gives me no end of grief. It is not healthy for me. It must be banned.

Thankyouverymuch.

 

[MiamiMom63]

Okay, this is probably a dumb question, but what are ANTZ? Lol. Is that like trolls? I just learned about trolls not long ago. I keep hearing about both. I do think sometimes people will be quick to jump down someone's throat and call them one or the other if there is a question they aren't sure about. I was called a troll once over what I thought was a valid question when I started learning RBA's. it upset me so much I almost left the forum. And the person was soo rude! I'm glad I didn't leave though, but now I keep hearing of ANTZ?

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Okay, this is probably a dumb question, but what are ANTZ? Lol. Is that like trolls? I just learned about trolls not long ago. I keep hearing about both. I do think sometimes people will be quick to jump down someone's throat and call them one or the other if there is a question they aren't sure about. I was called a troll once over what I thought was a valid question when I started learning RBA's. it upset me so much I almost left the forum. And the person was soo rude! I'm glad I didn't leave though, but now I keep hearing of ANTZ?

Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots.

 

[MiamiMom63]

Ohhh, thanks alot! I figured it was anti something to do with Ecigs. Lol. Thanks!

 

[Berylanna]

I know this will get me killed... but certain types of moms are the bane of humanity as we know it.

Your precious little gem is not a priceless piece of gold.
Deal with it, and deal with life.

There, I said it, and I'm not backing down from it.
Although I imagine I'm going to really regret saying it.
<snip>
This might be the post I most regret making on this entire forum.
I think I need a vape and prepare myself for the coming onslaught of mad moms.

Mad Mom reporting in. Priceless beyond gold. Beyond life.

However, gold can take some punishment without losing its value.

I let them play soccer and softball, but the thing that got my daughter's skull split from ear to ear was normal playground equipment for 5-year-olds, but she was 3. And they had let all the tanbark get away, so there was no padding. Before the age of 5, the nerve transmission speed in arms is too slow to let kids throw their arms over their heads before hitting the ground.

After the bones knitted together, she has been hard-headed as all heck. But, actually, she's a Taurus and showed some of those tendencies before the injury.

Now she has a 1-year-old and a 3-year-old so I'm getting some revenge for the fear.

 

[Pyrate]

This new rule makes no sense. What are they banning exactly? Is it the nicotine in the smoke/vapor or is it the act itself?
What if someone just vaped No-Nic juice with flavoring?
What of those that use a Nebulizer/Inhaler?
What if you are in Colorado or Washington. Can you smoke a bowl/blunt/spliff?

Not that I really care. 5bucks sucks anyway. It just seems someone arbitrarily pulled this thing out of their ... and stuck it on the wall.

 

[Petrodus]

This new rule makes no sense. What are they banning exactly? Is it the nicotine in the smoke/vapor or is it the act itself?
What if someone just vaped No-Nic juice with flavoring?
What of those that use a Nebulizer/Inhaler?
What if you are in Colorado or Washington. Can you smoke a bowl/blunt/spliff?

Not that I really care. 5bucks sucks anyway. It just seems someone arbitrarily pulled this thing out of their ... and stuck it on the wall.

I suggest "health concerns" is nothing more than a smoke screen
to justify Starbucks policy of not wanting to even see the perception
of smoking on their premises.

What angers us is when someone or a company comes up with a lame excuse
to justify their decision to ban e-smoking to cover their real agenda of not
wishing to see the perception of smoking.

I suggest companies and individuals have the right to not allow the perception
of smoking at on their premises. Companies as well as home owners have the right
to say no smoking or no e-smoking here.

They make the BIG MISTAKE when saying they wish to ban e-smoking based
on "health concerns" to HIDE their real agenda of simply not wishing to
even see the perception of smoking.

 

[hottierockstar]

Another bunch of ignorant looney-tunes runs Lowe's: you can't even leave smoking or e-smoking supplies in your car in their parking lot. Needless to say, this policy has honked off a bunch of small contractors and such, many of whom smoke or vape and many of whom won't patronize Lowe's anymore. Needless to say, Lowe's is on my boycott list also.

what in the bleep does this even mean?! this is something they have seriously publicized as a policy?! what if i have things i have purchased from Home Depot in my vehicle?
i know this is about 'bucks but for bleep's sake....