To all my ecf brothers and sisters.....please read.

[VapingRulz]

Exactly, we are talking about the RIGHT of the property owner to determine what they deem acceptable use on their property. Which incidentally is supported by LAW.

Too many people are confusing law with etiquette or corporate policy. Of course you *shouldn't* vape if the company has explicitly stated that it's banned. However, the corporate bans on vaping have no legal teeth unless they align with local/state laws that also ban vaping - and this situation exists in limited areas so far in America. In areas without anti-vaping laws on the books, the worst that can happen is that you'll be banned from the business premises and maybe a fine or a slap on the wrist. (Or fired, if you work there and get caught vaping.)

In the case of Starbucks, I won't be doing any more vaping in their stores because I refuse to spend another dime there - and neither will my family members who are so delighted that I no longer smoke. That's how I will fight them. Same deal with Lowe's. More importantly, I will make noise.

Resistance is not futile. If we don't fight back, the antis will win. You can bet on it.

 

[oldsoldier]

Too many people are confusing law with etiquette or corporate policy. Of course you *shouldn't* vape if the company has explicitly stated that it's banned. However, the corporate bans on vaping have no legal teeth unless they align with local/state laws that also ban vaping - and this situation exists in limited areas so far in America. In areas without anti-vaping laws on the books, the worst that can happen is that you'll be banned from the business premises and maybe a fine or a slap on the wrist. (Or fired, if you work there and get caught vaping.)

In the case of Starbucks, I won't be doing any more vaping in their stores because I refuse to spend another dime there - and neither will my family members who are so delighted that I no longer smoke. That's how I will fight them. Same deal with Lowe's. More importantly, I will make noise.

Resistance is not futile. If we don't fight back, the antis will win. You can bet on it.

responding to the bolded part:
Actually they do. If i ban an activity on my property and you engage in that activity I have the legal right to eject you and ban you from ever returning.
If you return you are in violation of law.

 

[VapingRulz]

ever heard of "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" .. ??

What's your point? That's part business policy and part law - dependent upon where you live and what type of business it is.

Would it be ok with you if McDonalds instituted a nationwide ban on gum chewing on their premises?

 

[VapingRulz]

responding to the bolded part:
Actually they do. If i ban an activity on my property and you engage in that activity I have the legal right to eject you and ban you from ever returning.
If you return you are in violation of law.

As I said, they can ban you from the premises. If you choose to return, then you ARE knowingly breaking the law.

First act - vaping - not against the law.
Second law - trespassing - definitely against the law.

 

[Uncle Willie]

What's your point? That's part business policy and part law - dependent upon where you live and what type of business it is.

Would it be ok with you if McDonalds instituted a nationwide ban on gum chewing on their premises?

There is no law I know of that bans going shirtless or shoeless .. and if McD banned gum chewing, that's their right .. Democracy applies to business as well as individuals ..

 

[APD99]

People do confuse RIGHTS with rights. Do I have the right to drink Pepsi? Yes. Does the Constitution guarantee me the RIGHT to drink Pepsi, no. I have the right to make the choice to drink Pepse, as oppose to Coke, because the Government is not "suppose" to have the power to enforce it's authority in what commercial product I chose. Let's not get Obama care, as that will just make this thread a political one, as oppose to one of intelligent debate concerning our desire to vape.

Cigarette smoking has been "proven" to be a public health concern, and with that our Government has the authority to regulate it's use, to a certain extent. Our Government will not totally ban their use, due to financial reasons. Vaping has not be "proven" to be a public health concern, though the FDA did make a feeble attempt at making it so. At the present time, our Government has not seen financial benefits from PVs (though I'm sure someone is trying to figure that one out). If, Vapers, sellers, and producers employ Lobbyests, smoozing with Politicians, we could see bans being lifted. Until there is unity and strength within our "interests", we will have to continue to address each ban, individually, and address them, we must!

Addressing the bans was never the issue. I agree wholeheartedly that the bans are wrong and need to be addressed. Creating an extremist movement is only going to generate the wrong kind of attention. We already have a man who happens to be a vaper being brought up on charges for being a jackass on a plane, and the headlines focus on the e-cigarette as the cause. Will the headline"E-cigarette smoking man ejected from Starbucks by local law enforcement!" make life easier for anybody who enjoys a PV? I don't think so. Lobbying, political maneuvering, and POSITIVE press are the answer. Maybe if we stopped being so confrontational and got a headline like "Starbucks unfairly targeting NRT users in company wide ban!" it would go a long way towards public acceptance.

 

[WAC_Vet]

That's a strange argument. It's not the non-vapers in the coffee shop who are objecting in the first place - it's the corporate talking heads and the local and state governmental entities. We're talking about law and/or policy here, not etiquette.

I agree and disagree with you. It starts with corporate, but through them, and the misinformation from the FDA (and other extremist non-smoking sources), it does enter the mind of everyday Joe Shmoe, forming his opinion. Thus, the uninformed, or misinformed public make demands for "protection" from unproven "dangers".

You don't have a very good grasp on the mechanics involved in public policy decision-making. It's not the pompous jerk sitting next to you who's causing the pv bans at this point in time - but it will be soon if we don't object vigorously now. There is no firm "public opinion" about ecigs yet because the vast majority of the general public has no idea what they are. And if you really believe that consumables in our society are made illegal for safety reasons, you really do need to rethink that. We have no shortage of very dangerous pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drugs, and foods that are widely available to the public in every 24-hour supermarket and drugstore in the land.

Springfield Missouri has an 'ecig/PV' ban in effect, from a public vote on the issue. It is very possible that many voters had no idea that PVs were included in the no-smoking ban, that they had no idea what a PV was, or that they only received misinformation concerning PVs. Regardless, it was the people that voted.

PVs hurt the Pharmaceutical Companies! There is NO doubt about that. They also hurt the tobacco companies, not to mention the various Governments (County, City, State, Federal) by loss of taxes. THAT is the biggest problem the vaping industry faces.

As a disabled Veteran, I can attest to the dangerous drugs offered by the Pharmaceutical Companies, when there are natural ingredients that can do the same job, without the dangerous side effects, but are made illegal (in their natural form). As long as it is made synthetically, with other added chemicals by a Pharmaceutical Company, then it's legal. Pharmaceutical Companies have well paid Lobbyists, and can afford to romance Politicians.

As for dangerous foods..... we have an ever growing number of people deathly allergic to peanuts. Peanuts are a serious public health concern, but there are no City or State wide bans on peanuts.

I stated before, and I will state it again, I have yet to hear one Vaper state they blow plumes of vapor in the faces of others. From what I've been reading, Vapers are very considerate of non-vapers, not wanting to cause negativity about out habit, but they, and I, do not want to be reduced to being lumped in with smokers.

 

[Vapor Pete]

Was vaping banned there?

I have no idea. Smoking is banned almost everywhere. Had you followed my post, and read my "bar incident", I was tying it in. I've been told I couldnt smoke at concerts. Outside concerts. It is there that I've blatently and outright told security that Im NOT smoking. Concerts are a different animal than dealing with bar tenders who have asked me to not vape. Security personell are not the owners or operators at a concert venue and are told people cannot smoke. When I show them Im not, they really have nothing more to me. At a concert, the one or two security officers who tell me not to smoke, are not likely going to be badgered by 150 smokers who think they are "letting me smoke". At the bar, the bar tender very well might. I respect that the bar tender is trying to avoid that.

 

[WAC_Vet]

Addressing the bans was never the issue. I agree wholeheartedly that the bans are wrong and need to be addressed. Creating an extremist movement is only going to generate the wrong kind of attention. We already have a man who happens to be a vaper being brought up on charges for being a jackass on a plane, and the headlines focus on the e-cigarette as the cause. Will the headline"E-cigarette smoking man ejected from Starbucks by local law enforcement!" make life easier for anybody who enjoys a PV? I don't think so. Lobbying, political maneuvering, and POSITIVE press are the answer. Maybe if we stopped being so confrontational and got a headline like "Starbucks unfairly targeting NRT users in company wide ban!" it would go a long way towards public acceptance.

Did I advocate an extremist action? I thought, at one point I suggested contacting Starbucks Corporate Office, and explaining how it could be financially advantageous to them to allow vaping in their stores.

I will admit though, I do believe any ban on PVs that are on "the books", such as County, City, State... should be gone over with a fine tooth comb, and if there is a loop-hole.....{smile}

 

[APD99]

Did I advocate an extremist action? I thought, at one point I suggested contacting Starbucks Corporate Office, and explaining how it could be financially advantageous to them to allow vaping in their stores.

I will admit though, I do believe any ban on PVs that are on "the books", such as County, City, State... should be gone over with a fine tooth comb, and if there is a loop-hole.....{smile}

YOU haven't advocated extremism, but several others have. Extreme actions get extreme reactions, and that is usually not good. Good luck on the loophole search, I'm a fast reader so feel free to send anything my way.

 

[Vapor Pete]

You did much more than some on here would do to promote vaping in a responsible manner in your "bar" example. Those of us who believe that we need to vape openly but respectfully, are not suggesting any one do something different than what you did. But to do nothing, to send the message through words and actions that vaping is exactly the same as smoking is the problem. It's not about being disrespectful of others, it's about always acting in a manner that educates as well as being respectful of others. Acting like vaping is exactly the same as smoking is the problem.

The only time I had a resturant owner ask me not to vape was for the exact same reason that your bar owner gave. He was not against vaping, but he did not want to explain to 10 different people that I was vaping and not smoking and that they could not smoke inside. I could fully understand that and of course respected his request. I did put forth the idea that he might consider placing some signs up, when he thought it was the right time, that vaping was allowed but not smoking and he might garner some new customers. He told me if more of his regular smoking customers switched to vaping he would definitely do that. This is the type of foundation I believe we need to promote.

I think we agree then wv2win. I just disagree with the "renegade vapers" who believe they have some sort of "right" to vape anywhere they please, and then put up a .....-fit when they're told to refrain. I think its counter productive to our cause.

I think we have a right to educate establishments on our devices, and ask for permission to use them. If we are told not to, despite our efforts, then thats the end of the story.

 

[WAC_Vet]

In everyday life, we are going to have those among us that want to push the limits, where there really weren't any, until they've been pushed....an example.. I was dating a "Gentleman" in 2009, when I first started vaping. I thought I had turned him onto the awesome world of vaping. I bought him 2 SmokeStiks sets. He was working on a new part of a hospital (not open to patients), as a plumber. There was a strict no smoking policy enforce (rightfully so). He flaunted the SSs, vaping even on the elevator, basically daring someone to say something! Not only did he do that, he would smoke an analog, and when confronted, would insist it was his SS. I was furious when I discovered what he was doing. Actions such as his, tgnorant, rude, totally inconsiderate, gives vaping and Vapers a bad name. Thankfully, he stopped using the SSs, which I have in my possession, and uses only analogs.

People and actions like that will be found in any and all walks of life, unfortunately. Yes, we do have battles ahead of us, but we must each work out a good strategy on how we need to approach the battle, but be flexible enough to change the strategy, as the situation warrants.

 

[wv2win]

I think we agree then wv2win. I just disagree with the "renegade vapers" who believe they have some sort of "right" to vape anywhere they please, and then put up a .....-fit when they're told to refrain. I think its counter productive to our cause.

I think we have a right to educate establishments on our devices, and ask for permission to use them. If we are told not to, despite our efforts, then thats the end of the story.

Based on your actions, I do believe we are in agreement. I am also in agreement with those who believe we need to challenge companies like Starbucks when they institute a blanket ban on vaping, even outside. In my mind, challenge means, letters, emails, civil conversation and education. And if they refuse to reconsider or accomodate, then at a minimum, we disagree with their actions by taking our business elsewhere. When a highly visible corporation takes an action which in essense, equates vaping to smoking, doing nothing is not the answer. And that is the biggest difference between the two sides of this arguement. Letting others characterize vaping as the same as smoking will only lead to a bad outcome for vaping, overall. That is why I believe we all must respectful advocate and educate on what vaping is and what it is not. Sometimes that requires that we stand-up and refuse to agree with an action that may be legally permissible but that is still a flawed action. There have been a number of laws over the last 200 years that were in force, but were definitely flawed, harmful and incorrect.

 

[VapingRulz]

There is no law I know of that bans going shirtless or shoeless .. and if McD banned gum chewing, that's their right .. Democracy applies to business as well as individuals ..

There are laws against going into restaurants shoeless in many states. It's a health law.

I think that McD's would be sued if they tried to institute a ban on chewing gum in their restaurants because it infringes on the civil rights of their customers - even though there is no law on the books that gives anyone the right to chew gum. And I think that the customers would win the lawsuit. Not that McD's would ever try something like that, given the demographic of their customers and the potential hit on profits.

 

[VapingRulz]

Addressing the bans was never the issue. I agree wholeheartedly that the bans are wrong and need to be addressed. Creating an extremist movement is only going to generate the wrong kind of attention.

An extremist movement? I think we define that differently. To me, it's a political fight. I don't blow plumes of vapor anywhere in public and I never have. In fact, I have yet to run into a single person who cared if I vaped; not a single objection so far. I do, however, stealth vape everywhere - without a bit of guilt or remorse.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Why should I mix with smokers when I am a non-smoker? I gave up the habit. I don't want to develop cancer, that is why I use a PV.
Do asthmatics have to go out to use a smoking area when they use their inhaler? Exactly the same thing, inhale foreign substance/exhale toxic by-product (sarcasm).

There is NO LAW that allows you to use your PV anywhere other than where operators allow you to.

There is no science that says smoke and vapor are the same thing, but that is effectually what they are saying.

 

[Uncle Willie]

story made it to CNN

FBI: 'Enraged' flier pelts crew with peanuts - CNN.com

 

[Darrigaaz]

story made it to CNN

FBI: 'Enraged' flier pelts crew with peanuts - CNN.com

I understand you feel the need to crosspost this into a bunch of threads, but this thread is about Starbucks and ecigs.

 

[fray]

I understand you feel the need to crosspost this into a bunch of threads, but this thread is about Starbucks and ecigs.

It goes perfectly with the theme of the topic. People feeling entitled to vape anywhere and being upset when they can't.

 

[Uncle Willie]

I understand you feel the need to crosspost this into a bunch of threads, but this thread is about Starbucks and ecigs.

and thus it's relevant to the discussion of public use / ban