Vaping at local Starbucks

[Tarkonian]

I've been a Vaper since May now, and have frequently vaped at my local Starbucks until recently.

At first, they were okay with it. And then the no smoking policy struck. They asked me to abide by their rules, which I complied (they have a sign that says 'No smoking in this establishment, or within 10 feet of the patio area'). So, I moved the requisite 10 feet away from the patio, and yet continued to get harassed by the management. The manager instructed me to stand no closer than a specific point and she'd never bother me again. So, I complied and moved to that spot.

The next time I visited that Starbucks, I stood where she instructed and began to vape. I finished it off and had a sit-down at one of the tables and didn't vape again. Well, she called Security on me (it shares a lot with the mall) and they informed me that if I didn't stand at the street or at the non-occupied structure next door to do my 'smoking' they would ban me from that location.

I had reported her numerous times for this constant harassment (it was more than these two occasions), speaking with corporate, calmly trying to explain to her, the guards, and to corporate of what this wonderful little device actually was. They didn't seem to care.

I was wondering if anyone else had experienced this sort of trouble with Starbucks. I can't do much more than do what they tell me to do as far as the vaping and 'concerns of other customers', and so am at a loss.

Any incite or advice would be greatly appreciated. I have been going to this particular store for 6 years consistently and have never had a problem there before.

 

[ChuckB]

It's kind of sad considering that you are a long time customer but, it's her business so it's her call. If I was in your shoes, I'd just stop doing business there. They are probably more concerned with the appearance of someone smoking then the fact that you are vaping and thats probably what's triggering their response to you.

This is just one of those cases where, yes, you are in the right as you arn't smoking, but it really doesn't help anyone to push the issue because they don't really care about the facts, just the appearance. What will help vapers overall is to not push these types of people, but to graciously just move on. If you've explained what vaping is and they still don't want you there, you really can't win with them and pushing the issue will just make it that much harder for them to ever have any kind of change of heart.

 

[Tarkonian]

I suppose you're right. The escalation there, however, felt quite a bit exaggerated to what it should have been. Especially considering I complied with all directives they gave me. Calling security just felt a bit much in my opinion.

Have you experienced something as severe as this before? It's hard to imagine receiving persecution for trying to quit smoking and choosing a healthy alternative. It's not like I was vandalizing or loitering. Needless to say, I was quite livid

 

[Rocketman]

I agree that a retail establishment has the right to ask you not to vape. If they can't easily be educated, or are just so damn anti-smoking that logic just won't sink in, then there is little hope. Were you vaping a cigarette 'look-alike'? or a big gaudy mod?

In addition to losing one customer, which probably won't bother them one bit, is there a way to publicize businesses that aren't 'vape-friendly'? Blog, website? It would probably be well within your first amendment rights to put a list of retailers and their public position about vaping on your facebook page. Maybe more of your vaping friends getting asked to leave would help 'educate them'.

I have yet to be confronted about vaping in public. Interest from others customers might influence management from saying anything to me. I bet they would hate a crowd following me outside just to demonstrate.

Rocket

 

[rayneinspain]

I'm wondering if the rabid attitude stems from the fact that the company is based in Seattle--a city quite proud of its hate toward all things smoking related.

Even if it isn't, it's now 'cool' to many companies to be as crappy to smokers (analog and/or ecig) as possible, ignoring the fact that smokers/vapers have money, too.

That's why I vote with my wallet as much as possible, and I definitely don't reward bad/rude behavior with my business.

 

[Rocketman]

I don't think it's a corporate policy. The wife and I have vaped in many StarBucks (several in Manhattan on my last vacation) and locally. I pretty much go everywhere with a flashlight mod in my hand.

R

 

[Tarkonian]

I vape an RN4081 "Super-Mini" so yes, it looks like a real cigarette. I suppose that's quite an antagonist right there. However, I can't count the times I've literally taken it entirely apart to demonstrate the fact it's entirely electronic.

They have also given my buddy (who also vapes an RN-4081) the same harassment. The worst part is...I've seen them literally completely ignore an analog smoker who regulars there like I did.

They've even smelled the liquid itself from the bottle (which is essentially the same as 'second-hand-vaping' it...go figure). I have been there only once since the security guard issue, so who knows? I probably will wind up coming back there because it's the place sort of in the middle of where all my friends live so it just makes it convenient to hang out there.

 

[Rocketman]

Maybe 'all your friends' can help. A crowd walking out makes a statement. Maybe hang at a Mickey D's. They have a new iced frap now

(I spent a few years about half an hour south of Fresno back in the late 70's)

 

[redrobin347]

A company will get fined by the state for allowing smoking inside their establishment. Although vaping is not smoking. The manager of the company is only playing it safe for their own sake with the smoking ban. It is much easier to tell a vaper no then it would be to explain to all the customers what you were doing.

 

[AlphaTau99]

I'm curious as to where the line is-- b/c I think there's a very fine one between "responsible vaper" and "doormat."

One of those catch-22's.

I've been fortunate enough to have had no problems in any business, as of yet.

 

[Tarkonian]

Oh, no, I've never vaped inside simply out of respect (I'd been going their for 6 years, obviously they earned it until this fiasco), I always just vaped on the patio, then 10 feet, and then greater than 25 feet from the establishment. I knew doing so inside would cause a stink so I just avoided that conflict outright, thinking the patio would be the safest bet.

As far as a group of people walking out, this manager doesn't seem to give two halves of a whole ..... what her customers think. The last bit of contact I had with corporate was directly to the District Manager who seemed very ...... she was being this aggressive.

It's also important to note that prior to all of this, I had called corporate and inquired about the specifics of their rule (ie. if PV 's were allowed). They told me it was fine due to the Proposition 65 smoking ban of 1986 (I think it was '86) stated that the ban applied to only products containing tobacco that required an open flame to use.

After a while, they got back to me (their legal team had apparently done some research) and they stated that the ban also applies to any and all toxic chemicals that may leave a residue behind. Then explained that nicotine is considered a toxic chemical and therefore I couldn't do it anymore...

 

[Rocketman]

OK, Mickey D's it is then

 

[opaqueRED]

that does seem pretty silly, especially if you were a good enough distance away from the entrance.

as previously mentioned, though, a lot of companies are really strict about smoking... and in respect of their customers, they have a right.



there is a wonderful little coffee shop in rock island, illinois, however that openly welcomes vapers. that place is one of the reasons why i decided to start today. outside smoke breaks in the WONDERFUL midwestern humidity were really starting to get on my nerves.

 

[Tarkonian]

I suppose a different locale is in order, yeah.

I can't help but wonder if that 'toxin' line is real or not. I have yet to find any literature on the proposition itself, let alone a PDF or something of the actual proposition 65 smoking ban