7 Things Starbucks Needs To Ban By PT_Tesla  [39 more lists]

If second hand smoke is truly a health concern then Starbucks should also consider removing all their drive-thru windows. The amount of carbon monoxide their employees are exposed to on a daily basis is obscene.

By allowing drive-thru windows Starbucks also subjects its patrons to a steady stream of carbon monoxide poisoning. The exposure to constant carbon monoxide poisoning would seem a greater health hazard than walking by a smoker for 2 seconds.

People may want to consider that studies for prolonged exposure to carbon monoxide poisoning have shown that it can actually be more harmful then a few seconds of outdoor exposure to cigarette smoke.

How is it that on the same day Starbucks employees were kicking out smokers that another patron was allowed to drink a 40oz. of Miller High Life in the Patio for 3 hours, then drunkenly approaching middle school students trying to study asking them if they'd like to see a card trick?

What type of rationale is used to allow drunks that aren't even customers to chill at Starbucks while running out patrons that actually generate a profit for the company?

Spitting indoors and on the outdoor patios is not only disgusting, but it is a total health hazard. The medical community, emergency services units, and law enforcement consider any fluid excreted from the body to be biohazardous material.

Saliva can transmit Chickenpox, Common cold, Diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), Influenza, Measles, Meningitis (bacterial), Meningococcal disease, Mumps, Parvovirus infection, Pneumococcal pneumonia, Rubella, Streptococcal sore throat, Tuberculosis (TB), and even Whooping cough (pertussis).

If Starbucks truly cared about the well being of its customers, it would take steps to no longer allow the transmission of such disease on its property.

Drug deals are definitely a greater hazard than second hand smoke. If the deal goes bad, everyone's getting shot, including the customers (which is a huge health hazzard, because c'mcon, death)

Starbucks needs to hire security guards with drug sniffing dogs to check each customer entering the premises. Well since they shouldn't allow dogs either, then customers should be swabbed and tested.

Prostitution has been around much longer than the Venti Mocha Frappuccino. As old of a profession as prostitution is, it is still actually illegal in most States. Since it is actually illegal, Starbucks should enforce this law rather than wasting its resources banning legal activities.

Obviously the prostitutes are usually cordial and covert with their activities, but still, hookers over smokers? What message is Starbucks trying to send to its customers "we will waste valuable police resources if you light a cigarette 9 feet away from the patio, but you can pick up hookers with your Green Tea Latte all day long"?