Well, with that said, then post #271 applies to me as social norms strongly suggest if you can get away with it, it is (very) okay. I could compare this to other things (that people get away with and are relatively harmless), but isn't really necessary if you think about the principle at work, concerning social norms. If you can get away with it, it is okay. And becomes less okay if there are more rules, regulations and laws (with stiff punishments) that are put into place to impact how we all view social norms.
Yet, very important reality is if you do get away with it, then there may be no evidence that you did it, but reasoning would explain that you must have done it respectfully (of no bother to anyone else) and invoked the least amount of harm (relative harmlessness).
Furthermore, Baldr represents most plausible example of non-harm from anti-vaping perspective that I can think of. Not exhaling nicotine into room with people who are conditioned to think a) nicotine is a carcinogen and b) nicotine inhalation, of the secondhand type, will lead to an addiction which means c) nicotine in the air must be avoided at all costs. Thus, it is really challenging to understand why Baldr cannot vape in presence of other people and get away with it.
This issue will continue to fascinate me, if for no other reason than people everywhere are exhaling a vapor that is visible in cold temps and invisible in warm temps, and we currently (according to social norms) feel that if you have issue with that (other people's exhaled vapor), then it is your problem, not society's, not those who are exhaling. It really does seem to come down to "it looks like smoking and I've been conditioned to despise smoking, therefore don't do anything that looks like smoking or YOU have a problem."
Thank God the social norm of "getting away with it, no harm, no foul" trumps that. I hope that lasts indefinitely, for respectful vapers currently have the upper hand and likely will for the foreseeable future.
