From the public's eye on appearances alone.
1. I have no idea what chemicals or drugs are in your gadgets.
Curious where you are getting this information from, as you seem to be suggesting this is true for majority of the public. I'm thinking you are guessing at this rather than operating from some data, but even as a guess, it is worth addressing.
With this one, I think it is a fair prejudice for the public to have. But is equally fair to suggest this is true with everything in public, i.e. medical inhalers, people's drinks carried into public, what people exhale normally into the air, people's BO, and umpteen other items I could name. Again, I am saying it is equally fair to what this point is making. Whether or not it is equally accurate is what my first sentence was getting at.
But fact is, if we were either called out or person did a little homework on their own, they would be able to determine what it is we are likely carrying around in our gadgets, and could then come from informed position rather than jump to paranoid conclusion that because they are ignorant of what's in it, it means automatically that it might be harmful. As this thread brought up exhaled air as being on par with exhaled vapor, I truly believe that is equal in terms of this point. And as was said earlier in the thread, even while breathing is a necessary function, all persons currently in a public situation could wear a mouth filter to overcome the possible (extreme) danger that comes from exhaled air. But as many choose not to, I think we can safely assume for purposes of this discussion, that overwhelming majority of public isn't as reactionary to this type of logic as we might wish to argue. Especially if I or any vaper considers experiences from either vaping in public and getting into discussion with strangers, or from vaping around friends/family who will be candid with us about the whole vaping experience from a non vapers perspective.
2. That plume of smoke may smell sweet but so does antifreeze
Have never heard anyone in public say this, never heard anyone on a vaping forum say they've encountered this, nor could I imagine someone saying this and leaving the conversation there. But even if they did, or thought this and chose to act on it in some sort of action against vapers, I would consider it as ignorance that is due correction, or paranoia that deserves to fester as long as that person is unwilling to overcome this sort of prejudice.
3. The FDA/Government has not told me it's safe to my family or I to breath in the vapor you exhale.
The FDA/Government has also not told Joe Public that it's safe to Joe's family or Joe to breath in the air that people exhale. What are we going to do?
4. Secondhand does not just come from the cherry of a cigarette it is also what ones lungs do not absorb and is exhaled.
I've always thought secondhand was what came from one's lungs upon exhale. Therefore, I've always thought it was about what people are exhaling after they have inhaled it, even when this has to do with those things that have a lit burning cherry on them. Thus secondhand would technically apply to the CO-2 that all humans exhale into the air. I heard humans can't breath in CO-2 or it will harm them. I (facetiously) wonder how humans are permitted to exhale CO-2 into the air, when other humans are around? Would seem like there'd be laws against that, as the fear alone would be reason enough to assure everyone, regardless of age, is wearing a mouth filter. Unless, maybe, the amount of CO-2 from secondhand wouldn't be harmful to all bystanders in the vicinity regardless of their distance to the person breathing that out into the air? You think? Hmmm, maybe this would apply to other things that are exhaled? I wonder how in this age, the information age, we could possibly find these sort of things out?
The majority of the public's eyes are not reading/studying information all over the net on these devices. Most pepole at first sight don't see a vapor they see a smoke in a public place. That is connected with what they read or see in the media.
Good, more demonstrations are needed to overcome this notion that vapor is smoke. One would think if vapers and smokers are side by side, this will only confuse the uninformed public, so as of this date, it is mandatory that vapers and smokers do not hang together when exhaling their substances. Even if both vapers and smokers are clear on the distinction, it is plausible others are not, and to help make it clear for everyone, then these two must never ever again be mixed in together as that would just confuse the person who doesn't know, is not sure of the distinction. If / when this is firmly in place, then the distinction could be even more clear than it already is to say all my non-smoking, non-vaping friends who took less than 30 seconds from the first time I vaped in front of them to distinguish between the two, and who have repeatedly told me since then that in their experience, from their perspective, the two are nothing like each other based on appearance of what is in my mouth or what they can smell.
What we do in the public's eye WILL shape the publics and officials vote and make the bed we will have to lay in. Unfortunately because people can not be persuaded that vapping etiquette will save there freedom, we will inevitably loose that freedom.
So again, all vapers reading this, do not vape in public around smokers ever, as it is likely you are shaping the public's eye to possibly think they are the same thing. Never again do this. If you think it is necessary, please explain why and consider context of this discussion in your rationale.
Also realize that we have people amongst us who may have no idea what vaping or vapor is as they have never been in a cold weather climate and seen vapor coming out of people's mouths. So, it is important to demonstrate this and be prepared, just a little bit, to explain how vapor works. Chances are they won't even ask you, but if they do, just be prepared to do some educating for those who will assume it must be smoke because it kinda looks like smoke, even while it doesn't smell anything like smoke. As not everyone has time or access to get this information online, it behooves the vaping community to be out in public vaping and prepared to talk about. Probably at this time, it would be best to treat government as working against the open and honest desire for reasonable education on vaping for the curious public. Meaning, some may even go as far as saying it is banned in a place, but that can't be reason to not educate, thru demonstration. Find out the reason for the ban. If it is because it looks like smoke and smoking is not allowed here, then you know your education is needed, and demonstration would be helpful. If it is because no one can possibly know what's in an eCig, then while demonstrating the relative harmlessness of your eCig/vaporizer, be sure to educate people on this relatively new subject called "science" and how science has studied and been able to determine what is in these things, as if it isn't some guarded secret that only a privileged few could possibly ever learn about.
I don't think that women was right to vape in the doctors office but I also don't think calling her out to the attention of the doctors office was the best idea ether. Discrete confrontation maybe. However in the heat of the moment we all make poor judgments often.
Given what you've put forth and my response, I think it is mandatory for the woman in OP to vape in public, especially at this time. Why a fellow vaper would put that action down seems odd, but is what it is.
to that! 
