I see that many of us , also in my country are arguing about how we should vape in public , some are very much against (myself among them) vaping in public indoor places but others claim (and they have a point) that people like us are making others believe vaping is smoking.
To tell you the truth I'm a bit conflicted , on 1 hand acting the same way as I had when I smoked does make others believe it's like smoking but on the other hand vaping into people's faces will make them hate vaping and not see it as an alternative to smoking.
One thing for sure though , I hate the way we treat each other when it comes to that issue , many insults were thrown at people from both sides over that topic forgetting we have the same agenda !
Going back to OP of this thread because, well, all of what's being said is more of the same from other threads.
For me, it isn't a matter of we 'should' vape in public. But I do find that as plausible response to the idea of we 'should not' (ever) vape in public. I also think many, or even arguably all, counter points to the idea of vaping in public, with respect, is ANTZ rhetoric. Which, from my first and second read of OP, is where things for those on one side of the conflict get to level of insults. But NOT where they first start.
IMO, where it first starts is this idea of blowing vapor into people's faces as what is automatically occurring when ANYONE vapes in public, indoors. Gotta specify that 'indoors' part on a vaping forum, cause from what I can tell, no vaper wants to admit to the idea that when they are outside, and there is any sort of wind, their vapor may in fact wind up in someone's face. Instead, it is as if all bets are off when it comes to outdoor vaping, and if YOU don't like that, well then, that's YOUR problem.
So, if we had people making reasonable points along lines of 'never okay to vape indoors and outdoors in public,' they would likely be ignored by most vapers, and from those who chose to speak up, would likely be treated like, or called, ANTZ.
ANTZ again equals anti-nicotine and/or tobacco zealot. A conclusion of 'never okay, regardless of the situation, to vape in pubic,' would be zealous. Especially if couching that assertion in paragraph that tries to claim, 'it's the courteous, respectful thing to do, when in public.' Then further insulting when someone is compelled to say, 'if you must vape in that situation, then you have larger problems.'
All this strikes me as ANTZ rhetoric, or things a zealot might say. Which would make for interesting round of Jeopardy or Family Feud. But, they are repeated ad nauseam and with a zeal that either completely ignores situational ethics/mores, or downplays any aspect that one can vape, in public, with respect and consideration to other persons.
So, if you are totally cool with vaping outdoors, but make blanket assertions denying any vaper from vaping indoors in public, then on this issue, to me, you are half ANTZ-like. Especially if that is 'not up for discussion' and you are going to couch your words in false sense of courtesy or resort to 'you have a problem.' Guess what? ANTZ think vapers 'have a problem.' No one needs to vape. Many think they do. Some would probably be very unpleasant to be around if they didn't vape. But no one needs to vape. So, 'you have a problem' if you are vaping, makes perfect sense to the ANTZ leaning individual and is greatly resisted by the individual that enjoys vaping and finds great benefits in doing so.
If a post like the one you are reading right now is too long, and you'd rather stick to simple short sound bite type posts, then I see very little wrong or inaccurate about calling fellow vapers ANTZ or ANTZ like for suggesting that vaping indoors, in public, is inherently wrong. I am yet to see any point from the 'don't vape indoors in public' side that applies to all situations, and from my perspective, none of them squarely address the vape everywhere, with respect part. Instead, that is ignored or downplayed, which is insulting, and again the type of thing a zealot might do, or say.
