I am not aware of any post in this thread advocating openly discourteous behavior; most people, I suspect, actually agree with your position on how to approach the issue in public places.
That said, Baldr most likely received "Likes" because of his rebuttal to the vaping-is-not-a-right argument, which is specious and gratuitously inflammatory. Of course you don't have a constitutionally protected right to vape (regardless of situation, in other words). You don't have an explicitly guaranteed right to wear red shirts either, but that doesn't mean that any arbitrary restriction on red clothing is justified, or that lovers of red apparel should spend undue time and effort worrying about random bystanders' irrational distaste of the color red.
Again, no one disagrees that private property owners have a right to restrict or prohibit vaping, for any reason they choose (or for no reason at all). Beyond that though, unless there is a compelling scientific basis to worry about health risks, no one else -- not the government, not your nosy neighbor at the bus stop -- has the right to dictate your behavior.
You're absolutely correct that in most situations, courtesy rules the day. But courtesy has very little to do with rights. Quite the opposite, in fact: the First Amendment is basically purpose-built to ensure your right to offend people, and to ensure their right to express their outrage, whether it's justified or not. When people confuse matters of courtesy with matters of justice -- when they demand the intrusive and coercive interference of government to settle matters of pure preference -- when that happens, we have a huge problem that goes way beyond vaping.
Better just to leave the right talk for a different discussion, is all I'm saying. That scantly relevant subject certainly hasn't led to anything good here.
Last edited:
It was an untruth meant to scare smokers into quitting.
