I find that to be a bit contradictory. Are you going to follow rules and laws set forth my a majority mandate of the people (pending regulation), concede to common courtesy by abstaining from vaping if asked, or "never change how I live my life, based only on how someone may feel about something, hoping to not offend them."?
The key part there is "...change how I live my life, based only on how someone
may feel about something...". I hear a bunch of folks on here talk about "Someone MIGHT get upset"
Do you try to anticipate others' feeling in everything you do?
Did you think about this post or just "say" it? Though I salut your passion I'm disappointed with the rationale.
I "type" stream of conscious, with a double check for spelling.
Please don't read this as an attack. I just see your argument indicative of a lack of foresight and maybe a mild misunderstanding of what being "free" is about. It's my humble understanding that it means we have the choice to pursue the course(s) of action that we desire as long as it does not cause undue harm to others. We are, none of us, "FREE" like I think you want us to yearn for.
What harm am I causing, by vaping in Walmart? Actual harm, if you would, not some case of "someone might have their feels hurt, seeing something that looks like it might be smoke". We don't (or shouldn't) base laws on people's feelings
I don't have the freedom to burn down my neighbor's house. That is, granted, an extreme example but it IS how the government is charged to protect the population by, sometimes" curtailing the rights of some select few (in this example, the few who want to burn down their neighbor's houses) to protect the majority.
Again: what harm am I doing by using my vape in Walmart? You are correlating vaping in a public building (which has yet to be proven to harm anyone in any way) with the tangible harm of damaging my neighbor's property.
Honestly... if you think vaping is that bad, maybe you should stop?
I also don't understand how you think that vaping brazenly in public helps our collective cause. I think there are very few people who see you vaping at Walmart and think "That guy has the right spirit. Let's be FREE America!" Plus, I would guess that for every single person who does think that, there are two dozen other folks that are annoyed or offended by ill-mannered vaping in public.
You familiar with the Open Carry movement? Similar concept: the more people that see folks vaping, the more "normal" it becomes (until it's basically invisible).
Which ones do you think are going to be more apt to write their congressman?
Right this minute? The anti. However, by conceding ground without a fight, we're only encouraging the antis anyway. Did you think by meekly hiding your vape, they will allow it to continue to exist? You must not have dealt with many antis
Can we at least agree that inside Walmart (or whatever store/mall/eatery, etc...) isn't, perhaps, the best place to make our vaping education classroom?
No.
First off, I'm not there to make a statement or educate someone: I'm there to purchase something. If, in the course of that, I get to educate someone... cool. Second: we want vaping "normalized": you don't achieve that by hiding outside in the bushes, but rather by going about your life.
Wouldn't we want to reach the smokers first anyway? Why not vape outside with them and explain, when they ask, what vaping is about? Every converted smoker is (hopefully) a supporter for our rights.
This isn't a list of steps that have to be taken in order: we SHOULD be talking with smokers, and trying to get them to be pro vaping (even if they don't vape themselves). But at the same time, allowing the normalization of vaping to become "vaping = smoking", then we have already lost
Every person you push from ambivalence into annoyance is a supporter for those who would curtail our rights.
Odd fact: you will almost NEVER push someone from "ambivalent" to "anti", if acting reasonably. The key here is "reasonable": you see it as "we lump ourselves in with the smokers, and follow their restrictions": I see it as "don't blow huge clouds indoors, or blow vapor into other peoples' faces".
We have several tough battles coming in the months and years ahead to protect our rights and maintain the legitimacy of vaping. I think we need a better plan if "IDGAF. I refuse to be polite because I'm Free" is what we're going to lead with.
You seem caught up in "polite", as if we can make an "anti-friendly vape". This would be the same thing as a "Carrie Nation friendly rum"
The antis LOVE it when you concede ground like you're suggesting. Because every bit that we concede is that little bit less they have to fight for
