Re: the term ANTZ. I'm not a fan. It's a little dramatic, isn't it? Anti-vaping is borne out of ignorance. If it's as harmless as we believe, science will prove it and these hot button issues will take care of themselves.
Anti-vaping is borne out of
willful ignorance, on the part of the public-health industry, which is then filtered down to the public, in the form of well-intentioned ignorance -- in most cases, anyway. In the case of common busybodies like the man described in the OP, we can reasonably guess that they will always find an excuse to vent their frustrations on others; vaping's just the excuse du jour.
As for ANTZ, I can see why you'd dislike the term. It's an
accurate term, because there really is a large segment of the public health industry that is built for total war against tobacco; the public health industry would marginalize itself if it conceded that the best way forward is
harm reduction rather than prohibitionism -- but our throwing the ANTZ term around tends to give the opposition (or skeptical third parties) an excuse to dismiss us as zealots ourselves.
Unfortunately, we're going to be taxed due to nicotine's association with tobacco. I just don't see any way around it.
That is most likely true. Doesn't make it right, though, and although taxation may be inevitable, if we resign ourselves too easily to targeted regulation/legislation of any kind, then we may open ourselves up to a whole host of other unpleasant things. Witness the growing list of outrageous restrictions on smokers.
I think one of the main problems with this whole debate is that a lot of people understandably forget that widespread smoking bans are only about 10 years old, and therefore it's easy for them to forget that the nature and scope of those bans is still changing. Drastically.
You might be ok with a blanket ban in restaurants, for example. That's old hat, after all. But when I read about businesses denying employment to anyone who tests positive for nicotine, or nutjob city councilmen in California
proposing smoking bans in single-family homes, I get depressed. And then I get very very angry. Your mileage may vary.
Just keep in mind that the same people behind the tyrannical ideology that putatively justifies those cigarette bans are in the process of demonizing e-cigs. Their efforts aren't subtle, which ironically is perhaps their best defense: their propaganda effort is so brazen, so far-reaching, that anyone who gives a straightforward account of it is likely to come off as a conspiracy theorist. But what we're describing isn't a
conspiracy; it's a confluence of financial interest, institutional inertia, and yes, arrogant disregard for individual rights
or health.
And it isn't gonna stop with e-cigs, by the way. Any behavior or indulgence that isn't
necessary is fair game to these people. They'll churn out studies and arguments to allow them to recommend all sorts of insane restrictions on daily life, because at the end of the day, the ability of a low-income person to enjoy a soda or a candy bar is less important than joe-public-health's ability to justify his salary. Don't take my word for it, though; just ask Boyd Swinburn of the World Health Organization:
https://twitter.com/BoydSwinburn/statuses/382262609200041984
I'm sorry for the novella here, but I can't express to you how desperately important it is to oppose reasoning like that.
I'm generally not a fan of allying myself with any group and creating an "us vs them" dynamic. I'm no crusader.
I'm not either. Unfortunately, the 'them' ain't gonna go away just because we wish it.
These rules work out really well as long as "the other guy/gal" follows them.
