IMO it's important that we be good citizens for the time being.
I remember saying about a year and a half ago, that it would behoove ANTZ to go out and vape in public and be as uncourteous as humanly possible with their vaping. For all we know, these could be the people who are vaping in public and doing it in ways that are blatantly disrespectful. Thus, hoping that it isn't about 'disrespect' but that all people looking at the situation will see it as inherent problem of vaping, regardless of where it is done (includes own property and outdoors).
The more that we self-regulate now, the less backlash there will be in the short term and the more freedom we'll have in the future when more people know about vaping and recognize the difference.
This would be fine if we lived in a world where ANTZ did not exist, much less constantly try to control the narrative. I think it is far more logical to assume we are in a golden era for public vaping and that now is the time we will have the most freedom to vape wherever.
I think most people actually know the difference between public vaping and smoking. I think tests could be done where non-smoker/non-vaper is asked to observe people who are either vaping or smoking, and unless it was distances greater than 50 feet away, I believe the person being tested would be right most of the time. And this is assuming cigalikes. If someone is vaping from device that looks nothing like a smoke, and observer is less than 50 feet away, I would think 100% of the time, they would say that person is not smoking (a cigarette).
But, in these discussions, we toss out that it looks like smoking and yet seem to leave off the idea that a smoke looks nothing like a vaporizer. So, while being observed in public, I would reason that a person who is possibly bothered enough to be concerned would do a double-take or even stare right at you to see this incredibly rare case of someone smoking in public, and then realize via blue LED light or umpteen other considerations that there is no way the person could be smoking.
Then there is the notion of if you are observing someone that is say 40 feet away from you, even if it were smoke, there's a decent chance it wouldn't even impact. But if you were say 15 feet away, then you would readily know it is not smoke, and whatever it is, it doesn't smell like smoke and thus doesn't carry with it the same connotations as smoking, or more specifically, SHS.
I think we also have to keep in mind that just because people aren't reacting visibly doesn't mean that they're entirely accepting; a lot of people won't confront you no matter how much they may dislike it. Instead, they'll just go home and talk about how it should be banned.
IMO, this sort of thinking comes from our reaction to knowing that general public has no problem shaming smokers. For it is equally plausible that the person was initially bothered, kinda wanted to say something, chose not to, and by time they got home realized it is really no big deal to be vaping in public because it doesn't have same connotation as SHS. Therefore, they became more accepting of it by the time they got home.
Furthermore, there are countless items or public situations where people could be theoretically bothered (or pleased) by something another person does in public, but they choose not to be vocal about it. Public displays of affection would be one example, among countless ones, that I'd run with to make this point. Some people may react as if it is no big deal, some may react as if it is a big deal but kinda of good thing (to observe) and others may react as if it is bad thing. If none respond to those engaging in the behavior, it is not accurate to say that all those who didn't respond were equally bothered, or even bothered at all. Nor would it be practical to do anything in that situation (or going into it) that would suggest not to do it, because someone could theoretically be bothered. For if it were, and it true that there are countless items that fit this, then arguably everything that is done in public is theoretically bothersome to some people and therefore no one should do anything (at all) in public.
I do think that we should be afforded a little leeway to vape in a few places where smoking is not allowed. I don't think there should be a problem in an out-of-the-way corner or a place like a bar, as long as the owners/staff give permission, and I don't see a problem with vaping in most outdoor spaces as long as we make a small effort not to envelop people in clouds of vapor (especially kids). One of the nice things about vaping is that it doesn't smoulder, so waiting an extra 5 seconds for someone to walk past will avoid exposing them to really any vapor at all.
I still don't get how fellow vapers think outdoors is generally okay without asking (property manager), but in huge megastore or building you must always ask. If we make small effort to not envelop people in clouds and wait all of 5 seconds for people to walk by, I can think of hundreds of indoor places where vaping ought to be perfectly okay, without asking anyone. I like to cite a hospital as perfect example of what I'm speaking of.
In a discussion like this, it then comes to, "but what if there are dozens of us in that location?" And to me, I would say reality is, or has been up to this point, that there simply will not be dozens of us in any one location, unless we all agree beforehand to meet at a specific spot. And if that specific spot is outdoors, then whatever is the case with the indoors place is likely the case with outdoors. If 50 of us are vaping outdoors, in middle of 2000 non-vapers, I'm thinking there will be a percentage of non-vapers who do not appreciate the fact that it is being done outdoors. And will mind that it is permeating the air. Whereas if there were one of us vaping indoors in middle of 2000 people, then we are likely talking about large space where I am convinced I can find many locations in that establishment where zero of the 2000 people will have any awareness that someone was vaping in their presence.
Lastly, if we don't show some restraint, then people will think it less credible when we talk about vaping being harmless. People are funny about others' addictions, and when they perceive someone as being so addicted that they can't control themselves, and can't wait 10 minutes for their next fix, then it doesn't matter how much science you have to back you up; they'll see it as inherently bad and make blanket assumptions.
And if we show too much restraint, i.e. only vaping in designated smoking sections, people will conclude that it must be on par with smoking, and that the vapers know this. But if we vape everywhere with respect (to other people) we can demonstrate reasonable restraint while also demonstrating that the activity is relatively harmless. In fact, it would behoove the vaping community now, to demonstrate that we can vape everywhere with respect to all people in the situation (within reason).
Now is the time for the respectful vaper to demonstrate respectful vaping can be done everywhere.
The bottom line is that the more courteous we are now, the more leeway we'll get in the future until, hopefully, it's accepted as harmless and the general population can see a cloud of vapor and not assume that it's smoke.
And again, in world where ANTZ exists, I think this is unreasonable to hope for a time where it will be accepted as harmless. Especially if our version of self regulation means that the best place to use this is where smokers hang out. I would think most people would think it is on par with SHS and therefore if science came out tomorrow with report that says "generally harmless," people would doubt the science. They'd reason that vapers vape where smoking occurs and even vapers known something that science doesn't. Whereas, if we are vaping openly everywhere, with respect, and science comes out with that report, then people in general will be like, "phew, now I have little to be worried about when I get within 10 feet of someone vaping. That's good to know!"
Until then, however, pushing a "deal with it" kind of attitude is more likely to result in backlash, and make us look like fiends that are so addicted to nicotine that we have to be regulated because we're incapable of regulating ourselves.
Yet, you've changed the goal posts to "pushing a deal with it kind of attitude." If I vape everywhere with respect, then my experience (as one who routinely advocates for vape everywhere with respect) is not to push it in people's faces. Again, I can (and do) vape in hospitals and am fairly certain no one there even knows that I do. Even if someone did know, I would be very interested in discussing with that person how they might interpret my actions as "pushing a particular attitude." Which again, would come back to everything done in public. Is the person wearing a bright blue shirt in public (that may bother me) walking around with a "deal with it attitude?" Pushing it on me? IMO, this is what we are up against when we exercise too much restraint and think it will make any bit of difference in lieu of ANTZ who are going to city councils, presenting cooked data, and making case that nowhere should it be permitted (including indoors on one's own property). City council, who fell hook, line and sinker for SHS junk science, may not be ready to ban vaping on one's own property, and so tries to appease ANTZ lobbying and just go with indoor public spaces, despite the fact that very very few of us congregate in places and despite that science thus far has concluded that SHV is 99% less harmful than SHS.
