It may be frustrating to you, but I'm going to have to refer to my first sentence, in the statement you quoted, and I highlighted in bold. I don't think it's realistic to compare how the preferences of an individual effect a chosen activity to how the preferences of an individual effecting a whole community. If a property owner doesn't want vaping on their property, then what's the cost other than a vapist not getting their way?
Your first couple of sentences from before read:
I'm choosing not to look at this in black and white. I find it too simplistic and naive.
IMO, your loaded question at the end of the quote above reads as too simplistic and naive.
Given the political fight and reality, I feel the proper response is to ask or determine why the property owner doesn't want vaping on their property. And to be clear, in this thread we are discussing the type of property that is privately owned but that invites people from the public into its establishment to engage in some sort of business. Thus, this is not like a place that puts up a No Trespassing sign.
A No Trespass sign is a clear indication that you just entered a place that is engaged in black and white thinking.
Likewise, a "no vaping" policy is another indication that you just entered a place that is plausibly engaged in black and white thinking. Perhaps you ask, find out why, and learn that it doesn't appear so black and white, and that there is some flexibility. Or perhaps you learn that the real reason amounts to ignorance (looks like smoking, therefore must be treated as such) or arrogance (because I said no vaping, end of discussion).
And to this, I say a little political/civil disobedience is called for. The form of that disobedience will vary from individual to individual. Some may feel best way for them, and only way, is to go home, write a letter to congressperson or lawyer, or whomever and talk about vaping, talk about what eCigs really are and attempt to challenge this any any private property owner who invites people into their business to consider changing their policy. Who knows, maybe talking about what eCigs are will work to convince both the public and decision makers that eCigs could be allowed some day in a public spot.
Whereas the vape everywhere position while exercising a sense of civil disobedience provides a few things, all of which make public vaping currently a gray area. Vape everywhere is the gray position for the following reasons:
1. Ever since first vaper vaped in public, no one knew precisely what that exhaled vapor entailed, and so this lack of certainty, with what the public is being exposed to, makes it gray. It's not "you should vape everywhere in public" for that would be a black and white scenario. Instead, it is that you can and that you and most people may not know precisely what is in that vapor and therefore what undue harm you might be contributing to. This currently plays out in all places, even where vaping has been green lighted. Early science may be providing vaping community with good idea of harmfulness (or lack thereof), but long term science is still not known.
2. I believe the most important consideration is due to the 5+ years of collective user experience and abundance of anecdotal evidence. It is gray because even if policies are in place that say not to, you still can and not get caught, or not be detected as a person who vaped in the establishment. If it were vape openly everywhere but just don't be seen when you do, then chances are very good with type of substance/product we are talking about that no one would ever know you did. Many eLiquids when vaped produce no odor and no vapor that I've exhaled has lingered for more than a few seconds.
3. The vape everywhere position, as I and many others use it, comes with slight stipulation of "openly and with respect." This presumes that you are doing it in place where others could see you exhaling vapor and possibly come into brief contact with that vapor. Yet, the position isn't saying, vape everywhere and seek people out to blow vapor in their faces. That would be openly vaping with disrespect. But not everyone shares the exact same idea of what it means to act respectfully in public. Nor is there a clear cut consensus on the general idea of what that respect means. With exhaled vapor, that becomes a little more gray as one person may say okay if I am in crowded place as long as you don't intentionally blow it anyone's face, and another may say it is not okay as long as you are anywhere within 10 meters of me, even if we are outside. Vape within that 10 meters, and you are being highly disrespectful, or so someone may claim.
Moreover, the largest reason why it is gray is because of political reality within historical context. It used to be, say in 1980, that you could smoke everywhere. Name a public place, any public place, and chances are you could smoke there. Hospitals, movie theater lobbies, schools (teacher lounges) all open for public smoking. I'm thinking if person in 1980 who is willing to be reasonable and good citizen concedes on one of those places as not suitable place for smoking, that they'd have vastly different thoughts on the matter when they realize that 20 years later they'd live in a world where smoking anywhere indoors is illegal. So illegal and shamed that even smoking outdoors may get you in trouble with the law or at very least shamed by people who will ever have to enter the space that you dared smoke in. The slope from top of the hill where you could smoke everywhere to the very slippery lower plateau where traditional cigarettes aren't banned, but you no longer are remotely respected for your use of them, regardless of how you use them, is the historical context that eCigs have popped up on. That they are
very clearly not smoke is precisely what makes them gray. Even if vapor was magically proven harmless, heck even if secondhand vapor were proven to be a health benefit to the public, there would still be enough venom leftover from the "smoke nowhere" gang, that says this is that gray of an issue. Doesn't matter the level of harm involved with eCigs. Really really really doesn't matter at all. It looks like smoking, we now live in a world where that is taboo, and therefore based on appearances alone, it is reason enough to ban it's use everywhere possible.
Or so says the citizen engaged in black and white thinking.
Or the naive vaper who is inclined to go in that direction thinking a fair and reasonable compromise will be reached someday.
Just give it 20 years.
