The title of this thread drew me in and the comments are why I'm giving my input.

Autonomously speaking, we should have the right to vape where we choose. This is a given being that we are free-willed human beings allowed to do as we wish. Similar notions exist with smoking, being that it's also an autonomous activity separate from other free-willed human beings.

However, when you want to factor in political basis and health concerns, smoking is legitimately harmful which is why it has the restrictions it has. Admittedly precedence is the reason why these billing bans are coming into place for vaping, however, even though it is scientifically less harmful, would you consider a psychological basis for health awareness at the very least?

Alongside the other person's commentary, it is perfectly acceptable for an individual business to choose as they wish to disallow vaping and at the same time, we are allowed to take our money elsewhere to a business that will allow it. Even if vapers existed as a niche population, it does affect the market as a whole. When you factor in how people behave in their purchases between these businesses and corporate ones, it creates an amalgamation that efficiently does affect the economy as a whole.

As a vaper, I have absolutely no problem not being allowed to vape in a coffee shop, as much as I would like to. I like drinking it at home, and vaping at home. I also don't want to bother non-vapers with my extant clouds, however big or small they may be, simply because they aren't knowledgeable to the extent that I am. This is common sense and also courtesy, and applies to restaurants and other stores. I applied the same concept when I was a smoker, hiding it when people walked past or staying away at a polite distance.

B&Ms aren't necessarily hangouts for people to chuck clouds and shoot conversation for long hours, they exist for purchases. Though I understand that we should be allowed to vape in them similarly to cigar lounges and how some tobacco stores allow you to walk in with a lit analog.

We should be fighting these bills et al, however, using an antagonistic effort and making baseless assumptions that go back to the Prohibition era is not how it should be done. Washington's latest hearing was actually very civil, for example. We should be proactive rather than reactive if we want the best outcome.

Using ad hominem statements like "nanny state government" and making disconnected comparisons is illogical. We need to focus on the issue at hand if we want to stay relevant and also be proper. The government couldn't care less what you do inside your house, so long as you aren't doing anything illegal - which we aren't. These bills are for the public arena, not for your home, an area that they legally cannot intrude on without prior concern or cause (see the Fourth Amendment).

I would much rather live in a society that redirects autonomous and discontenting cloud chasers to civil areas than live in a world where everything is banned wholeheartedly. That said, we should stay adamant, and be civil in our efforts to redirect preexisting bills with adapted ones that favor both sides. It sheds the idea of precedence and also gives insight to a new standard in policy-making.