As I said in the op, the stance of banning until safety is proven could look like a sensible one on the face of it. The thing is, the risk profile for passive vapour is negligible at worst and folk like Mr Antz cannot accept the concept of negligible risk. Whilst vaping is still relatively new, some folk have been vaping for 6-7 years now with no associated health issues being apparent, in fact the only apparent effects are health benefits for smokers switching to vaping. I understand the concept that possible long term health issues may not surface for a few years yet but given the generally accepted fact that vaping is much safer than smoking, the possible dangers of 'passive vaping' should be similarly reduced. For Mr Antz to demand a ban on vaping in enclosed spaces is somewhat disingenuous when he may very well be engaging in activities that have a higher risk profile to both himself and others. The only reason he fels justified in demanding a ban is because he automatically associates any thing that looks like smoke (ie visible vapour) to be a threat and given that he has become accustomed to expecting a smoke free environment, he thinks it's only logical to extend this to vaping. Hence the refusal to accept the concept of an acceptable risk profile. This attitude needs to be challenged imho.