Re: Lack of side effects doesn't mean they can't be regulated
I quite like a bit of nicotine. It does me no harm, and it harms no-one else around me.
What about all those people who go batshit if they can't get a coffee in the morning?
See how silly that argument sounds now?
If you push vapers into the smoking areas, they are far more likely to keep dual using, or go back to smoking (especially when thanks to irresponsible journalism, most people think vaping is more dangerous than smoking - peer pressure etc).
If you allow vapers to (with consideration) vape at the bar or in the office, that's a significant advantage over smoking, with no side effects to anyone around them (other than manners based things like not fogging the room out - again, consideration) then there is a far greater chance of getting them off the staggeringly dangerous lit tobacco and onto something that while not benign, is basically about as risky as having a latte with your lunch.
It's very interesting how the debate about tobacco harm reduction has moved away from 'smoke for the nicotine, die for the tar' to a purely moral - and that is all it is, raw puritanism - crusade against perceived addiction. I'd go as far as to say it's very telling, actually.