Confusion on "The Fight"

[gsc4077]

I guess there are a few different factors to the "legality" of PV's and how people feel about them that confuse me. E-"cigs" are not specifically named in smoking bans. Naturally that doesn't sit well with everyone here. Along with that, the smoking ban is for the "health" of the public and many argue the fact that there is no such thing as "second hand vapor".

Trying to read up on everyones opinions from all different angles gets a little confusing for me. I personally don't mind that PV's are banned in some places where smoking is also banned (i do understand why it does bother people here). I can still do it walking down the street and in the comfort of my home.

People are fighting that they are not cigarettes, which they're not, and therefor don't fall under the ban. Some are fighting the health side of it and being tobacco-free. But, to me, that doesn't seem all that big as long as they're not outlawed all together.

What bugs me the most is that the government does not acknowledge the difference between cigarettes and electric-cigarettes and misleads the uninformed public. While I do appreciate and support the fight, I feel like we're missing an important step in fighting the bans. Shouldn't we first try to give electric-cigarettes, PV's, and vaping, official definitions that the government is forced to recognize so they can differentiate smoking from vaping? (hope that makes sense, can't think of how else to word it)

[420Smiles]

You can't "Force" the Government to do or understand anything. Don't you know that if the Government listened to it's citizens, we would live in a Free Country. We can't have that........now can we? Americans don't wanna bo responsible for their own actions........We just wanna point fingers, make accusations, and tell others how to live, and how to raise their children.

We really are just a huge flock of sheep.......being led to the slaughter.

[Janetda]

Shouldn't we first try to give electric-cigarettes, PV's, and vaping, official definitions that the government is forced to recognize so they can differentiate smoking from vaping?

I think that's what Judge Leon will be doing with the upcoming trial or at least the wide definition.

[Katmar]

I really wish they just weren't called ecigs or electronic cigarettes. Makes it too similar to the dreaded cigarette.
Having said that, I agree with all of the above!!

[pigelty]

I really wish they just weren't called ecigs or electronic cigarettes. Makes it too similar to the dreaded cigarette.
Having said that, I agree with all of the above!!

I am going to have to go ahead and agree with Katmar on this. I never cared for the term "e-cig" or "electronic cigarette". It sounds a little slang and trendy when really it is form of alternative therapy (fda approved or not, that's what pv's are-plain and simple).

Though they are inteded to deliver nicotine (in most cases)and stimulate the action of smoking...it really is NOT the same thing once you convert (or almost completly convert).

I consider this to be best called a "personal vaporizer" or better yet, an electronic vaporizer.

Vaping is different from smoking. Similar, but not the same (in a good wayIMO). It should just be called pv or ev technically and socially. Vaping culture and Smoking culture seem to be seperate as well. Habits differ between the two. There needs to be more awareness and social acception of pv's.

[AJMoore]

Pigelty - I couldn't agree more, anything with the word cigarette has a bad conotation to the public. However, having said that, I was reminded in another thread that without the word "cigarette" attached to these devices, we would not have been drawn to them ourselves. As much as it pains me to agree with that, I really must. It was the "Cig" word that got me to try them.

[ChipCurtis]

Pigelty - I couldn't agree more, anything with the word cigarette has a bad conotation to the public. However, having said that, I was reminded in another thread that without the word "cigarette" attached to these devices, we would not have been drawn to them ourselves. As much as it pains me to agree with that, I really must. It was the "Cig" word that got me to try them.

Good point. I think if it were marketed as an electronic nicotine inhaler I would not have been interested. What makes this device different is the visible "smoke", the throat hit, and the general simulation of a cigarette right down to the LED tip. There's nothing else on the market that can give quite the same effect. The whole success of the e-cig, for most people using it to stop smoking, is indeed based on it simulating the experience of smoking as much as possible. That is a little different from those who have taken on "vaping" as an activity/hobby in its own right, with all the associated homemade mods and stuff.

[The Mosh]

I wonder... seeing as the legal definition only describes automatic batteries, could you theoretically get around smoking bans that cover e-cigarettes by using a manual battery, and calling it a nicotine vaporizer? Also, electronic cigars and pipes that utilize the same technology are rarely ever mentioned in smoking bans. In this particular case, I would argue that it's a question of wording. You can probably get around nearly all of them on a semantic basis.

That said, I hope there is a difference between the vaping and smoking communities. Smokers have let their rights get trampled for decades. I've never understood why, but there's nothing that can be done about it now. I only hope that the vaping community does not tolerate the same kind of flagrant abuse and bigotry that smokers have brought upon themselves by not doing anything.

[ChipCurtis]

That said, I hope there is a difference between the vaping and smoking communities. Smokers have let their rights get trampled for decades. I've never understood why, but there's nothing that can be done about it now. I only hope that the vaping community does not tolerate the same kind of flagrant abuse and bigotry that smokers have brought upon themselves by not doing anything.

I, sure as hell, want there to be a difference too.

But you must admit, it is quite a different problem to justify the inhalation of carbon monoxide (and sidestream smoke affecting others) in the public's eye than it is to justify the inhalation of vapor in the public's eye. The vaping community does have science on its side, and that is a big difference. They should use that scientific armor to their advantage, by all means.

But the 'Vaping' community (as opposed to generalized 'e-cig' community) won't have an easier time battling the anti-smoking persecutors ONLY through semantic word games and legal games. Even with science and argumentative logic on your side, there is the uphill battle of reversing decades of smoker stigmatization which is, yes, PARTIALLY the responsibility of smokers not standing up for their rights all those years. But remember, the anti's and the general public AT THAT TIME did have science on their side. That's why they've gained so enormously. It's hard to defend a truly 'dirty' habit.

[AJMoore]

Mosh - yes, it's all about semantics.