The key thing is whether the FDA are right to insist that e-cigs are a drug-delivery device.
It feels more and more like there is an inner-circle of kings and then the rest of us, who are just supposed to pay up and nod our heads.
CASAA - Organization
- Thread starter mtndude
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The key thing is whether the FDA are right to insist that e-cigs are a drug-delivery device.
It feels more and more like there is an inner-circle of kings and then the rest of us, who are just supposed to pay up and nod our heads.
That is the big question. I think the whole problem is not whether we lose or not, but how bad we lose.
We are Commoners to their Royalty.
Kevin
What to call it?
Electronic cigarette. Thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I discovered such a wonderful thing had been invented. I would not have looked twice at the words personal vaporizer, electronic cigar or pipe. That is not true for everyone. It's probably best to alternate the use of personal vaporizer and e-cig. We could also call it an electronic nicotine delivery device (ENDD) which is descriptive and includes cigar, pipe and cigarette.
I support all the nominations in previous posts.
Re noncombustible, a word I really like and which helps to describe what we are advocating. More relevant now with T.Bob's wonderful video using Snus with the e-cig. T.Bob you are brilliant!!!
Done, I think. Feel like a ping-pong ball being bounced off so many times earlier and bobbing back and forth between posts.
If I may?
1. How about "less toxic?" Hasn't that been shown in numerous tests and by virtue of the undeniable fact that less toxic chemicals = less toxic? Hard to argue that.
2. What a PV or e-cig is called IS important. This thing is ultimately going to be played out in the court of public opinion and to the general public "cigarette = bad" - it doesn't matter what KIND of cigarette.
3. Regarding the Mission Statement, see #2. How things are worded ARE important. You can think so internally - think globally and the knee-jerk reaction people will have when they read a mission statement. NOT how vapers & other non-combustable tobacco users feel about it. You need to get the public on your side. It would benefitial to include non-smokers somehow, because they are affected by the availability of these products, as well. CASSA isn't marketing e-cigs, they are marketing a lifestyle. You could call them ziggyzats and people will see other people using them and buy them. Don't get stuck on whether or not people will buy them if they're not called e-cigs.
You may not think it, but public opinion is going to affect the cause greatly, so you DO have to tread lightly and intelligently.
Sorry if I interrupted or spoke out of place.
Last edited:
Good point. It's always worth pausing to consider how things sound / look from the perspective of the 'other - the general public (and public representatives) that we hope to see our side ...
If we hope others to see things our way, first understand how they see things and speak with them in a way they can best understand.
(playing a little smarter is not really retreating; it's getting the balance right)
Especially when something can affect so many many people it's definitely more important to win in a practical sense. Sway in the wind; but not uproot.
Personally I've mostly used the term PV, which I like. But I feel that e-cig says what it is -a safer alternative to smoking (and hence not some new drug delivery device). But I'm happy to adopt a different tack if considered concensus suggests that will work better.
'Electronic cigarette' probably plays well with smokers; but probably not with non-smokers. And we must take great care to avoid knee-jerk reactions, cause first impressions can easily become entrenched.
If we hope others to see things our way, first understand how they see things and speak with them in a way they can best understand.
(playing a little smarter is not really retreating; it's getting the balance right)
Especially when something can affect so many many people it's definitely more important to win in a practical sense. Sway in the wind; but not uproot.
Personally I've mostly used the term PV, which I like. But I feel that e-cig says what it is -a safer alternative to smoking (and hence not some new drug delivery device). But I'm happy to adopt a different tack if considered concensus suggests that will work better.
'Electronic cigarette' probably plays well with smokers; but probably not with non-smokers. And we must take great care to avoid knee-jerk reactions, cause first impressions can easily become entrenched.
Last edited:
Exactly why I've been using BOTH terms in my articles. The general population has been reading/hearing only "e-cig" in the media. I've been trying to get them to connect "personal vaporizer" with "e-cig" and hopefully phase out "e-cig."
PV may seem more medical, but the public equates medical with being sanitary, safe and good for you - all things we want PVs to be seen as vs tobacco cigs. It's simply PR.
.
PV may seem more medical, but the public equates medical with being sanitary, safe and good for you - all things we want PVs to be seen as vs tobacco cigs. It's simply PR.
.
It's not too late for the reduced-harm category. The marketing error was only made by some companies; and even those can simply be told to desist. It shouldn't mean that the sensible option is no longer available; we should aim for that, garner support for it.
I realize there is now some debate about the worthiness of "Smoking Replacements" in the thread I began about it, but I'll just point out that "Smoking Replacement" is a term that has not really been used before so it does not carry the baggage of terms like "e-cigarettes", "personal vaporizers", or even "Harm reduction" (which implies that there is still some harm done).
I think that what we are really trying to do is support and promote the freedom to choose safer and more effective smoking replacements. That includes e-cigarettes or PVs but also communicates that we would like our replacement for smoking to be made even safer and even more effective whenever possible. Even if and when e-cigs are made legal, we will continue to support and promote safer and more effective smoking replacements and the consumer's right to choose them. That includes efforts to find harm reducing methods of nicotine extraction, vaporizers that don't include nicotine (0-nic juice), and researching the comparative effectiveness of various types of smoking replacements like smokeless tobacco/snus, NRTs, and even non-nicotine products like replacing smoking with jelly beans like the late President Reagan, or toothpicks, bubble gum, exercise or whatever you choose to be a safer and more effective smoking replacement.
Every Smoking Replacement involves some give and take between safety and effectiveness. The safest replacement is not necessarily the most effective and vice versa. Our focus will be on e-cigarettes because we believe that e-cigarettes currently represent the most effective replacement for smoking while the inclusion of only the nicotine molecule as the only pharmacologically active ingredient that can be titrated or eliminated completely combined with the relatively harmless nature of PG, flavoring, and low temperature or ultrasonic vaporizers make e-cigarettes possibly the safest alternative, and we'll work to make them even safer and more effective whenever possible.
I think that what we are really trying to do is support and promote the freedom to choose safer and more effective smoking replacements. That includes e-cigarettes or PVs but also communicates that we would like our replacement for smoking to be made even safer and even more effective whenever possible. Even if and when e-cigs are made legal, we will continue to support and promote safer and more effective smoking replacements and the consumer's right to choose them. That includes efforts to find harm reducing methods of nicotine extraction, vaporizers that don't include nicotine (0-nic juice), and researching the comparative effectiveness of various types of smoking replacements like smokeless tobacco/snus, NRTs, and even non-nicotine products like replacing smoking with jelly beans like the late President Reagan, or toothpicks, bubble gum, exercise or whatever you choose to be a safer and more effective smoking replacement.
Every Smoking Replacement involves some give and take between safety and effectiveness. The safest replacement is not necessarily the most effective and vice versa. Our focus will be on e-cigarettes because we believe that e-cigarettes currently represent the most effective replacement for smoking while the inclusion of only the nicotine molecule as the only pharmacologically active ingredient that can be titrated or eliminated completely combined with the relatively harmless nature of PG, flavoring, and low temperature or ultrasonic vaporizers make e-cigarettes possibly the safest alternative, and we'll work to make them even safer and more effective whenever possible.
Last edited:
- Status
