Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by using the term 'E Cigarette'?

Status
Not open for further replies.

playerags

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 10, 2009
267
3
Brussels, Wisconsin
Doubtful. Even the person using the e-cigarette seems to only absorb about 10% as much per drag as with a traditional cigarette, according to what little research we've seen so far. The idea that second hand vapor would contain enough to do anything to others is pretty silly. The chances of that seem marginal at best.

You don't really believe that do you? There are alot of people out there who will whine about stuff that they know zero about. We've seen that on these little TV reports in the news forum.
 

happily

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 25, 2009
1,974
20
anchorage, ak
I recieved my 510 yesterday and all I can say is WOW. I can't believe I wasted 2 months with the 901. If there is anything better out there, I don't need it. The PCC is a must.

Welcome aboard...... Mr. Krinkle put it best. Today is the first day of the rest of your life
 

Surf Monkey

Cartel Boss
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2009
3,958
104,300
Sesame Street
You don't really believe that do you? There are alot of people out there who will whine about stuff that they know zero about. We've seen that on these little TV reports in the news forum.

I believe that the absorption rate is far lower than traditional cigarettes and that the risk to others from second hand vapor is probably practically nil. But that isn't what you're asking, is it? You're asking if I can convince people that that's the case, right? My answer is that all I can do is tell people the truth as I understand it. If they choose not to believe me, at least I tried.
 

playerags

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 10, 2009
267
3
Brussels, Wisconsin
I believe that the absorption rate is far lower than traditional cigarettes and that the risk to others from second hand vapor is probably practically nil. But that isn't what you're asking, is it? You're asking if I can convince people that that's the case, right? My answer is that all I can do is tell people the truth as I understand it. If they choose not to believe me, at least I tried.

Maybe I misunderstood you. We all agree that the absorption rate is significantly smaller. I just think there will be little chance to convince the antis of that know matter what proof or evidence they are shown.
 

Surf Monkey

Cartel Boss
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2009
3,958
104,300
Sesame Street
Maybe I misunderstood you. We all agree that the absorption rate is significantly smaller. I just think there will be little chance to convince the antis of that know matter what proof or evidence they are shown.

Sure, but the anti-smoking dogmatists aren't going to believe ANYTHING about them, so the second hand vapor issue isn't particularly relevant. They're going to do exactly what we've already seen: attack them as if they were traditional cigarettes no matter what the evidence. Their main line is and will continue to be that they're marketed to kids, that no one has proven that they're any safer than traditionals and that the ONLY behavior they'll agree with is quitting ALL smoking, even if it's not smoking at all. That's how ideologues think. In black and white.
 

ramblingrose

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 8, 2009
464
0
New Jersey USA
I've said this before, when someone asks me what it is, I tell them it's my Electronic Nicotine Inhaler (E.N.I. or E.I.) and it's just like the Nicotrol inhalers but an electronic version.
Yep, an inhaler like Nicotrol, only better; and succeeds for me where Nicotrol didn't.

One time I said something about sucking on my stick while I was in my boss's office. I don't think I'll be saying that one again. Good thing my boss isn't a stuffed shirt.
 

TheIllustratedMan

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 12, 2009
442
12
Upstate, NY
Oh. My.

I've taken to introducing it as an "E-cigarette... Personal Vaporizer, whatever...", but you're right, neither is really descriptive enough. My buddy said "It isn't that thing that heats the tobacco is it? Because that smells and tastes awful." I still had to explain it. We probably do need something that's short and concise. And not dirty. Preferably.

Nicotine
Atomizing
device

...still no good. *sigh*
 

kathyst

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 9, 2009
114
0
San Diego, CA
I agree. "Vape" sounds so goth to me. Still, it is descriptive of what we're doing.

I wish we could get away from e-cigarette, but I don't see how it's possible. As much as the anti smoking lobby may use it to target us an obfuscate the facts around personal vaporizers, I haven't heard a good alternative so far. Maybe virtual-cigarette? At least that implies that it's NOT a cigarette, whereas electronic-cigarette suggests that it's the same as an analogue, just electronic. Maybe vaporette?

I like "vaporette"! And to Vape isn't exactly proper in any event. "Smoke" is both the noun and the verb. Smoke comes out of cigarettes, and you smoke a cigarette. So, vapor comes out of an e-cig, so we vapor an e-cig, not vape.

This is really important, perception-wise, what we call these, but at the same time, it doesn't really matter because it's too late already, and there will be many names for them anyway. Personally, I think e-cig is fine. I never say e-cigarette. "Cig" is kind of an affectionate nickname.

Oh, I sure don't know. We will have as many opinions here as there are members, just about. As to the world at large...?? It's a bigger picture than I can deal with at this moment. I need to leave work right now and go home and try out my first e-cig!

kathy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread