Being the Devil's Advocate Here : If you are vaping with Nicotine juice, you ARE still a "smoker"..

[Completely Average]

A vaper. Smoking is not vaping. You're missing a critical distinction between them.

There is no distinction between them.

Only words.

You draw in and inhale, and then exhale a visible cloud of particles. That's smoking. Just because your particles are different from a tobacco users particles doesn't change the fact that it's still smoking, you're just smoking something other than tobacco.


Allow me to point out something here.

[edited]

 

[Ay Dee Jay]

"Vapor" and "smoke" have pretty solid definitions and this can be a helpful teachable moment for people who call this a "semantic" argument due to a lack of information. And being that nicotine is actually an oily liquid, extracting nicotine from a plant does actually produce "nicotine juice." So let's not get hung up on that, let's focus on critical thinking skills with regard to vaping vs. smoking. I explained this to my six year old recently and he seemed to get it. For the longest time I called the e-juice "medicine" but I explained that it's more of a poison. It's a poison that I used to smoke, which made me smelly and dirty and less healthy than if I just consumed the poison myself. Adults are silly you see, and sometimes find themselves ingesting poisons on purpose. Since this poison is addicting and I constantly come back to it, I found a healthier way to consume it. It's not smoking, but it's not healthy -- it's healthier. And I don't expect anyone to pick up the habit. He genuinely got it and asked "So when do we switch grandpa?" Unfortunately grandpa passed away less than a week later, and was never really interested in vaping.

 

[Ay Dee Jay]

I'm not going to live in your world of "only words." Words have meaning, and you refusal to grasp that does nothing to further any conversation employing them. There is a distinction, and you're a fool (a useful one to many) for refusing to learn.

As you learn about the "only words" that define smoke vs. vapor (or "dog" vs "cat," check out those "words" too) you'll understand that there is a difference between a cloud of aerosolized dispersed solid particles and a cloud of water vapor containing a water-miscible substance and flavorings. These distinctions actually are meaningful and important. That's why I don't call it "smoking" when I take a shower, or inhale albuterol from a nebulizer.

[edited] Words have meaning.

 

[Ay Dee Jay]

If you could see the steam from boiling water that could be called smoke.

I have burned metal and had it turn to vapor.


Again, you're making an argument of semantics. You're trying to make a distinction based on two words with the same meaning. By definition any visible vapor is smoke.

Your basic understanding of smoke and vapor is beneath completely average and you are the one twisting semantics to a brutal point trying to make a false equivalence between vapor and smoke. Nobody calls visible steam (visible vapor) "smoke" except a "Completely Average" person trying to troll a forum.

Edit: it might be unfair to call this trolling but basically it is -- it's completely misinformed to the point of seeming disingenuous, especially the "junkie analogy." Totally sad statement if it's real. Science education in America is bottoming out.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. For cryin' out loud.

 

[mare ze dotes]

lets say that if I am running a humidifier for winter dry air. Is that Smoke? I use a warm air atomizing unit. I guess enough is enough. Most people are in the know anyway.

 

[ruet]

There is no distinction between them.

Only words.

You draw in and inhale, and then exhale a visible cloud of particles. That's smoking. Just because your particles are different from a tobacco users particles doesn't change the fact that it's still smoking, you're just smoking something other than tobacco.


Allow me to point out something here.

[edited]

Sweet Diety! Buy that logic, everything that breathes is smoking. Did you watch Cosmos last night?

 

[Purplepeeps]

Peeps, please keep in mind that the op has not come back to further discuss her opinions on vaping, smoking or addiction.

Trust me when I say, it's not worth getting yourself worked up over.

In the past we were all unhealthy smokers (smoke). We have made the healthier choice with vaping(vapor).

 

[Ay Dee Jay]

I find it disturbing and troubling that ECF has been increasingly infiltrated by those who are not on our side and post garbage like this. Obviously there is a serious anti-vaping political agenda afoot. I see such people posting here more and more since I registered on this site last July, and it seems clear we are interfering with someone's revenues quite seriously, and they want that stopped, so the anti-vaping propaganda is growing on ECF, and other vaping forums as well. Must be the taxes on tobacco have dropped off unacceptably for some.

The sad part in reading this one is that critical thinking is a huge victim of all of this and corporations constantly take advantage of the relatively inability of many people to think on their own to implant simplistic idiotic reasoning like this.

Is it too hard to ask people to understand the difference between combustion and pyrolysis ("breaking stuff up with fire") vs. raising a liquid to a boiling point? You can disagree whether it's any healthier. You'd be wrong, but disagree on that point -- don't try to redefine "smoke" to fit your disingenuous agenda.

The only questionable things that have come up in studies so far to my knowledge involve the very vendor that is trying to cozy up to the FDA and big tobacco (NJOY) who had the single cartridge come up positive for DEG (diethylene glycol for those who care and don't want to look it up) and who insist on using tobacco NET flavorings only, which have been demonstrated in at least one study to be cytotoxic.

The point is harm reduction...but many people don't understand the difference between "safer" and safe" or "healthier" and "healthy." They want everything to be black and white, but fortunately that is not the planet we inhabit.

 

[Tinkiegrrl]

There is no distinction between them.

Only words.

You draw in and inhale, and then exhale a visible cloud of particles. That's smoking. Just because your particles are different from a tobacco users particles doesn't change the fact that it's still smoking, you're just smoking something other than tobacco.


Allow me to point out something here.

[edited]

No. Smoke is particulate that rises into the air as the leftover of something that burns. Once something is burned, it is chemically altered so that it can not take it's original form again. Vapor or steam is a liquid that is heated to the point of becoming a gas. Theoretically, if there's enough and it's cooled back down it would return to it's original form, minus whatever can absorb parts of gas. With vaper, what goes in is what comes out, minus the some nicotine and flavor that gets absorbed into the mouth. The nicotine that comes out is less then what goes in. Nothing is going through a permanent alteration. Smoke isn't the same as a gas.

 

[mare ze dotes]

Peeps, please keep in mind that the op has not come back to discuss her opinions on vaping, smoking or addiction.
Trust me when I say, it's not worth getting yourself worked up over.

In the past we were all unhealthy smokers (smoke). We have made the healthier choice with vaping(vapor).

A good purplepeep! Gotta love em. All that sugary marshmallow yum. And smart too!

 

[Anjaffm]

I find it disturbing and troubling that ECF has been increasingly infiltrated by those who are not on our side and post garbage like this. Obviously there is a serious anti-vaping political agenda afoot. I see such people posting here more and more since I registered on this site last July, and it seems clear we are interfering with someone's revenues quite seriously, and they want that stopped, so the anti-vaping propaganda is growing on ECF, and other vaping forums as well. Must be the taxes on tobacco have dropped off unacceptably for some.

Yes, I fully agree.
It does not take long to see through their nonsense, their twisting and turning, but it is slightly annoying nevertheless.
There is only so much stupidity that an intelligent person can take at one time without raising their eyebrows .... and that one is pushing it... *yawn*

I'm not going to live in your world of "only words." Words have meaning, and you refusal to grasp that does nothing to further any conversation employing them. There is a distinction, and you're a fool (a useful one to many) for refusing to learn.

As you learn about the "only words" that define smoke vs. vapor (or "dog" vs "cat," check out those "words" too) you'll understand that there is a difference between a cloud of aerosolized dispersed solid particles and a cloud of water vapor containing a water-miscible substance and flavorings. These distinctions actually are meaningful and important. That's why I don't call it "smoking" when I take a shower, or inhale albuterol from a nebulizer.

[edited] Words have meaning.

Precisely.
And I guess that person knows that very well. He / she / it is just being annoying.... I had a phase like that when I was two years old

The sad part in reading this one is that critical thinking is a huge victim of all of this and corporations constantly take advantage of the relatively inability of many people to think on their own to implant simplistic idiotic reasoning like this.

Is it too hard to ask people to understand the difference between combustion and pyrolysis ("breaking stuff up with fire") vs. raising a liquid to a boiling point? You can disagree whether it's any healthier. You'd be wrong, but disagree on that point -- don't try to redefine "smoke" to fit your disingenuous agenda.

...

The point is harm reduction...but many people don't understand the difference between "safer" and safe" or "healthier" and "healthy." They want everything to be black and white, but fortunately that is not the planet we inhabit.

Precisely.
And that person's "reasoning" sounds a lot like a two-year-old repeating "But I wanna!!!"

I wonder if our guest has had enough food for one day

 

[trentenmarschel]

What kind of drugs are you putting in your ecig that made you think that analogy made any sense at all?

Let's say you visit prostitutes. You risk the STDs and everything that goes with prostitution. You call these visits "having sex".

Now let's say you get married. You only have sex with one woman and all of the health concerns of having sex with prostitutes is gone. You now call your activity with your wife "making love."

But is "making love" really any different from "having sex" other than the change in risk?

making sex is just that sex one time then done making love is totally different it is love with the one partner you will spend your life with
smoking cigarets is just that smoking tobacco with nicotine and chemicals. vaping is totally different is is vapor and not smoke.

lol that was what i was thinking when i posted.

 

[CKCalmer]

I arrive late in a thread and y'all are already into the sex and prostitutes. I'm gonna have to start sending in chaperones, aren't I?

OK, this whole thing is really about how it looks to vape. People say, "It looks like smoking, so how can it be so different?" And we all know that perception is everything, so even if ALL of the chemicals were different, people would still say "it's smoking".

So how about this: We make vaping look NOTHING like smoking. Let's figure out how to make vaping look like we're doing something healthy, even, or at least not unhealthy. Let's make it look like dancing, or laughing, or brushing our teeth, or measuring a sidewalk, or changing a diaper... Anything but smoking.

Vaping devices are getting more and more inventive every day, right? So come on, we've got a big vaping community here, and a lot of smart people. We can pool our minds together and fix this thing.

Ideas?

 

[trentenmarschel]

The definition of smoke is "a visible suspension of carbon or other particles in air"
The definition of vapor is "substance diffused or suspended in the air"

In otherwords, the difference between smoke and vapor is purely semantic. By definition smoke and vapor can be the exact same thing.

i use .Merriam Webster definitions here.
[h=2]smoke[/h] noun \ˈsmōk\ : the cloud of black, gray, or white gases and dust that is produced by burning something

: a cigarette, cigar, etc. : something that people smoke

: the act of smoking a cigarette, cigar, etc.



ok so now i will see the definition of BURNING

[h=2]burn·ing[/h] adjective \ˈbər-niŋ\ : on fire : producing or having a flame
: very strong

: very hot

ok wow so now we know what smoking and burning is now lets move on to vapor


[h=2]¹va·por[/h] noun \ˈvā-pər\ : a substance that is in the form of a gas or that consists of very small drops or particles mixed with the air

so smoke is the burning of materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon
smoke also means the product of combustion,

so smoking a cigarette is not the same thing as vaporizing pg, vg, flavoring, and nicotine into small particles that are suspended in the air in a visible cloud of MIST not SMOKE ,

 

[trentenmarschel]

There is no distinction between them.

Only words.

You draw in and inhale, and then exhale a visible cloud of particles. That's smoking. Just because your particles are different from a tobacco users particles doesn't change the fact that it's still smoking, you're just smoking something other than tobacco.


Allow me to point out something here.

[edited]

YES THERE IS
read some stuff on it

Vaporizer Reviews: Vaporizing vs Smoking: The Difference Between Vapor and Smoke
What's The Difference Between Smoke And Vapor?
http://chemistry.about.com/b/2014/03/14/what-is-the-difference-between-smoke-and-steam.htm
http://www.whatisdifferencebetween.com/science/what-is-the-difference-between-fumes-steam-gas-vapor-and-smoke.html

read the last one if any of them

 

[ruet]

All of these complicated attempts to differentiate between smoke and vapor are fun but let's keep it simple.

Smoke is a byproduct of matter changing form through combustion.
Vapor is matter that has changed from one state to another through heating or cooling.

If someone doesn't understand that your best bet is to stop typing or walk away. At that point anything else is a waste of time.

 

[trentenmarschel]

I arrive late in a thread and y'all are already into the sex and prostitutes. I'm gonna have to start sending in chaperones, aren't I?
So how about this: We make vaping look NOTHING like smoking. Let's figure out how to make vaping look like we're doing something healthy, even, or at least not unhealthy.
Ideas?

i agree with you and for a start this is how i make vaping look totally different than smoking cigarettes. this is not for you but for the troll who thinks the steam from a boiling pot of water is smoke ok i will show you the difference between a ecig vaporizer and a cig

omg i can see the fire and the combustion and the smoke and tar and crap

and vaping device

\
wow look at my drip tip the vapor condensed back into liquid form wow.

 

[Penn]

Do you even know what the word Semantics means? I suggest you look it up, because NOTHING you said denies it's an argument of semantics.

Allow me to point out just how much of an argument of semantics it really is....

Let's say you're using NET juices. Naturally Extracted TOBACCO.

You cannot deny you're using a tobacco product. You cannot deny that you are inhaling nicotine. You cannot deny that you are bringing an object to your mouth, drawing in a heated, vaporized, tobacco product, inhaling it, and exhaling a visible cloud of particles that includes nicotine and tobacco byproducts in it.


Now, let's take this a bit further, shall we?

The definition of smoke is "a visible suspension of carbon or other particles in air"
The definition of vapor is "substance diffused or suspended in the air"

In otherwords, the difference between smoke and vapor is purely semantic. By definition smoke and vapor can be the exact same thing. The primary difference according to their definitions is that smoke is visible and vapor may or may not be visible. Since our vapor is visible it can be accurately called smoke.


And for the record....

The definition of Semantics as it applies to this discussion is:

"the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings "

An example of this would be "I don't smoke, I vape, and that's different because ecig users don't want to be labeled as smokers" which is really all it boils down to.

Using the word semantics to be dismissive of a point in debate is what I referenced. You make the point that vaping and smoking are the same due to addictive properties and visible vapor but then claim the distinction between two words, vaping and smoking, is just semantics. Ironically, you try to be dismissive by claiming semantics then try to defend what you just called "semantics" in a dismissive way. Is it an unimportant element to the debate or not? If it is central to the debate it is not dismiss-able as semantics.

The words, as others have clearly stated, are different. Others having stated it is why I propose no argument to support that difference, which I stated.

But then again, you could just be using a straw man or red herring diversion tactic, lol.

 

[Anjaffm]

Well, I just boiled potatoes in a pot of water. And now my kitchen is filled with ... uhm... smoke?
I will not give a potato to a certain poster though. As that is not a good idea. *sweet smile*

 

[Purplepeeps]

A good purplepeep! Gotta love em. All that sugary marshmallow yum. And smart too!

I don't know about smart LOL....it took me a few days to learn. rotf!