Call them e-Cigs, NOT PVs

[whynes]

I've seen many discussions suggesting that we should call
these devices PVs (Personal Vaporizors) rather than e-cigs,
or e-cigarettes. The suggested rational is that this will
somehow distinguish us from smokers, smoking bans, and
regulations.

I think this is a bad idea, and these are my reasons for
thinking that way:

1) If you follow the politics on e-cigs, you probably already
know that the regulators are out to ban this device no
matter what it's called.

2) The political powers and the press use the term e-cigarettes
when they talk about bans and taxes. When a ban or tax
is proposed, it will be done using the term e-cig (or something
similar). No one is going to propose a 900% tax on PVs; rather,
it will be a 900% tax proposed on e-cigarettes.

3) If we "spread the word" to our family and friends about
the benefits this device provides, they might not make
the connection between your use of the term PV and
the regulator's and press' use of the term e-cigarette.

That is the lynchpin of my reasoning. While our friends
and family might support us, we shouldn't expect them
to be as involved in the culture of 'vaping' and the nuances
of the political discussion as we are. They could easily
vote 'against' e-cigs without knowing they are the same
as that "PV" device that is keeping their nephew, daughter,
brother-in-law, etc off the stinkies.

Let's not make it overly confusing for them to support us.
If the regulators ban e-cigarettes, we will lose our PVs.
To them, it doesn't matter what we call them. But to
friends and family, they need to be aware that when
they vote FOR e-cigarettes, they are voting FOR us.

 

[TTK]

Might be a good point, if it came to a vote, but I don't believe there will be any voting on this issue.

 

[captcpu]

Well made points, but I'll respectfully disagree. If education is the goal, I find calling it a PV or APV much more useful in most of the conversations I have about the subject. Take two conversions as a "for instance:"

"What the heck is that thing?"
"It's an e-cig?"
"Oh, one of those fake cigarette things." <--- just about every single time.
"Well, no it's not really like a cigarette."
"Looks like you're smoking to me."
"No, it's vapor, not smoke."
"Then why's it called a cig?"
"That's just what they call it. But it's not. Really."
"Yeah, ok."
"No really! It's not."
"I believe you."
"No you don't. You made a face!"
"That's my I believe you face."
"LIES!"

or

"What the heck is that thing?"
"It's a Personal Vaporizer."
"Oh... a what?"
"Personal Vaporizer. It produces vapor instead of smoke."
"Right. What's the difference?"
"Well, vapor is like what comes off of a tea kettle. Smoke is like what you get off your BBQ grill."
"So it's like smoking?"
"Sort of, but it's called vaping. No smoke, just steam."
"Is it dangerous?"
"I dunno, but I drop several hundred deadly poisons, carcinogens and chemicals by using this thing. And it tastes way better, as well. I vaping caramel right now."
"Huh. Cool!"

My experience has been that calling it a vaporizer leads to much more interesting and in-depth discussions about what I'm doing. Calling it an e-cig tends to shut people's mind down with the "it's just a fake cigarette" mentality.

Your mileage may vary, of course. But put simply, I don't smoke any more. I vape.

I'll be happy to educate anyone on the difference.

 

[sherid]

Call it what it is. An e cig is a replacement for a cigarette. A vaporizor is something one uses for a congested chest or as a device for vaping other herbs. Just my opinion, but I think it fairly represents public perception.

 

[whynes]

"I dunno, but I drop several hundred deadly poisons, carcinogens and chemicals by using this thing. And it tastes way better, as well. I vaping caramel right now."

I'm sure there could have been a tactfull way to make these points
in the e-cig version of the discussion, too. Without this key info,
it's not surprising the hypothetical non-vaper went away with a
misunderstanding.

My main point is, the political and PR attacks will be against
e-cigarettes.

It does us no good at all if our potential supporters think PVs and
e-cigarettes are different devices when it comes time to vote.

We need to fight the battle on the actual field under attack.
Defending, instead, where we wish they would attack,
results in no battle, and can result in a lost cause.

(2 more)

P.S. My personal experience with a health-care nurse (not a friend,
and not family -- just met her that one night); she was hypnotized
by my personal story. No snide remarks, no arguments. Just a
look of wonder on her face. It was at a board meeting for the
association where I live. I was vaping in her presence, and with
her permission; as well as the permission of the other 2 board
members (1 smoker and one other never-smoker).

We were voting on a no-smoking policy for the indoor recreation
area of the association (which is where we, the board, meets).
It passed unanimously while I was vaping away. I am the VP of
the board for this year. The 1 smoker is the President. He was
the one who brought the no-smoking motion to the board for a vote.

P.S.S. Even if I were still smoking, I would have voted for this.
Maintenance and insurance costs, etc. It was a vote to amend
our CC&Rs.

P.S.S.S. I am probably only one more board meeting away from convincing
the President to try e-cigs

 

[whynes]

Might be a good point, if it came to a vote, but I don't believe there will be any voting on this issue.

If you join CASAA, or look in ECF's Forum->Campaigning->Day of Action
you will find there are votes all the time at the local, city, and state level
attempting to ban e-cigarettes. No one ever proposes a ban on PVs.

Introducing confusion into the issue (calling an e-cig a PV) will do us no
good. A ban on e-cigs is a ban on PVs.

We need to take this fight head-on. They are bringing this down on us.
It's not the other way around. We need to fight against the words they
are using; not the words we wish they would use.

Example: If your congressperson is considering a vote against e-cigarettes,
how is it helpful to write him/her a letter about PVs? Doesn't that assume they
are already a vaper? What if they've never smoked or vaped before? If they
knew what a PV was, we wouldn't need to write a letter; they would already
know how to vote.

 

[whynes]

. . . it fairly represents public perception.

And you've hit the nail on the head, sherid. Fighting against a cause no one
has ever heard of does us no good. Any legislation, tax, ban, etc., will be
against e-cigarettes, not against PVs.

We need any who support us already to know this, BEFORE it's time to
vote.

Those who would vote against us merely based on how the device is named
are not our supporters in the first place.

 

[Infinitejest]

All good points Op, but any type of Ciggarette has negative connotations. Think Madison Ave., Rebranding. PV sounds good to me, does anyone else have any other brands ideas? All welcome? Original op has started a serious topic, Can anyone outdo PV?

 

[whynes]

All good points Op, but any type of Ciggarette has negative connotations. Think Madison Ave., Rebranding. PV sounds good to me, does anyone else have any other brands ideas? All welcome? Original op has started a serious topic, Can anyone to PV?

Dying of COPD or lung cancer due to smoking has negative
connotations.

Not dying due to e-cigarettes has positive connotations.

 

[jeffjr464]

call it whatever you want, i call it my not waking up in the middle of the night gasping for air device

 

[whynes]

Rebranding. PV sounds good to me, does anyone else have any other brands ideas? All welcome? Original op has started a serious topic, Can anyone outdo PV?

Before I turn this over to everyone to comment, I guess I have to inject one
final opinion.

We don't get to "brand" this. We DO NOT GET AN OPINION on the terms
of attack. Those terms are, and forever will be, defined by our attackers.

Those terms of attack define the law that we will be subject
to; like it or not.

We need to defend against what the attack IS, not what we wish the attack
to BE.

 

[young gotti]

i figured e cigs were the ones that look like analogs and pv's where more like a provari or something like that....today i had a kid say "oh is that one of those vaporizers?" first time anyone's ever asked me that

 

[TTK]

I believe, if asked, I would call it a personal vaporizer because that is what it does, it vaporizes a liquid. But, I would probably conclude that it is frequently called an e-cig, depending on who I was explaining it to. If you immediately call it an e-cig, there is an initial negative reaction that may be difficult to mitigate. But, I get the point the op is making. I just feel that the big impact, which will be federal, will be carried out without citizen input affecting the decision.

 

[sherid]

I believe, if asked, I would call it a personal vaporizer because that is what it does, it vaporizes a liquid. But, I would probably conclude that it is frequently called an e-cig, depending on who I was explaining it to. If you immediately call it an e-cig, there is an initial negative reaction that may be difficult to mitigate. But, I get the point the op is making. I just feel that the big impact, which will be federal, will be carried out without citizen input affecting the decision.

I don't care if the public is offended by the term e cig or cigarette for that matter. There are 46 million smokers in this country, and I am one of them. I am not afraid of offending anyone, especially anti smokers who object to e cigs simply because they "look like smoking." I am in fact thrilled that they are offended because I despise anti-smokers/vapers. They are determined to erase pleasure in any form, and I would love to kick them to the curb.

 

[inter_ceptor00]

I think the real problem (mine at least) with refering to these things as personal vaporizers is that they already have personal vaporizers.....for medical Marihuana ( i know its not spelled right, keeps google from giving that term more hits)might be a worse image to suggest to someone being introduced to these for the first time.

 

[BrianCig]

I think pv is better then e cig. You can use a pv with zero nicotine in the e-juice and just flavouring. Once you call it an e-cig it is very hard for someone to disconnect that to a real analog cig.

 

[sherid]

I think pv is better then e cig. You can use a pv with zero nicotine in the e-juice and just flavouring. Once you call it an e-cig it is very hard for someone to disconnect that to a real analog cig.

Really, who cares if they disconnect?

 

[BrianCig]

I think the real problem (mine at least) with refering to these things as personal vaporizers is that they already have personal vaporizers.....for medical Marihuana

hmm? I never thought of that angle but it is a valid one. Good point.

 

[BrianCig]

Really, who cares if they disconnect?

Well I could be wrong? My thought was people would have less of a biased opinion if it wasn't so directly connected to real cigarettes and all the negative stuff that comes with analogs.

No one calls the patch/gum/mist/inhalers etc.. a cigarette patch, cigarette gum, cigarette mist or cigarette inhaler. They are all called nicotine patch/gum/mist/inhaler etc... because that is what they are.

Then again WTF do I know. I am new to all this stuff

 

[Yves]

Its my new brand of cigarette is what I answer with, I switched brands from the outdated tobacco to the new electronic, that usually gets a conversation started.

I agree that PV can be very confusing for many who have never heard the term before, most do understand the term electronic cigarette.