- Status
I agree 100% with ending the PV stuff. I was against it 3 years ago when the debate was really going on. It makes us seem dishonest.
Family and friends, "What, they didn't raise a tax on your Personal Vibrator, they raised a tax on Electronic Cigarettes. Those are the bad ones not like your PV."
I'm going through medical stuff. I've been asked at least 5 times if I smoke. My reply is, "Uhh, I use an electronic cigarette." (Because I don't know how they classify it for their particular reason for asking.)
I had one who was thrilled. Most have blew it off and just asked me when I quit. Only one asked "how many packs do you smoke?" Once I said, "It's not packs, it a cartridge of nicotine liquid." she asked, "When did you quit."
I haven't even been given a lecture on quitting or cutting nicotine.
My niece is an OR nurse and she hasn't said one word against them. Even liked my last FB post where I announced 4 months and health benefits.
Family and friends, "What, they didn't raise a tax on your Personal Vibrator, they raised a tax on Electronic Cigarettes. Those are the bad ones not like your PV."
I'm going through medical stuff. I've been asked at least 5 times if I smoke. My reply is, "Uhh, I use an electronic cigarette." (Because I don't know how they classify it for their particular reason for asking.)
I had one who was thrilled. Most have blew it off and just asked me when I quit. Only one asked "how many packs do you smoke?" Once I said, "It's not packs, it a cartridge of nicotine liquid." she asked, "When did you quit."
I haven't even been given a lecture on quitting or cutting nicotine.
My niece is an OR nurse and she hasn't said one word against them. Even liked my last FB post where I announced 4 months and health benefits.
Holy cow! The nanny state is REALLY out of control! They are raising taxes of vibrators now???
Sorry, I couldn't resist having fun with the typo, lol! But it won't belong before they ban everything else fun and they'll start claiming that new studies show that it really DOES grow hair on your hand and cause blindness.
Here's a question - how many of you would have been interested in buying a "personal vaporizer" when you were die hard smokers?
The attraction of the devices, for a vast majority of smokers who try them, is the idea of having their cake and eating it,too. They can keep feeling like they are smoking without actually inhaling any smoke. The devices were invented to act as a smoking facsimile for the "real thing." People who were happy to get their nicotine through gums, patches and smokeless tobacco were not the target market. The target market for gums and patches is people who want to be nicotine-free, not people who want to keep smoking but want a safer alternative. Hon Lik never intended e-cigarettes to be nicotine cessation devices. He intended them to be a safer alternative for those who cannot or will not quit smoking otherwise. Do you really think those people want a "personal vaporizer", which sounds like a "treatment," or do they want something that looks, tastes and sounds as close to their brand of smokes as possible?
Because they work with electricity, rather than combustion, devices that are created to simulate or recreate the feeling of using cigarettes, pipes and cigarettes are called by the same name, with "electronic" added to clarify that it is an "electronic version" of those combustible products. Calling them "personal vaporizers" would have only served to turn off or confuse the target market. Imagine calling a certain drink "barley malt-flavored beverage" instead of "non-alcoholic beer."
So, the question is, do we care more about the "feelings" of non-smokers and ANTZ, who have been fooled by junk science to believe that second hand smoke poses any significant risk to them, or do we care more about getting more smokers to make the switch? As it was already pointed out, those who seek to ban the devices won't be swayed at all by a name change. In fact, they tried to rename e-cigarettes themselves as "ENDS" (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems) in an attempt to get them viewed and banned as unapproved drug delivery devices. So, calling them by a more clinical name such as PVs could backfire, as well. Calling them e-cigarettes represents them as the recreational nicotine products designed to reduce the health risks of smokers that they are.
The attraction of the devices, for a vast majority of smokers who try them, is the idea of having their cake and eating it,too. They can keep feeling like they are smoking without actually inhaling any smoke. The devices were invented to act as a smoking facsimile for the "real thing." People who were happy to get their nicotine through gums, patches and smokeless tobacco were not the target market. The target market for gums and patches is people who want to be nicotine-free, not people who want to keep smoking but want a safer alternative. Hon Lik never intended e-cigarettes to be nicotine cessation devices. He intended them to be a safer alternative for those who cannot or will not quit smoking otherwise. Do you really think those people want a "personal vaporizer", which sounds like a "treatment," or do they want something that looks, tastes and sounds as close to their brand of smokes as possible?
Because they work with electricity, rather than combustion, devices that are created to simulate or recreate the feeling of using cigarettes, pipes and cigarettes are called by the same name, with "electronic" added to clarify that it is an "electronic version" of those combustible products. Calling them "personal vaporizers" would have only served to turn off or confuse the target market. Imagine calling a certain drink "barley malt-flavored beverage" instead of "non-alcoholic beer."
So, the question is, do we care more about the "feelings" of non-smokers and ANTZ, who have been fooled by junk science to believe that second hand smoke poses any significant risk to them, or do we care more about getting more smokers to make the switch? As it was already pointed out, those who seek to ban the devices won't be swayed at all by a name change. In fact, they tried to rename e-cigarettes themselves as "ENDS" (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems) in an attempt to get them viewed and banned as unapproved drug delivery devices. So, calling them by a more clinical name such as PVs could backfire, as well. Calling them e-cigarettes represents them as the recreational nicotine products designed to reduce the health risks of smokers that they are.
Last edited:
Holy cow! The nanny state is REALLY out of control! They are raising taxes of vibrators now???
Sorry, I couldn't resist having fun with the typo, lol! But it won't belong before they ban everything else fun and they'll start claiming that new studies show that it really DOES grow hair on your hand and cause blindness.
The typo is intentional. That's another reason why I don't like "personal v....." as the name of choice.
If we want a name other than e-cig I think ENDS would be best. But that's still an uphill battle because they're marketed as e-cigs.
I had a feeling it may have been intentional, but wasn't sure...
Nope. I will NEVER call them "ENDS!" Just what the ANTZ want.
Nope. I will NEVER call them "ENDS!" Just what the ANTZ want.
I had a feeling it may have been intentional, but wasn't sure...
Nope. I will NEVER call them "ENDS!" Just what the ANTZ want.
Why is that? Does that imply medical device for legal reasons?
I was thinking "end smoking".
For the reason I stated in my earlier post - it was an acronym made up by ANTZ to (IMO) help get e-cigs classified as an unapproved drug delivery system. Call something an "Electronic Nicotine Delivery System" and that sounds suspiciously close to "electronic drug delivery system"...something that needs FDA-approval before it can be sold. Especially since nicotine is considered a "drug." So yes, it could strongly imply "medical device."
That and I refuse, on principal, to call it by any name the ANTZ come up with! LOL!
That and I refuse, on principal, to call it by any name the ANTZ come up with! LOL!
Myk: I believe it is best to answer that you no longer smoke, because that is the most accurate description of your health status. You no longer inhale tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals along with your nicotine. I don't know if the switch has had any direct effect on your health, but here's what's happened to me:
- Not kept awake by wheezing any more
- No more productive morning cough
- Can enjoy a good belly laugh without going into a coughing jag
- Peak Flow Meter reading was 300 when I smoked; it's 450 now
- Blood Pressure is lower
- Total cholesterol and bad (LDL) cholesterol is lower
The bottom line is that switching to an electronic cigarette has nearly the same health effects as quitting smoking and also quitting use of nicotine. The only advantage to quitting all use of nicotine would be to avoid having an early delivery or low-birth weight baby if you are pregnant. But even so, I smoked through two pregnancies in the 1970s and both were full term and normal weight. Using nicotine doesn't guarantee preterm birth or a low birth weight--it just increases the odds.
In the interests of full disclosure, you might want to say, "I used to be a smoker, but I stopped smoking on [fill in date.] I'm eternally grateful to the Chinese pharmacist that made this possible by inventing the electronic cigarette. Why do you ask?"
How about calling them the acronym for "Engineered Cigarette Impostor Gadgets?" LOL
Last edited:
How about calling them the acronym for "Engineered Cigarette Impostor Gadgets?" LOL
That I like
My blood pressure and heart rates are down. But I have panic disorder so it's really hit and miss whether the medical places see that.
I'm going to be going under general anesthesia and that is where I really didn't know how it counted, especially when I was getting the chest xray and ekg for the procedure. I figure just tell them what I'm doing and let them decide.
When I cut my nicotine from 11mg to 5mg my resting rate did drop further so I could see nicotine use being pertinant to some issues.
Like I said only one didn't understand what I meant. And this is from a hospital group that includes ecigs in their campus tobacco ban.
Kristin, that other post must've happened while I was posting and I didn't see it.
I don't mind stealing a name someone intended for a different reason.
I much prefer "e-cig" over PV. Like others have said, "vaporizer" is linked with MJ use, and the "personal" part of it doesn't make much sense. Is there a communal vaporizer somewhere?
Unless I call it an e-cig, no one knows what I mean. At least 90% of people have some idea what an e-cig is - they've seen or heard about them on tv or in the paper. We are replacing cigarettes with an electronic version of them. Some may not look anything like a cigarette, but we still use it to inhale what appears to be smoke in order to get nicotine (or in some case, only the sensation of smoking). "PV" just confuses the matter, and perhaps suggests it's a separate entity on its own, instead of being a substitute for harmful cigarettes.
Unless I call it an e-cig, no one knows what I mean. At least 90% of people have some idea what an e-cig is - they've seen or heard about them on tv or in the paper. We are replacing cigarettes with an electronic version of them. Some may not look anything like a cigarette, but we still use it to inhale what appears to be smoke in order to get nicotine (or in some case, only the sensation of smoking). "PV" just confuses the matter, and perhaps suggests it's a separate entity on its own, instead of being a substitute for harmful cigarettes.
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.
I'll be happy to educate anyone on the difference.
As you said to the OP, good point. I also respectfully disagree...with you.
I see what you're saying but I definitely think more "educating" could be done by helping the person in your hypothetical discussion understand the difference between a cigarette and an e-cig. While I don't personally really care what anyone calls them, the regular person just sees them as a new cigarette....likely just as hazardous and equally worthy of a ban. Teaching them the difference is the most important thing we can do to protect our rights. As long as the ignorant see them as a "fake cigarette" they will be just fine with a ban on them. However, if they know the benefits of an e-cig over an analog, they are likely to join our efforts to keep them legal.
It all comes down to how the average non-vaper sees PVs/E-cigs because it's the average non-vaper who will be deciding our future. The average non-vaper has no idea what a PV is but it's highly likely they know what an e-cig is. Whether they think it's a "fake cigarette" or not, they will gladly go right along with a vote to ban them if they are left unaware of the benefits over smoking. The average person has never heard of a PV but thanks to marketing, they have heard of an e-cig and when they go to the polls it will be the e-cig they are agreeing to ban and not a PV. So...like it or not, we must meet them with a term they know when trying to educate them. The companies who make them have already done the work of informing the general population as to what they are so why try to complicate things by trying to re-educate them? No....the best way is to build more knowledge on what they already know.
I 100% encourage everyone to do all they can to educate everyone they meet on the benefits of vaping over smoking. I do however agree with other posters who said that any laws passed will not be passed in the voting polls. None of the regulation or legislation that's put on e-cigs will be voted on by the people. Any laws passed will be done so by government officials here in the USA. Though we think of ourselves as a nation of the people, by the people and for the people, the truth is that the people really have very little power over the government at all. Large corporations like tobacco.....well, let's just say that they have slightly more influence.
It is a vaporizer and it's not a cigarette. It's unfortunate that a better name wasn't attached to them in the first place, but for now most of the time you will have to say "electronic cigarette" for people to understand what you are talking about. If I tell my dentist or doctor that I vape they look at me like I am out of my mind. If when asked if I smoke I say, "I quit using an electronic cigarette", they all say something like, "good for you".
As I said, it's not a cigarette! Although I do think it would have been difficult to market them without calling them electronic cigarettes, that is what got most people's attention. Even so they are NOT a Cigarette.
Hopefully someday they will become so mainstream that you will hear something like this. "Would you vape that in the other room. I hate the smell of bananas!" Rather than, "How dare you smoke that thing around me!"
As I said, it's not a cigarette! Although I do think it would have been difficult to market them without calling them electronic cigarettes, that is what got most people's attention. Even so they are NOT a Cigarette.
Hopefully someday they will become so mainstream that you will hear something like this. "Would you vape that in the other room. I hate the smell of bananas!" Rather than, "How dare you smoke that thing around me!"
Agree!
I'm new to e-cigs and wasn't aware that there was an effort to use the term ENDS. I definitely agree that it's a bad idea to go along with it. As you said, it makes it seem to the general public as though they are an unapproved drug delivery system. and therefore should be illegal. After all, if it's a drug and the FDA hasn't approved it then it must be some sort of public health concern.
I don't really think e-cig is the best term either, but it does more accurately describe them than PV does. As you said, they were first designed and marketed toward cigarette smokers as a way to have their cake and eat it too and because of that, it's what people know.
To be honest and realistic, the general population doesn't really give a squirt of pi$$ whether an e-cig, PV or ENDS is outlawed because it won't affect them one way or the other. However, if they know and understand that these are safer for people than cigarettes they will be more inclined to take a side on the matter. Tobacco doesn't want that...they want their money back!
Quite honestly, the FDA and other government agencies don't really care one way or the other about the legality of e-cigs. They just want their cut if there is enough money floating around in the market. That's why they haven't really cracked down on them yet, not big enough market....but it's getting there. They don't want to kill the market, they want it to grow big enough to profit from.
Our biggest concern isn't with the FDA or another govt agency and it's not the average non-vaper. Neither of those will do anything on their own to stop us from enjoying our e-cigs. The only entity we need worry with is big tobacco...they are the only ones with a reason to squash our vaping. However, if the general population understands that e-cigs are safer than cigarettes for their friends, family and everyone else then the average non-vaper can become a great force for us. Tobacco doesn't want them educated, they want them ignorant and indifferent...and they will try to use any campaign possible to see it stays that way.
Sorry....wow...I really got off topic there. I'm not sure what point I stopped replying to your statement and started rambling off my flowing thoughts. Anyway, totally agree that ENDS is a bad idea and so is PV (even though I use the term in this forum). Not sure what ANTZ so I can't say I hold the same ire for them...never seen that acronym before.
Exactly!
That's what I was trying to say. It's not that I have a problem with calling them PVs. It's normally the term I use when speaking with other vapers. It's just that the average person has no idea what a PV is and there's no need to try and educate them on new terminology when they already have a term for them in their heads. The name isn't important to those of us who know what they are and I think that's what the OP was saying. The FDA and tobacco companies know what they are whether you call them PV or e-cig or ENDS or whatever. In order to educate the rest of the population though, it's not necessary to try and wrap their brain around a new term. Meet them with a name they already know and use and build on that. We don't need to re-invent the wheel...the one that marketing invented will do just fine for now.
It's sad that they couldn't have been marketed by using a more descriptive name, but it is what it is. To everyone else they are e-cigs and that's OK for now. Hopefully, with education, in the future people will be more aware of what they are and that they have nothing to do with cigarettes but right now we need to focus on more pressing matters.
You were going along good until you aimed your conspiracy theory fire at the completely wrong target.
You do that because you've been brainwashed by the ANTZ (hold your mouse over that acronym to see what it is).
"Big tobacco" are our allies. They want us to survive so they can make money from us. The ones who can't make money if we survive is the pharmaceuticals and thus the FDA who they bribe to get them to approve drugs that cause more problems that can be fixed with more drugs.
You are not old enough to lay any blame on "Big tobacco" for your addiction.
Who made the studies about second hand smoke that showed that it was NOT a problem (it may even be a benefit) and then turned right around and lied about those studies? Who lies and claims big tobacco puts rat poison in cigarettes, making that jump because a natural chemical in combusted tobacco is used in rat poison?
It's the ANTZ and the FDA who they are in the back pocket of.
If you think the FDA is your friend in this and Big Tobacco is your enemy you may as well hang up your ecig and take Chantix and hope you're not one of the 4% it will kill.
You had better learn who your real friends and enemies are.
Well I like the points made! However, because the device looks like a cig does not mean it should be called one! I think the word cig should be kept out totally. It's a PV and I think calling it such will help break the negatives accosiated with smoking and vaping! That being said, the word ecig does not bother me personally because I'm educated on the subject. Good debate here though.
Last edited:
Because it looks like you're smoking it won't matter what you call it. The ANTZ are not about sanity or righteousness.
Remember they want chewing gum shaped in a cylinder with powdered sugar on the outside to be banned.
They claim second hand smoke is a reason to ban cigarettes even though it shows a vaccine effect. Now they've moved on to "third hand smoke".
- Status
Similar threads
