Websters dictionary defines steam as : 1 : a vapor arising from a heated substance
So technically it is "steam" but personal steamer sounds dumb IMO
Dont call them E-cig's or Electronic cigarettes!
- Thread starter jonny2hottie
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Websters dictionary defines steam as : 1 : a vapor arising from a heated substance
So technically it is "steam" but personal steamer sounds dumb IMO
Technically, yes. Semantics aside though, am I to believe you went searching on the net one day for a steamer? Perhaps a portable device that would allow you to inhale said steam?? Or did you go looking for a smoking alternative?
If you were dealing with someone that stubborn and closeminded, then it wouldn't matter what you called it. People think of gasoline when you mention a vehicle, too. But enter the word hybrid, and that changes the game. I simply choose to believe education over deception. Nobody said it was going to be easy, but I'd rather keep my credibility in the meantime.
edit: ...and YES, by all means, I want to educate people on the differences between paper and electronic cigarettes!!
Last edited:
if you do call it an e-cig, electronic cigarette, etc. - who cares if people associate it with smoking? if they're critical thinkers, once explained to them, they should be able to realize that it is an alternative to smoking as no chemicals are combusting. and if they can't figure that out, so what? so some stranger walks away from you and thinks you're a smoker. no loss.
don't get me wrong, i'm all for explaining how they work if someone's genuinely curious but if they're not and they prefer to stereotype or stigmatize me, i'm not gonna lose sleep over it.
you can point to the moon but you can't make someone see it.
don't get me wrong, i'm all for explaining how they work if someone's genuinely curious but if they're not and they prefer to stereotype or stigmatize me, i'm not gonna lose sleep over it.
you can point to the moon but you can't make someone see it.
Think bigger. Take your stranger walking away example and multiply it by the amount of people who dislike smoking and want it banned in the US. When the vote comes down to banning these devices, which way do you think they'll vote?
The stranger walking away was the non-critical thinker who wasn't changing his mind and would have voted for the ban in your scenario. Would referring to it as a personal steamer have changed that vote?
I'm not purposefully trying to be argumentative, I just want to understand the underlying logic behind your position. Overall, I believe we want the same thing, albeit with different approaches.
Let's say that there was a vote to ban "Electronic Cigarettes". At this time, the majority of the population would vote to ban without feeling like they need to know any information, just because it says Cigarettes in the name of the device.
OTOH, let's say there was a vote to ban "Portable Steamers". At this time, the majority of people would look at that and think it's be a ridiculous notion to ban a steamer, and would vote against the ban without feeling they need to know any more information.
Unless people are going to be directly affected by something, they don't take the time to learn all they can about benefits and harm about a product. Do you know all there is to know about the benefits and harms of the Cat Genie? Would you vote to ban the Cat Genie based on what you perceive you know at this point in time?
Disclaimer: You might very well be the inventor of the Cat Genie, and thus my example would not apply to you.
That makes perfect sense as it is written. However, I don't think for a second anyone can convince the majority of the population that it is a steamer up for ban and not an electronic cigarette. Heck, reading back through this thread, even the handful of US don't agree with it, what chance do we have among the 'anti' group?
I agree with you that most people won't take the time to educate themselves about most things that don't concern them. This is exactly why I feel the burden is on us to do the educating.
That's hilarious! You're safe though, I'm a dog person.... cats are too independent for me!
Last edited:
I like it! If you can't convince 'em, dazzle em with... err... never mind!! My wife has already adopted the Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhaler System. I just couldn't say that with a straight face!
If only I could get my fiancee to put my Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhaler System in her mouth more often. But sadly, she's not even an ex smoker....I have nobody to share it with...WAAAAA!! Ok, I'll let everybody get back on topic 
If only I could get my fiancee to put my Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhaler System in her mouth more often. But sadly, she's not even an ex smoker....I have nobody to share it with...WAAAAA!! Ok, I'll let everybody get back on topic
Now that's funny!
I agree with this part exactly, which is why I'm all for NOT calling it an electronic cigarette. Why put a name on it that ends up hurting it's image from the get-go and causing people to instinctively believe it is something it is not?
Definition of cigarette:
cig·a·rette/ˌsigəˈret/Noun
1. A thin cylinder of finely cut tobacco rolled in paper for smoking.
2. A similar cylinder containing a narcotic, herbs, or a medicated substance.
- Merriam-Webster
Definition of steam:
steam/ˈstēm/Noun
1. to rise or pass off as vapor.
2. to give off steam or vapor.
- Merriam-Webster
I fail to see the relevance of pointing out that one group is fighting to keep their basic human rights while another group is fighting to regain their basic human rights.
Whether an abridgement of one's constitutional freedoms has been successfully legislated yet or not should not determine one's response to said abridgement of freedom.
It is the same struggle, against a government which has far overstepped its bounds, and special interest groups who want to decide these issues for you and punish those who don't fall in line.
A wise man once said, and I paraphrase: "First they came for [Group A], and I didn't say anything about it 'cause I don't do that stuff, man. Then they came for [Group B], and I was fine with that because I don't even know any of them. Then they came for [Groups C-Y] and i didn't speak up because they weren't coming for me. Then they came for the e-cig and/or personal vaporizer users, and there was no one left to speak up for us."
For the record, I believe that private business owners should have the right to decide what is acceptable behavior in their establishment. I believe that they should have the right to allow or disallow both smoking and vaping in their place of business.
I would hope that most would wind up regarding vaping as inoffensive, based on increased familiarity with the activity, and through the educational efforts of vaping enthusiasts.
Going along with the idea that personally deciding to inhale something besides fresh air on your own premises, in your own home even, should be a punishable offense seems short-sighted and counter-productive to me.
Those who have already lost the right to ingest their substance of choice and those who would rather not lose their right to ingest their chemical of choice are in the same struggle, the same fight.
So we're supposed to look at these other groups who are already being arrested, fined, prosecuted, incarcerated, generally screwed over I guess, and think, "screw you guys, ours is still legal"?
That seems wrong to me, and I hope it always seems wrong to me.
tl?;dr?: Call it whatever you're comfortable calling it. Also, consider being observant and making an effort to use the terms or description most likely to convey the actual idea to any particular individual or group that you happen to be addressing at any given time.
I also tried to touch on the idea that supporting, tacitly or explicitly, the idea that some vices should be criminal offenses while hoping that your vice is not the next to be prohibited is a losing proposition and just keeps the people divided. All of us should be fighting for the right of free citizens to make their own choices in these matters.
For one thing, it would be easier to win freedom for all, once, than to win freedom for most, a little bit at a time, a fight over this, a struggle over that.
"What a waste of time", I says.
Last edited:
I understand your reasoning, but we didn't "put" this name on it, it IS an electronic cigarette. It began as a safer alternative to cigarettes while still simulating the act of smoking.
Also, I don't buy that people instinctively believe it IS a cigarette, I think they know it's somehow related but aren't sure how. They see the ads on TV about water vapor, no ash, not being harmful, etc. They just don't have enough information with regards to how it's different and most likely safer. We can fight it or we can go with it. I would rather try and convince the 'anti' group that it is a safeR alternative to smoking than to try and convince the 'anti' group AND a large portion of vapers AND manufacturers of electronic cigarettes to call it something that doesn't reflect it's intended use. Mama always said honesty was the best policy.
To me it just seems silly and no offense intended but futile to try and rename this at this stage of the game. It's like trying to call a pencil a graphiter, so it doesn't get confused with the pen... what with it being so permanent and all.
If we are going to have any chance at all to present and represent vaping in a positive light, we have to do it together. All of us. I just don't see that happening here. Thanks for the discussion, it's almost quitting time!
Last edited:
debate this freely (and with civility), but keep the drug references out of it.
Darrigaaz, I'm afraid I have to agree with TNTAbeliene. This is not a name that's up for a vote that we're deciding right now, in this thread, and that if you don't get your point across to those of us reading this thread, the vaping world will collapse. You're preaching to the choir here man. We understand your reasoning. Problem is, you're doing no good. The name is out there. Go look up the movie "The Tourist" and find out how many people are commenting about Johnny Depp using a PV. I bet you'll find that none of them are. Are you going to go there and preach to them too? The name is there whether you like it or not. It's been done.
An Ita - I don't see how my wheelies or your smoking are basic human rights. Those aren't rights. A right is something that has been granted to you. I was never granted the right to do wheelies, and you weren't granted the right for the other. But they have been deemed unsafe and illegal. Like I said to Dar, whether we like it or not, it has been done. That's what it really boils down to. It's not your right to do something when it's been decided it's against the law. Maybe I should go out and kill people and say "but it's my basic human right!!!" and see what happens? Nah, can't do that. Why? Because I know it's illegal, just like I don't do wheelies or 110 down the interstate
An Ita - I don't see how my wheelies or your smoking are basic human rights. Those aren't rights. A right is something that has been granted to you. I was never granted the right to do wheelies, and you weren't granted the right for the other. But they have been deemed unsafe and illegal. Like I said to Dar, whether we like it or not, it has been done. That's what it really boils down to. It's not your right to do something when it's been decided it's against the law. Maybe I should go out and kill people and say "but it's my basic human right!!!" and see what happens? Nah, can't do that. Why? Because I know it's illegal, just like I don't do wheelies or 110 down the interstate
I call it an ecig and thats not going to change. I really dont think it matters what we call it and posting on this forum telling people they shouldnt say ecig is not going to change anything.
I'd like to point out that I'm not preaching, I'm having a discussion.
What you may not realize is that this forum is not made up of a few nameless people without any power to sway public opinion. There may be an A-list celebrity reading this thread at this very moment, who decides that it might be beneficial to call his/her device a PV or steamer to help curb the negative connotations with cigarettes. Perhaps this celebrity will be on some talk show later this coming week, and by explaining how their device differs greatly from burning a small cylinder of leaves, the message gets to millions of people who are on the fence with their opinions of people who use these devices...
Just because you may believe that the ship has sailed, doesn't mean that no good can come from this discussion.
Every time someone asks me about my device, I say it's an electronic vaporizer.
Considering how many people smoke and, more importantly, how many people KNOW people that smoke - once the general population sees the benefits of vaping as opposed to smoking (the hard part, I know), I'd like to think (though I may be naive here) that they would encourage the sale and promotion of such devices, thinking things like - "If only my mother had one of those, she'd still be around" or "My brother's got COPD and hasn't been able to quit" and so on.
As an RN I've been able to inform some of my patients and even family members about vaping with only positive responses. This has to be done delicately, however, and not thrown as a sales pitch which I'm very particular about not coming off as. I don't recommend brands, types, etc. I just let them know that an alternative to smoking is out there and it's been successful for many, including myself. I believe people are slowly becoming more health conscious as a whole with growing rates of obesity and diabetes and heart disease staring everyone in the face. Many people have lost loved ones to tobacco-related illnesses and my hope is they would be inclined to embrace vaping granted they knew enough about it.
As an RN I've been able to inform some of my patients and even family members about vaping with only positive responses. This has to be done delicately, however, and not thrown as a sales pitch which I'm very particular about not coming off as. I don't recommend brands, types, etc. I just let them know that an alternative to smoking is out there and it's been successful for many, including myself. I believe people are slowly becoming more health conscious as a whole with growing rates of obesity and diabetes and heart disease staring everyone in the face. Many people have lost loved ones to tobacco-related illnesses and my hope is they would be inclined to embrace vaping granted they knew enough about it.
If a celebrity was reading this and saw this, then we should be talking about how, if they like it enough to make a public statement about it, it should be about it's positive aspects and how good it is for ex-smokers. No getting some blonde ex-playboy bunny turned actress/singer saying "this is FiFi, my pink personal vaporizer, I named it after my pink poodle that passed away last year" They can call it whatever they want, the name doesn't change a thing, that's what we're trying to say. I can try to hand you a plate of steamy stinky poo, call it "The Best Food West of the Mississippi!" and you still won't touch it. Why? Because you already know what it is. You want to make a difference? Talk about the advantages of the e-cig, how good it is for you, and how it differs from regular cigarettes. That's where the focus should be. Not on something so minor as a name.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
