- Status
You summed up whole the issue, Jets. It's the claims in the user manuals about these being NRT devices that caused the FDA issue. Had they just called them elctropipes or something and stayed away from those claims there wouldn't be a problem.
As for Igetcha, he's the kinda idjit that would go into a head shop and loudly say "I wanna buy a ...." and get shown the door
name calling! what a loser you are! you very sad little person.
and the guy said he agreed with me, so basically you are calling him/her an idiot too.
grow up or **** off
at the end of the day if we can all still vape and enjoy ourselves...who cares what they call it. i read soo many opinions already that i dont care what its called anymore as long as i can still enjoy my soothing flavor stick 
with the attitude you are displaying here it's obvious you don't care and aren't willing to fight to keep governments from banning the very items you have spent so much time reviewing. But hey why should you be worried about the FDA right? You are a Brit so it's no skin off your .... right? Well guy, as the FDA goes so goes the world. If they get banned here I guarentee you it won't be a year before the UK does as well and then you won't be reviewing jack.
You actually think suggesting that if they ban these devices then they would have to ban smoking as well? Grow up. Big Tobacco practically owns the government with the billions they spend on lobbying. The only chance we have with this thing is to back off with the references to cigarettes about these vaporizers or we are toast.
Sure it doesn't matter what we call them amogst ourselves, but in print it's a different matter because govt agencies can just roll in here and grab as much evidence as they please.
This is what I should have written to or about you instead of calling you an idjit. You proved my point quite well with your subsequent posts however.
You actually think suggesting that if they ban these devices then they would have to ban smoking as well? Grow up. Big Tobacco practically owns the government with the billions they spend on lobbying. The only chance we have with this thing is to back off with the references to cigarettes about these vaporizers or we are toast.
Sure it doesn't matter what we call them amogst ourselves, but in print it's a different matter because govt agencies can just roll in here and grab as much evidence as they please.
This is what I should have written to or about you instead of calling you an idjit. You proved my point quite well with your subsequent posts however.
Last edited:
i have highlighted the sole reason why you decided to bad mouth me. if you learnt how to read you would have noticed that there are other people on this thread who have said the same things as me plus openly agreed to what i said..........yet you chose to ignore them (oooh, wonder why) and "attempt" to belittle me instead.
and yes, you should have written what you said above instead of calling me an idiot. thats called "expressing an opinion" (shall i draw you a diagram?) and that is all i did.........expressed MY opinion.
i wouldnt mind, but you didnt even have the balls to write the comment directly to me..........instead you chose to say it someone else like the typical gutless coward you are.
and i proved you right with my response!!??? again, as a typical gutless coward you start by name calling and then start crying because i respond in such a manner.
i believe the saying goes:-
act like a child, be treated like as child.
and of course i care if they get banned........as far as im concerned these things are helping me to a better life by keeping me of the ciggies.
but in MY opinion, if they are going to get banned, then they are going to get banned. regardless of what anyone wants to call them.
and YES, they should NOT be advertised as safe. they should be advertised as an alternative. ive never said anything different on that subject.
i will no doubt wait with eager anticipation for your child genius like response.
I wholeheartedly agree with all that Lacey and Igetcha are saying. Calling e cigs anything other than e cigs does not fool anyone, and changing the name keeps many smokers from finding them. I believe that suppliers have to label them differently for shipping purposes, but they are what they are: an alternative way of smoking and a way of smoking in many places where smoking is banned. I am not interested in hiding from anti smokers, and I am not interested in euphemisms to explain what I am doing.
If someone asked me what I was sucking on, the very last thing I would ever say is "a personal vaporizer". I would say "inhaler" before I'd say vaporizer. I don't know....to me the phrase just sounds.....kinda ......ed.....right up there beside "fogger"....duh!
But I don't knock anyone who wants to use it themselves....just don't try to ram it down my throat ....please
I still prefer ecig though....just kinda rolls off the tongue for me.
Different strokes for different folks.
Lu
But I don't knock anyone who wants to use it themselves....just don't try to ram it down my throat ....please
I still prefer ecig though....just kinda rolls off the tongue for me.
Different strokes for different folks.
Lu
It is not so much about how the consumers refer to it, it's about how the manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers refer to it. More importantly, how they market it. I have no problem with consumers calling it an e-cig, Personal Vaporizer, or a Huffin' Puffin' Inhailer! All I care about is how the industry markets the product. That includes the name they put on that product. Some people just don't understand how important names can be. A name is an identity. We all know the identity that words like "Cigarette" or "Smoking" have with the majority of people out there. It is not so much us who view it negatively, but it is the Powers-That-Be in this day and age who view it negatively. I also know that it is the connection between the untested e-liquid and the device that could bring about the downfall of the device, and the loss of it's availability to us consumers. I hate the idea that we have to worry about such things, but I hate the idea of losing the device much more.
TribbleTrouble, please correct me if I'm wrong here. For the most part its just the vendors who need to change the name in their marketing, right? We, the people on the forums and talking to others about our e-cigs can just keep calling them whatever we want outside of a business transaction. Is it a misunderstanding about this the reason so many people are getting uptight over the name change idea, because they think they would be expected to change their PERSONAL use of those words?
Easiest example I can think of is that people who smoke weed still call their devices bongs rather than waterpipes, at least they did last time I checked. However, when they are being sold, they must be sold as waterpipes or whatever name required by the government to sell them.
It seems to me that all the arguments against must be either a basic misunderstanding there or an absolute refusal to believe that e-cigs could get banned in their country despite the evidence of history and other countries. Even if changing the marketing names isn't a full-proof way to dodge getting banned, it's certainly an easy enough step compared to the possible consequences.
Easiest example I can think of is that people who smoke weed still call their devices bongs rather than waterpipes, at least they did last time I checked. However, when they are being sold, they must be sold as waterpipes or whatever name required by the government to sell them.
It seems to me that all the arguments against must be either a basic misunderstanding there or an absolute refusal to believe that e-cigs could get banned in their country despite the evidence of history and other countries. Even if changing the marketing names isn't a full-proof way to dodge getting banned, it's certainly an easy enough step compared to the possible consequences.
It must be a misunderstanding, Sunshyn. The FDA is not going to care about what consumers call it anywhere near as much as how the people who are making the money off the devices are marketing it. Their advertising, packaging, and inclusion of untested liquid with the device is what will make or break the future of the PV/e-cig/Inhailer (IMO).
Oh, my . . . I certainly didn't mean to start a controversial thread!
For what it's worth, I do believe how we refer to our devices is important. Now, here on the forum, I'm probably more likely to type "e-cig" because it's faster than typing "personal vaporizer." And I don't like "PV," because I think it's confusing to newcomers . . . PG, VG, and now PV.
But while I might call them e-cigs here on the forum or when I'm talking to another e-smoker or an analog smoker, when I'm talking to a non-smoker, I actually call the thing a vaporizer. I find that non-smokers seem more accepting of a device that doesn't scream "CIGARETTE." For the same reason, I've opted to vape using models that do not resemble analogs.
As for the FDA, customs, and all of that, I think what we call it is probably less important that the claims that are being made about it by the vendors. Even so, I think that "personal vaporizer" doesn't necessarily describe a product that uses nicotine, whereas an e-cigarette does seem to suggest that nicotine is involved. And since I vape quite a bit with no nicotine solutions, I would submit that e-cigs are not only for nicotine delivery.
In the final analysis, I can't say that I'm at all displeased with the push for suppliers and sellers to market these devices as personal vaporizers. I think that while it might make the product less attractive to current smokers, it does perhaps pave a slightly easier way on the road of public opinion. Ultimately, I really think that we need the acceptance of the non-smoking public in order to gain a strong foothold.
But I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
For what it's worth, I do believe how we refer to our devices is important. Now, here on the forum, I'm probably more likely to type "e-cig" because it's faster than typing "personal vaporizer." And I don't like "PV," because I think it's confusing to newcomers . . . PG, VG, and now PV.
But while I might call them e-cigs here on the forum or when I'm talking to another e-smoker or an analog smoker, when I'm talking to a non-smoker, I actually call the thing a vaporizer. I find that non-smokers seem more accepting of a device that doesn't scream "CIGARETTE." For the same reason, I've opted to vape using models that do not resemble analogs.
As for the FDA, customs, and all of that, I think what we call it is probably less important that the claims that are being made about it by the vendors. Even so, I think that "personal vaporizer" doesn't necessarily describe a product that uses nicotine, whereas an e-cigarette does seem to suggest that nicotine is involved. And since I vape quite a bit with no nicotine solutions, I would submit that e-cigs are not only for nicotine delivery.
In the final analysis, I can't say that I'm at all displeased with the push for suppliers and sellers to market these devices as personal vaporizers. I think that while it might make the product less attractive to current smokers, it does perhaps pave a slightly easier way on the road of public opinion. Ultimately, I really think that we need the acceptance of the non-smoking public in order to gain a strong foothold.
But I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
I personally think this is part of the problem Sun. If you read that other thread (and even this one)....it seems those who want the change are trying to push it on those who don't.
Go back and read the very first post on that other thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...can-we-come-conclusion-name-14.html#post77952
You see the terms "everyone" and "we"? Like it's expected that everyone should utilize these terms....and I just don't like that part of it. Hell, it was even suggested SJ change the forum name! Nothing against that OP but you call it whatever you want to others and please leave me to my choice. Not everyone is going to change their terminology because some members of a forum believe it is the right thing to do. Sheesh....were not all sheeples ya know!
Lu
I can most certainly agree with you there Lu. The typical use of the words won't go away regardless of any such pressure, and I've always had a thing about being pushed to conform.
At the same time, I also really think that we need to work together to keep e-cigs available. I really do think a name change in the marketing of the products is a very important step in keeping e-cigs from being banned. The difference words make when dealing with regulation can be seen in the marketing of devices for weed as well as the wording used when selling herbal remedies.
I had a thought that the unchanged names in the forums and personal websites would be a big part of making sure the vendors who change their marketing continue to get the same amount of business. The search engines would be finding the forums and personal sites due to all the continued usage of those keywords even though the vendor's listings for those words would fade over time. The forums and people should be encourage to take an active role in directing newcomers to those same businesses in order to prevent them from losing their income.
If such a relatively small thing only gives e-cigs a slightly better chance of staying off the banned list, the payoff still seems more than worth the effort to me. It's important we work together, vendors and users both, because this technology is so new that it would be very easy for them to stamp it out before it catches on.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
