(Please excuse the length of this post; the point I'm making is subtle enough that I think it's worth the effort.)
It might seem like a non-issue, but I've been thinking about the term "analog" and wondering if it isn't a bit misleading.
The implication is that, when referring to "analogs", we're talking about cigarettes as opposed to "ecigs".
The problem: use of the term "analog" in this way creates a relationship between cigarettes and ecigs (let's just say vaping in general) that works against vaping at a time when it's very important that people understand the difference.
By presenting ecigs as an alternative to cigarettes, we automatically, implicitly, present cigarettes as an alternative to ecigs.
In other words, we're making them into two sides of the same coin. Although we don't refer to ecigs as "digitals", that is the implication being made every time we use the term "analogs".
Aren't we all concerned right now about laws and customs and general image issues that are rooted in the secular world's (non-vapers, that is) tendency to see smoking and vaping as the same thing?
When it's late and I'm blowing 0mg cola-flavored vape-rings, I'm doing something smokers *can't*. There simply isn't an "analog" way to blow 0mg cola-flavored smoke-rings.
If *we* use misleading terminology that, even in a subtle way, implies that smoking and vaping are alternatives to each other, do we really have the right to get upset about non-vapers treating them as being more or less the same?
Before dismissing this, also consider the possibility that there are probably many similar examples of our side unintentionally tying smoking to vaping.
It all adds up.
It might seem like a non-issue, but I've been thinking about the term "analog" and wondering if it isn't a bit misleading.
The implication is that, when referring to "analogs", we're talking about cigarettes as opposed to "ecigs".
The problem: use of the term "analog" in this way creates a relationship between cigarettes and ecigs (let's just say vaping in general) that works against vaping at a time when it's very important that people understand the difference.
By presenting ecigs as an alternative to cigarettes, we automatically, implicitly, present cigarettes as an alternative to ecigs.
In other words, we're making them into two sides of the same coin. Although we don't refer to ecigs as "digitals", that is the implication being made every time we use the term "analogs".
Aren't we all concerned right now about laws and customs and general image issues that are rooted in the secular world's (non-vapers, that is) tendency to see smoking and vaping as the same thing?
When it's late and I'm blowing 0mg cola-flavored vape-rings, I'm doing something smokers *can't*. There simply isn't an "analog" way to blow 0mg cola-flavored smoke-rings.
If *we* use misleading terminology that, even in a subtle way, implies that smoking and vaping are alternatives to each other, do we really have the right to get upset about non-vapers treating them as being more or less the same?
Before dismissing this, also consider the possibility that there are probably many similar examples of our side unintentionally tying smoking to vaping.
It all adds up.