I have to agree and disagree.
(Also, I've been threatened with a court ordered disclaimer to be stapled to me to warn people that prior to the Series Of Unfortunate Events I was busting rear to shift gears in that "career path" thing into anthropological linguistics and am known not just for increasingly obscure puns but enjoy splitting hairs down to the quantum level at which point they are, then, both split and not split and the cat is very annoyed. So I feel I should warn people that four out of five mental health professionals agree you should immediately pull your Emergency Thread Ejection lever should Mark show up in any discussion about language, syntax, and
especially semantics. I do not know what the fifth would have recommended because all we got was a gasp when he saw my name and a fading shriek of panic as he fled the building.)
In all seriousness, no, I couldn't agree it would be mere gimmick. "Electronic cigarette" is unfortunate for linking something that is simply not a "cigarette"
to cigarettes. Inevitably implying to many that all the harmful elements have simply been repacked into some new form that uses a battery. I can absolutely guarantee you that were you to do two proper surveys using different terminology to describe the exact same thing (that is, the systems that use vapor to deliver nicotine regardless of the particular configuration), you would see a wide variation in the attitudes among the public toward the devices.
You could do the same thing with all other NRT materials. And I must go back and find the person who I got this from so I can credit them because it ain't original with me but it's so good I had to swipe it but, anyway, along the way (maybe not even here on ECF) I read a quip that if PVs are "electronic cigarettes" then nicotine gums are "chewable cigarettes". Which neatly and, I think, amusingly sums it up.
We are basically talking nicotine delivery devices and methods. I suppose following the NRT lead of "nicotine gum", "nicotine inhaler", and such, you could say "nicotine vaporizers" (which actually sounds like an anti-smoking ray gun kind of thing... heh... maybe we could confuse some of the less quick ANTZ types... hee). But while--in general--I support the idea of a push back on terminology, I don't see how we could make it work. And definitely not quickly. Push backs on terms and words take a lot of time. They can work. Take a look at the history of the infamous "......". It's almost now totally owned by the African-American community. It's a word they can quite confidently say, "that's our word and you can't say it". Because, that's pretty much true. However, how many decades did that take? My entire lifespan at least? More? Or there's the push by other groups such as the gay community to "reclaim" words that have also worked over time. Such as the reclamation of the term "queer". Which has become a wholly different word just in my lifetime. But we're still talking a span of decades (I remember, in the 70s, it was a pejorative hurled about pretty casually, now it has a whole other meaning and is "owned" by the gay community to a great extent... weirdly enough, the word "gay" has slipped its leash entirely and gone retro... and, yes, I could go on quite a while on that one because watching that word shift in the speech community is absolutely fascinating to me but I'll not do that here as I recall being chased around by people with baseball bats may have been good cardio exercise, I would prefer using a treadmill instead).
Point being, it's a great idea in the abstract. But an effort of major proportions and with limited time and resources to push back the ANTZ/BP/BT assaults on vaping... whoo boy. Just imagine trying to rebuild the ECF. The "active member" count just passed 21,000 and that number has been moving at quite a clip. I've been checking it now and again out of curiosity. This place isn't so much "growing" as "erupting". 9.9 million posts and headed for 10. 152K registered users (I don't know what metric the software uses for "active" out of that number but no matter how you slice it, ECF is expanding at a tremendous pace). The domain name itself is "e-cigarette-forum". This very section is "General e-smoking discussion". I've done web work on a much,
much,
much smaller scale than the ECF is at. The thought of trying to re-engineer a place this big and this active gives me the willies. The very suggestion to the owner(s)/administrators/mods/etc. could probably lead to them waking up in the middle of the night screaming in terror.
That is I'm talking "inertia". We kind of got stuck with the term. Killing it would be a long term effort. Something maybe worth integrating into a general effort but not as a major component. Something woven into a general education effort that we need to do anyway. Also:
Yeah. That.
The irony being I would bet with a high degree of confidence without even starting to do any digging that the term "e-cig" came about on
as marketing. After all, who was the product aimed at? Smokers. The association was intentional. And emphasized. Down to the point of pretty decent imitation. Such as NJoy. I have to hand this much to them, I think they've come closest to date in replicating the smoking "experience".
Yesterday, at--ironically enough--the Walgreens, I spotted my old brand of cigs behind the counter. There was that old "pull". What I did was point to the NJoy and ask for one of those.
Worked. I, heh, enjoy the various flavors and options I have with my Twists and clearos and 99.99999% of the time, no longer think about smoking. Those rare moments now of... well... it's almost a nostalgic fondness (of all things), NJoys work. For me at least. They're so close to that old "feeling", they head off the rare temptation to "have a real one".
(They even irritate my throat like real cigs.
)
But, yeah, the connotations are set. Were before most of us even got here (shoot, look how many "join dates" are 2013... I'm running around with the "ultra member" label and I haven't even been around ECF six months just yet and haven't made a year of not smoking at all--having been "dual use" for some months... but getting closer every day now).
True. Also, would that actually be a good idea?
Flip this around the other way. The greatest resistance among the general public to smoking is not so much what the smoker does to themselves but, rather, the effects of smoking on those around the smoker. If you choose to harm yourself, most people generally think it's "your life" though they may consider your behavior idiotic.
(I know a guy who loves skydiving. I think that's an indication of a mental disorder.
However, it doesn't, ahem, impact anybody else and it's his insan... erm... business. Not mine.)
My point here being more in the "reclaiming" territory. That is, emphasizing the harm reduction aspect is more important in gaining general public support. Whatever the "name" is. Such as people might frown on switching a nicotine addiction from cigarettes to nicotine gum but they would likely (I'd say very likely and in large numbers) approve from the standpoint that at least
that method of acquiring nicotine does not pollute the air around them and their children.
(Something to use against the ANTZ who love to scream, "The! Children!" Vaping
is the solution to that one. And the studies are rolling in to back that up. The vaper does
not fill the air around them with harmful chemicals for others to inhale. One of my "push backs" of choice is: THINK OF THE CHILDREN! No, seriously, think about it. The more smokers we switch, the fewer non-smokers and definitely fewer
children will be exposed to tobacco smoke. "Cessation" has failed. Insisting on that and
only that as a "health" strategy is harmful to The! Children! because people who try "cessation" return to smoking at a rate often well into the 90 percentile range.)
So maybe the better opening is to associate the "e-cig" (or whatever terms) with reduction in harm to those
around the "smoker".
I also think the ANTZ (among others) are aware that's their weakest point. And why they're so desperate to blur the line between "e-cig" and "cigarette". They're well aware our (that is, the US as that's where I live and who I gotta deal with) public generally doesn't care what you do
to yourself. They may think, "Idiot". But, in general, don't believe in meddling unless they can be convinced the behavior affects them in some way.
The anti-smoking health movement (which has turned into something strange and not health related anymore) gained little traction before the dangers of "second hand" were nailed down and widely publicized. Then the sweeping anti-smoking movement really got rolling.
I have this disconnected, odd feeling I should summarize some point or other and wrap this up. However, I'm sick and I'm sure I'm rambling worse usual. Also, I see the three of you left at this point in the post have brought in crates of tomatoes. So I'm going to be running out the side door now...
