Is it time for re-branding?

[KettleGirl]

I would say, if we lived in a world where people were logical (which as previously stated, is not this world) I would define an "e-cigarette" as a vaporizer that is designed to look like a cigarette --- just like an "e-cigar" is a vaporizer designed to look like a cigar and an "e-pipe" is a vaporizer designed to look like a tobacco pipe.

And in this hypothetical world, I would define "personal vaporizer" as a vaporizer that is customized to it's owner's individual personality. As someone pointed out, the term "personal vaporizer" is redundant if the 'personal' simply means that you don't share the vaporizer with others - because that is implied --- but it isn't redundant if 'personal' means something more than that, like reflecting the owner's individuality.

Under this set of definitions, "e-cigarette", "e-cigar", and "personal vaporizer" would be three very distinct categories -- of which I'd have a hard time imagining any intersection. Now there probably still would be a considerable intersection between "e-pipes" and "personal vaporizers", though the two wouldn't be synonymous.

So the question would be - what do we call vaporizers that are not designed to look like anything that one would smoke by combustion (therefore not "e-cigarettes", "e-cigars" or "e-pipes") but also not customized to an individual's personality (therefore not a "personal vaporizer") either?

By the way, I noticed some people here using the term "analog" to refer to devices that one smokes by combustion. This is an incorrect use of the term "analog" -- as "analog" is not the opposite of "electric", but of "digital". Not all electric things are digital. Many electric things are also analog --- including vaporizers. Yes, there are *some* cases where you will have a vaporizer *accessory* that is digital (like those accessories that measure nicotine consumption and communicate it via bluetooth to your iPhone) but vaporizers *themselves* are still analog devices.

I would suggest that if you want to use a term specifically to refer to devices that work by burning a leaf (be it tobacco, sage or cloves) so as to allow the smoke to be inhaled into the lungs (or just into the mouth, depending on what your technique is) a more accurate term would be "combustion-based".

 

[danca90]

This comes up a lot.
I still say the same thing. NO!
We're not going to confuse anyone with potential taxes, and ridiculous bans that won't happen.
However, when I wanted to give it another shot, I googled 'E-cigarette'
Try googling Juice Burner, I dare ya.

 

[Silence]

Try googling Juice Burner, I dare ya.

This made me lol. Thanks.
But in all serious i have to agree on all fronts, at least in some form. The term is so widly used that it may be out of our reach to rebrand it.

I also believe we need to distance ourselves from BT, BP, and cigarettes.

Education is our greatest ally, but i certainly do not have the funds to mass produce a worldwide, even a local, infomercial to reeducate the general public.
The first step is acceptance. As more and more tobacco smokers convert to alternative methods of nicotine delivery the terminologies will settle themselves. I for one call mine a personal vaporizer. I do not call myself a vaper. If someone asks what i am doing, i say im using my personal vaporizer. I do use it indoors and i am discreet when using it indoors at a public venue, such as work. The reason being, that as long as i dont flaunt that i am using it, i will be able to continue using it. For me, flaunting my clouds happens outside or at home. I still blow vapor at work. I dont stealth it. I just keep it down and i dont try to make out like a ninja with a smoke bomb.

 

[Buster282]

again e-vape! I like it!