https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news.atomBig D Vapor - Electronic Cigarette & Vapor News2023-03-13T14:47:49-05:00Big D Vaporhttps://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/elfbar-is-changing-their-name-to-ebdesign-due-to-lawsuit2023-03-13T14:47:49-05:002023-03-13T15:25:26-05:00Elfbar is changing their name to EBDESIGN due to Lawsuit.Adam Winfrey
Elfbar has formally changed their name to "EBDESIGN" due to a trademark lawsuit filed in the Southern U.S. District Court in Florida by VPR Brands. VPR Brands, who has previously sued other companies for either trademark or patent infringement, claims to have rights to the "ELF" brand for vaping items in the United States. Judge Aileen Cannon has issued a preliminary injunction preventing the importation of "Elfbar" labeled products despite the name being different from "ELF". Furthermore, VPR Brands' "ELF" device is a cannabis cartridge device and is not designed for nicotine users.
As of 2023, Shenzhen iMiracle Technology Co. Ltd., the parent company of Elfbar, is the largest manufacturer of disposables in the world and their attorneys have already appealed the ruling. However, VPR Brands has also sued all of the master distributors in the USA and they have enacted a cease and desist selling all products marked Elfbar. This affects not only the original BC5000, but also:
The New Funky Republic Ti7000 and the Lost Mary MO5000 were intentionally manufactured with only the Elfbar logo but do not feature the word ELFBAR anywhere on the packaging and therefore is unaffected by pending litigation.
iMiracle Technology Co. Ltd. has already rebranded all USA bound products with the "EBDESIGN" but will continue to market their products globally as Elfbar, as well as continue to litigate the use of the name in the United States.
Elfbar branded vapes will continue to be available until supplies are exhausted and retailers have not been targeted by the litigation. Consumers will need to acclimate to the new EBDESIGN name as well as be extremely cognizant of conterfeit brands that will use this opportunity to create clones that will use the BC5000 and other EBDESIGN model numbers. Almost all EBDESIGN/Elfbar authentic products will feature a hologram of the logo above as well as a scannable barcode that will take you to the appropriate verification site (which varies by brand and model). We have noted several exception where authentic products have arrived without the hologram / scan code, specifically Funky Republic Ti7000 and New Years Eve / Limited Editions of BC5000.
Big D Vapor will continue to sell only 100% authentic EBDesign products as an authorized reseller and guarantee every one sold directly from us globally.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/why-nobody-will-ship-vape-or-e-cigs-to-san-francisco2022-10-21T10:49:15-05:002022-10-21T10:54:13-05:00Why nobody will ship Vape or E-Cigs to San FranciscoAdam WinfreyMore]]>
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/please-sign-the-national-petition-to-keep-synthetic-nicotine-legal2022-06-23T14:48:27-05:002022-08-08T00:26:16-05:00Please sign the National Petition to Keep Synthetic Nicotine Legal!Adam Winfrey
A Citizens’ Petition on behalf of the American Vapor Manufacturers Association (AVM) has been posted to Regulations.gov and is open for comments/support.
The petition is asking FDA to do the following:
Use its enforcement discretion to allow the continued marketing of open system products that use synthetic nicotinefor which a premarket application (PMTA) has been submitted, through July 13, 2022, and until FDA completes its scientific review; and,
Allow for these manufacturers to continue submitting additional data and amendments for their application.
By way of background, In March 2020, FDA was granted the authority to regulate synthetic nicotine when President Biden signed the Omnibus Budget Bill. The language in the new law required manufacturers of synthetic nicotine products to submit PMTAs within 60 days (May 14, 2022) of the law taking effect to keep their products on the market for an additional 60 days (July 13, 2022).
The new law required vapor companies to produce highly technical, expensive, and scientifically rigorous premarket applications within 60 days. Similar to the roll-out of the 2016 deeming rule–which gave manufacturers only two years to submit applications that include studies that can take more than three years to complete–the new regulation of synthetic nicotine is almost entirely about taking products away from people who smoke and/or vape and punishing the industry rather than protecting consumers.
A previous Citizens’ Petition submitted by NJOY in 2017 likely contributed to the FDA’s announcement of comprehensive nicotine regulations that included a delay of the PMTA deadline from 2018 to 2022 for smoke-free products. While the environment has changed since then, FDA’s expanded authority over synthetic nicotine still allows for the agency to exercise its discretion with regard to PMTA enforcement. Neither court order nor act of congress has so far limited FDA’s ability to regulate with the protection of public health at the core of its actions.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/aquios-introduces-water-based-vaping2022-04-25T13:44:48-05:002022-04-25T13:44:49-05:00Aquios Introduces Water Based VapingAdam Winfrey
LONDON, England, April 18, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The vaping sector has a track record of embracing innovative technology and applying it to next-generation nicotine delivery. Aquios Labs is looking to introduce an entirely new product category to the industry: water-based vaping.
Most traditional vaping devices and e-liquids contain no water at all, and in those that do, the water content is restricted to 3% or less. Until now, the low viscosity of water made it unsuitable for use in vaping devices at any meaningful level.
Aquios Labs is positioning itself as a technology company, rather than a consumer-facing brand, hoping to integrate water-based vaping into existing product portfolios. The first generation of its technology, dubbed "AQ30", can support up to 30% water content, using a combination of specially formulated e-liquid and hardware design. The first commercially available water-based vaping devices will come to market at the end of April. Aquios says it is already developing the capability to support even higher levels of water content.
Water-based vapes perform differently from their traditional counterparts. The water content reduces dehydration and irritation, helps to deliver nicotine more efficiently and produces a more natural flavour. In addition, the operating temperature of water-based vaping is much lower than traditional vaping, which greatly enhances the chemical stability of the vaping process.
Aquios Labs Founder Jack Sanders said: "We founded Aquios Labs because there's still a long way to go in terms of improving the vaping experience. We believe that water-based vaping is the new frontier of nicotine delivery and AQ30 is already demonstrating this by drastically reducing the dehydrating effects of vapour while delivering clean flavours. We welcome new and existing vape brands to consider how this technology can be adopted as part of a growing product offering."
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/vape-excise-taxes-nationwide-by-state-updated-march-20222022-03-11T16:05:39-06:002022-03-11T16:29:48-06:00VAPE EXCISE TAXES NATIONWIDE BY STATE - UPDATED MARCH 2022Adam Winfrey
Does the state you live in affect how much your vapes will cost? Absolutely! Different states charge a different amount of additional tax on vapor products that is specific to the state you reside in. Many states do not have an excise tax on vapor products, whereas many states like Minnesota have insane taxes (95% of the products wholesale cost) that more less are designed to push vapers back to traditional cigarettes. Some states may charge flat percentage whereas other states have highly complex systems that vary according to nicotine content or wholesale cost. Here is a comprehensive list of electronic cigarettes taxes per state, as of March 2022:
An electronic cigarette or e-cigarette vapor is known for having fewer toxins compared to regular tobacco smoke. This is why the e-cig has been marketed as a safer alternative to smoking traditional tobacco products like tobacco cigarettes. It is also thought of as an effective method to quit smoking. As a result, a lot of teens and young people have started using e-cigarettes, making them the most popular tobacco product. What caused more alarm is the adverse impact of high-nicotine-content electronic cigarette smoking.
Vaping is not as dangerous as smoking. What caused the increase of severe pulmonary diseases and deaths among vapers is the addition of vitamin E acetate (tetrahydrocannabinol) to vaping devices.
E-cigarettes are not exactly the safest. That’s why they are regulated to ensure safety and quality. They are not really risk-free; however, they only have a fraction of the risk that tobacco cigarettes have. E-cigs don’t have tar or carbon monoxide, which are the most dangerous elements found in tobacco smoke. The e-liquid or e-juice still contains the harmful chemicals found in tobacco cigarettes although they are at a reduced level.
Vaping still has ingredients that risk heart health, but it’s safer compared to traditional tobacco cigarette smoking. This only means that if you have been a non-smoker, don’t start vaping. Some potential health risks have been associated with the chemical ingredients of e-cigarettes and other vaping products. The main ingredients of an e-liquid are nicotine, vegetable glycerine, and propylene glycol. These have been considered safe for use in multiple consumer products such as foods, cosmetics, kai, sweeteners, and inhaled medicines.
Using an e-cig is safer than continuous tobacco smoking; but if you are aiming for nicotine withdrawal, nicotine replacement therapy such as the use of gums or patches with low-nicotine content is the best way to go.
IS VAPING A TOBACCO PRODUCT?
It’s only in the US that e-cigarettes are totally considered a tobacco product. Some countries include electronic cigarettes in tobacco product regulations but some others do not. One of these is Canada which is a neighbor of the US. In Europe, some elements are under the EU Tobacco Products Directive, but they do not consider the devices as tobacco products. If all products that are derived from tobacco are considered tobacco products, then nicotine-replacement therapies would also be classified as tobacco products even if they are not.
According to scientific journals, a legal ruling in a country is not a reliable basis for the validity of a definition. It is more preferred for tobacco products to pertain to products that are created from and contain tobacco instead of having constituents like nicotine that is extracted from it. The term nicotine-containing products can also be applied to tobacco products as well as non-tobacco products like electronic cigarettes and nicotine-replacement therapies.
Vapes, vape pens, electronic cigarettes, e-pipes, hookah pens, and vaporizers are used to refer to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), which are considered noncombustibletobacco products by the US FDA. All these devices use an e-liquid or e-juice that has nicotine along with varying components of vegetable glycerin, flavorings, propylene glycol, and other ingredients. The e-liquid or e-juice is heated to make an aerosol that will be inhaled by the vapers.
ENDS are often manufactured to look similar to traditional cigarettes, pipes, and cigars. Some of them look like USB flat drives or pens while the larger devices like mods or tank systems look nothing like cigarettes at all. It was in 2014 when the US FDA declared electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. Submissions are regularly sent to the US FDA describing vapes and electronic cigarettes as tobacco products.
IS VAPING BAD FOR KIDS?
It’s true that vaping is not as dangerous as tobacco smoking, but it still has ill effects on its own. This is particularly true when children are exposed to it. Vaping or the use of electronic cigarettes can expose children and babies to nicotine as well as formaldehyde, heavy metals, and other chemical outputs of the entire heating process.
Just the same as cigarettes, babies, and infants may still be able to inhale second-hand and third-hand vaping of harmful carcinogens and toxins like nicotine, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and organic compounds. Children may be coughing, wheezing, and frequently getting sick with respiratory illnesses, and at times may show nicotine toxicity.
Vaping around pregnant women may also affect the fetuses inside pregnant women’s tummies. Nicotine is known to be toxic to developing fetuses. Toddlers or young children are also more susceptible to vaping residues. One of the reasons is that they are more frequently in contact with their physical environment compared to adults. Children are more often on the floor while infants often put little things into their mouths. Young children are also more at risk of getting into accidents that involve electronic cigarettes.
Toddlers and children may also ingest the dangerous e-liquid refills or perhaps swallow the entire mod or pod especially since the pod looks like a little Lego with nicotine. E-cigarettes have also been known to cause burns, chemical injuries, and injuries from the explosion. This is why the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015 requires all e-liquid containers to have child-resistant packaging. The lithium-ion batteries used as part of the heating system may also explode and lead to chemical fires and burns. A child can die from ingesting small amounts of nicotine. That’s why when a child ingests nicotine it is considered by law as poisoning.
The long-term effects of vaping on children have yet to be known since vaping is relatively new. The best thing to do for vaping parents now is to vape with caution all the time.
IS VAPING HARAM?
Regardless of religion, vaping appears to be a theological issue. It goes to say is vaping sinful or is it meant for healing purposes? But a more specific question is, is e-liquid or e-juice halal? Alcohol in Islam is not prohibited when used for other purposes except drinking. So what is haram or prohibited is ingesting the substance. The contention is whether inhalation is a voluntary form of ingestion. Some vape ingredients may require the use of substances of animal origin during extraction, and these are considered haram. If the vaper has to follow Islam strictly, he or she must check carefully every vape product if it is vegan or halal-certified. Nicotine is habit-forming and detrimental to health so it is haram in Islam. If you are vaping an alcohol-free, vegan, or halal-certified e-liquid with no nicotine content, then would vaping be considered haram or halal?
Vaping in public is considered haram among Muslims since it may cause harm to others. Squandering wastefully one’s wealth is haram in Islam. E-cigarettes will also be considered wasteful if they are used merely for pleasure. It is, however, halal if it is used for quitting tobacco smoking and that the vaper stops using the e-cig once the tobacco smoking is stopped.
This means that Muslim vapers must follow their rules by using e-juice that does not contain alcohol, nicotine, and no pork-derived ingredients. They must also vape alone inside a room, where no one else can see them.
It is important to look for halal-certified e-juices. This can be done by contacting a halal certification body, whose task is to specify the steps to follow to determine if a substance is halal or haram. Vaping is downright haram during Ramadan since it defeats the purpose of fasting which is to detach one's self from any worldly association.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/vape-mail-ban-update2021-03-27T13:37:53-05:002022-09-23T14:03:29-05:00VAPE MAIL BAN UPDATEAdam Winfrey
Big D Vapor will continue to support our clients despite the cumbersome ATF enforcement and PACT Act compliance. However, these are some important things that all customers should know about the new laws:
1. Adult Signature confirmation is MANDATORY. If you are not going to be home then you should have your order shipped to your place of business.
2. Costs are going to increase, but free shipping is still available at $99 or more.
3. As of late October 2021, shipping via USPS is no longer legal to consumers, which also means no P.O. box addresses.
4. The following states can no longer be serviced due to regulatory compliance and changes in the law:
Arkansas
Georgia
Louisiana
Maine
New Hampshire
New York
Utah
Vermont
5. For all customers in North Texas, pickup is available at our corporate office during normal business hours.
6. Additional areas that have enacted flavor bans include:
Anchorage, AK (All Products)
Chicago, IL
Massachusetts (Disposables)
Maryland
New York (All products containing liquid)
New Jersey
Philadelphia, PA
Rhode Island
San Francisco, CA - All Vaping Products Banned
7. Beginning April 5th, 2021, in cities where excise taxes are charged on vapor products, we will be required to collect said taxes and disseminate them back to the states where the products are sold.
8. Costs may increase on all vapor products as a result of the cost of PACT act compliance.
We will continue to service our customers in areas unaffected by the law changes and will strive to exceed your expectations.
We really need all of your help! Our business, thousands of other businesses, and approximately 4 million people in the U.S. are being affected by a shipping ban. As you may or may not know,USPS, UPS and FEDEX have decided that they will no longer ship vape products. If you want to ship alcohol, cigarettes, cigars, guns, ammo etc, there are options from them. But no vaping anymore. Vaping has been scientifically proven to be95 - 98% safer than combustible cigarettes, but people who choose this alternative are being cut off. No matter how you feel about vaping, this is another Government overreach in their charge to take our freedom away from us. While we are implementing alternative shipping solutions to continue to serve our customers, this decision by these major shipping carriers creates challenges for the industry and the people that count on these product most.
At the end of the fiscal year 2020, USPS's total unfunded liabilities anddebt were $188 billion—more than 250 percent of its annual revenue. These unfunded liabilities included about $75 billion in underfunding of retiree health care benefits, and about $61 billion in underfunding of pension benefits.
How do they turn down the millions of dollars, that we as an industry spend on shipping every year? They want to raise your taxes and the cost of postage to pay this debt, but won't take our money.
- UPS? Based on United Parcel Service's balance sheet as of November 2, 2020, long-term debt is at $23.34 billion and current debt is at $2.38 billion, amounting to$25.72 billion in total debt. Adjusted for $8.84 billion in cash equivalents, the company's net debt is at $16.88 billion
- FedEx's most recent financial statement as reported on March 18, 2021, total debt is at $23.44 billion, with $22.80 billion in long-term debt and $646.00 million in current debt. Adjusting for $8.86 billion in cash-equivalents, the company has anet debt of $14.59 billion.
- UPS and FEDEX are publicly traded companies. If I was an investor, I would be pissed!
- If shipping of products that you use, including guns and alcohol were prohibited, you would be mad enough to stand up to them. Please stand up for us! Stand up for small businesses that they are driving into the ground. Stand up for people in rural areas and those that are housebound. They should be allowed access to these products.Stand up for FREEDOM to choose!
Contact these three "Biggies" of the shipping industry and let them know that this is not acceptable.
Please contact them today. Make a comment, send an email or make a phone call. 450,000 people in the U.S. die every year from smoking related illnesses. People's lives depend on this!
Thank you for your business.
Sincerely,
BIG D VAPOR
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/what-is-synthetic-nicotine2020-12-28T13:44:55-06:002021-09-23T09:36:26-05:00What is Synthetic Nicotine?Adam Winfrey
Synthetic nicotine or tobacco free nicotine is a man-made replica of the traditional nicotine that is found tobacco, nicotine patches, nicotine gums and the majority of e-liquids. Produced in a laboratory, scientists can produce the nicotine molecule without the use of tobacco, thereby technically freeing e-liquid made with synthetic nicotine from rules and regulations set by the FDA.
Because pharmaceutical grade nicotine is extracted from tobacco, the final product is prone to the added impurity that may have managed to make it through the extraction process, which can create a bad-tasting vape. Odorless and tasteless, synthetic nicotine has the same molecular structure and is made from the same chemicals as nicotine, but without any of the impurities that accompany tobacco.
What are the difference and similarity?
Nicotine as a compound contains 10 carbon atoms, 2 nitrogen atoms and 14 hydrogen atoms. The truth is that there is not much difference between nicotine from somewhere else and nicotine derived from the plant. They are fundamentally the same thing, even in terms of the effect on the user.
The major difference is that synthetic nicotine has been produced using the exact chemical which contains nicotine but no tobacco. To achieve a tobacco-free synthetic nicotine, chemicals such as ethanol, niacin, sulfuric acid among other chemicals are used.
While claimed to be purer than pharmaceutical grade nicotine, when it comes down to it, there is no real difference between synthetic nicotine and the traditional nicotine that we have become accustomed to, except that it is not derived from the tobacco plant. While there may be the case for improved taste, on the whole, synthetic nicotine is as safe as nicotine can be, it’s simply derived from an alternative source. For those looking to reduce nicotine levels overall, and cut their links with tobacco, this can be done gradually until you won't need it all and you can vape nicotine free e-liquid until you're ready to give up vaping as a whole.
What is the difference and similarity?
The inaugural batch of custom-made SYN Nicotine e-liquids will be used in Geek Bar as well as many other vaping products. And in the foreseeable future we will continue to use tobacco-free nicotine in all our existing and upcoming products due to the following reasons:
Not regulated by FDA
First of all, the FDA has the authority to regulate any and all "tobacco products". In terms of vaping, any part of the product which can be "reasonably expected" to be used to consume tobacco can be deemed a tobacco product. So if we're using an e-liquid with tobacco-derived nicotine, everything from the tank/RDA and even the batteries can be considered tobacco products, and therefore can be regulated by the FDA. It could be argued, logically, that use of tobacco-free nicotine would no longer constitute any part of our vaping product as a tobacco product.
Impeccable flavor quality:
Secondly, tobacco-free nicotine is clean and lacks the impurities that are found on the tobacco nicotine e-liquids it, therefore, has no smell and is tasteless, which in turn improves the taste and flavor. Also worth noting is that this tobacco-free nicotine has the same biological properties as the one derived from the tobacco plant. The advantage of this synthetic nicotine is that it does not have the foul smell and flavor of tobacco.
Therefore, by using synthetic nicotine or tobacco-free nicotine our products will have fewer restrictions on entering new markets and simultaneously satisfy consumers’ needs of real and smooth taste. This is the way we seek more opportunities in a changeable situation.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/how-the-fda-is-saving-the-cigarette2020-11-24T12:27:35-06:002021-09-23T09:39:11-05:00How the FDA Is Saving the CigaretteGuy Bentley
The traditional cigarette will receive the greatest boost it has gotten in many years thanks to federal law and a federal agency that is supposed to be focused on the protection of public health.
A large part of the e-cigarette industry may soon be put out of business and the Big Tobacco companies’ positions as the leading providers of vapor products could be cemented.
Wednesday, Sept. 9, is the deadline for e-cigarette and other vaping-related products to submit their pre-market tobacco applications (PMTA) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
If these applications are accepted, the product can remain on the market until FDA determines whether or not to authorize the products.
The PMTA is a consequence of the Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act (TCA), which gave the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products in 2009. E-cigarettes were deemed tobacco products in 2016 and the original deadline for PMTAs was set for 2018. But after several extensions, the final deadline was set for Sept. 9, 2020.
The law says that any existing vaping-related product that doesn’t submit its pre-market tobacco application by the Sept. 9 deadline must be withdrawn from the market.
The pre-market tobacco application process is extraordinarily expensive and fiendishly complicated. FDA estimates the cost of each application to be between $117,000 and $466,000. But industry experts and those trying to comply with the rules believe the actual cost can easily run into the millions of dollars. These costs are unaffordable for the vast majority of e-cigarette businesses, which typically have hundreds of products—each of which must have its own PMTA submitted.
In addition to being expensive, this unnecessary and burdensome process is not protecting public health. In Europe, e-cigarettes are also regulated for consumer safety but the process is vastly simpler than the FDA’s byzantine system. European consumers benefit from a wide variety of choices and have not made sacrifices in product quality or safety.
The coronavirus pandemic has made compliance with FDA’s rules even more challenging for some companies, with many labs shuttered and some of the clinical studies needed for applicationssuspended. The worst-case, short-term result of this regulatory nightmare is that as many as 14,000 small businesses could be forced to close with more than 100,000 jobs potentially lost. There are scenarios where nearly all vaping products from entrepreneurs and small businesses disappear from the market.
The results would likely be a vaping industry dominated by a few large companies and an increase in black market e-cigarette products that seek to fill the holes left by companies forced to pull their products from the market. It’s also likely that many smokers who shifted to safer vaping products could lose access to those products and return to smoking. There may also be a lot of smokers who would’ve switched to these safer alternatives but continue to smoke instead.
These devastating impacts are not a bug or unintended consequence of the PMTA process but a feature celebrated by some of its supporters. It’s designed to stop as many new products coming to market as possible, no matter their benefit to the public health. This process advantages only the biggest companies with the deepest pockets. The number of deemed products that may need to submit PMTAs, according to FDA, is a staggering400 million. If only a fraction of these products actually submitted PMTAs, it would amount to bureaucratic mayhem with little precedent.
These applications are ostensibly intended to help FDA ensure new products are “appropriate for the protection of public health.” In practice, however, the system created by the Tobacco Control Act makes it easier for a new cigarette or cigar to enter the U.S. market than it is for an e-cigarette to enter the market.
This should come as no surprise when we look at who were the biggest boosters for the Tobacco Control Act (TCA). Unsurprisingly, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids was a cheerleader for the legislation. But they found an ally in the world’s biggest tobacco company—Philip Morris. At the time, other tobacco companiesarguedPhilip Morris’s support for the TCA was driven by a desire to enshrine its position as the market leader and erect barriers to competition. It’s not for nothing that the Tobacco Control Act was nicknamed the “Marlboro Monopoly Act” by some in the industry. The alliance of Philip Morris and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is enough to make bootleggers and baptists blush.
Contrary to the claim of its advocates, the PMTAs will do nothing to protect children from tobacco use. As data from the Center for Disease Control and Preventiondemonstrates, the main reason why kids choose to experiment with vaping is not because of the availability of different flavors, appealing advertising, or cool product design — kids say they try vaping because they’re curious and have seen family members or friends use the products.
The story is the same across a whole range of products from alcohol to marijuana. You can regulate products and push them into the black market but you can’t regulate away the impulse of teenagers to try new things.
Thanks to e-cigarette flavor bans that have already been implemented in some states, a limited flavor ban passed at the federal level, and a campaign of demonization and fearmongering, we’re already seeing some vapersreturnto smoking.
Now, the traditional cigarette is about to receive the greatest boost it has gotten in many years thanks to federal law and a federal agency that is supposed to be focused on the protection of public health.
The modern-day e-cigarette was invented almost 20 years ago. It was a consequence not of government-funded research or Big Tobacco companies. It was the result of a Chinese pharmacist tinkering away to find his own alternative to smoking. Hon Lik’s invention was adapted and transformed in thousands of different ways, gifting the world the greatest tool to quit smoking ever invented—research shows e-cigarettes are far safer than smoking traditional cigarettes, creating thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.
Unfortunately, thanks to a bureaucratic process that seems compromised by industry and idealogues, the U.S. could be about to severely hobble one of the greatest public health advances of the last 100 years. As of this writing, only one electronic nicotine product has successfully navigated the pre-market tobacco application process and been approved— and it had more than a million pages of documentation in support: The IQOS tobacco heating system made by Philip Morris International.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/everything-about-pod-king-pod-king-maxx-and-pod-king-plus-flavors2020-06-04T16:23:00-05:002020-06-17T16:30:43-05:00Everything About Pod King, Pod King MAXX, and Pod King PLUS FlavorsAdam Winfrey
Pod King is one of the fastest growing disposable vaporizers with more flavors than any other brand, so this article is to help provide an overview of all current Pod King offerings. Note that all flavors that end in (Ice) will have a cool menthol like finish.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/vaping-products-shortage-from-coronavirus2020-02-25T15:15:00-06:002021-09-23T09:45:08-05:00Vaping Products Shortage from CoronavirusAdam WinfreyMore]]>
This notification is to let our valued customers know that despite ordering heavy amounts of all of the products manufactured in Asia, the Corona Virus had caused not only delays in production but more importantly a shortage of carriers accepting shipments.
It is our understanding that even prepared shipments are being sprayed and quarantined in China and/or Hong Kong prior to export, and then again repeating this process as the finished goods enter US Customs. Therefore, from February through March 2020, we are expecting INDUSTRY-WIDE shortages of products. We apologize for any inconvenience but assure you we are sourcing products through every available avenue, even in many cases paying higher costs just to have inventory.
The good news is that all of our Juice (e-Liquid) is manufactured in the USA using all USA ingredients, so there will be absolutely no shortages in that segment.
Best Regards and thank you for your business!
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/the-future-of-vaping-in-20172016-12-16T14:51:00-06:002016-12-16T14:55:02-06:00The Future of Vaping: 15 E-Cig Experts Share Their Predictions For 2017Adam Winfrey
12.16.2016 | By: www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk
For the fifth year running, some of the biggest voices in the e-cig industry have gone out on a limb to predict the future of e-cigs next year.
This year we’re delighted to bring you thoughts from scientists, public health, a documentary maker, vape activists, trade organisations, consumer organisations, bloggers and more.
Click on the expert below to read their prediction.
Clive Bates Former director of Action and Smoking in Health
Trump will offer a silver lining for American vapers; the U.S. market will come back from the brink of an apocalypse.
Prof JF Etter Over 18 years of conducting smoking etiology, prevention and cessation research, including some of the first e-cig studies to be conducted
“In 2017, we will see the expansion of new products developed by the tobacco industry”
Clive Bates, Ex-Director Action on Smoking and Health: A Silver Lining in the US
Former director of Action and Smoking in Health, Clive Bates commands huge respect in the e-cig world and has been instrumental in the public health U-Turn on e-cigs in the UK. Website | Interview
On past form, my predictions are the definitive guide to what won’t happen in 2017. But then, to quote the physicist Niels Bohr, predictions are very difficult, especially about the future. However, on the basis that I will randomly get something right eventually, here we go.Team Trump will offer a silver lining for American vapers and the U.S. market will come back from the brink of an apocalypse with a changed predicate date to allow existing products to stay on the market and a move to using standards instead of a Byzantine authorisation system. CDC and FDA will take a better approach under new leadership and start to put consumers and sound science first.
WHO will have a new DG in 2017, and by the end of the year, I hope there is a change in attitude – but this may take a while to percolate through. If the successful candidate is David Nabarro, then I believe a major change is possible. In the meantime, WHO will continue to press for e-cig prohibitions in developing countries. But this will be matched by countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand finally ignoring their out-of-time tobacco control zealots and liberalising to allow for harm reduction strategies.
In the UK and EU the TPD will continue to annoy and frustrate, but will not stop the rise of vaping as producers and consumers will find workarounds. Its absurd restrictions, pointless burdens and unintended consequences will become ever more apparent and hasten the case for a replacement.
“Team Trump will offer a silver lining for American vapers and the U.S. market will come back from the brink of an apocalypse”
The European Commission will hesitate to include vaping in a new proposal for a revised Tobacco Excise Directive, following a massive response to its consultation and persuasive advocacy, but some member states will still try it on with new vaping taxes.
Heat-not-burn will be overtaxed, over-regulated and undervalued, but only because they are tobacco products, not because they aren’t 90+% safer than smoking. With heat-not-burn, tobacco control activists who have had to swallow hard and face the highly beneficial emergence of vaping will get back to their prohibitionist industry-bashing comfort zone and thousands of smokers will be harmed as a result. So I predict more acrimony in public health, even in England.
There’s a legal challenge to the snus ban in play. If it gets to a full court hearing, I predict it will win. But given procedural hurdles, I only give it 50% chance of a day in court.
Brexit won’t make any difference for vapers, other than reducing potentially beneficial UK influence in Europe.
Alex Clark, CASAA: The Fight Back
Alex writes here on behalf of CASAA. The largest consumer organisation in the world, for years CASAA and it’s tens of thousands of members have fought tirelessly against campaigns to legislate and tax e-cigarettes out of existence. Website
FDA regulations are living on borrowed time……and 2017 is the year that we start fighting back.
Many are cautiously optimistic about the change in the political landscape in Washington, D.C. 2017 will likely present an opportunity to effect change in the scope of federal regulations that currently threaten to shut down the vapor market. However, going forward, it is important to make the distinction between a slam-dunk policy change versus an opportunity.
At the federal level, the 2017-2018 legislative session will bring a push for more sensible regulation of vapor products. This will include legislative efforts to carve vapor products out of the current FDA regulations. We will also see an effort to soften the impact of the regulations not only for vapor products, but also for other low-risk alternatives to smoking. Given a new hope for the industry, we will also see a stronger effort to develop meaningful legislation and regulations that protect consumers while at the same time allows for innovation.
The immediate need to modernize the 2007 predicate date remains a priority and this will be the focus in the first part of the year. Although it is possible to see this predicate date change included in the omnibus budget bill in the spring, it is also possible that this effort drags on into 2018. Developing and implementing useful regulation that compliments a tobacco harm reduction strategy will likely take years rather than months, but 2017 will be the year we start to see progress.
States will be ramping up efforts to bring the industry under their thumbs. This will be especially true if FDA regulations are rolled back. The most prominent policy battles will likely be over taxation, place bans, where flavored vapor products can be sold, and raising the minimum legal purchase age to 21 (Tobacco 21). States may also seek to impose standards on the industry, and there will be some battles over what state actions are preempted by federal legislation.
“FDA regulations are living on borrowed time…and 2017 is the year that we start fighting back.”
In states where inappropriate policies have been enacted, 2017 will be the year that we start to see some rollback. While taxes on vapor products are not likely to be lowered or repealed, other regulations like place bans and overbearing standards will be amended.
Counties and Municipalities will see neo-prohibitionists continuing to advance their anti-nicotine agenda. As we approach a post-drug war environment, lawmakers turning up their noses at harm reduction strategies seems more and more absurd. A key component of this discussion will be how health professionals communicate health and lifestyle information to young people. All lawmakers will be openly challenged to investigate the honesty of policies and campaigns that inform youth about the potential harms of risky behaviors.
Local policy battles will include Tobacco 21, place bans, and where flavored vapor products can be sold. Focusing on these battles will require new resources from state and national organizations.
It’s not just about vapor and it never has been.
2017 is the year that we stop talking about vaping in isolation from the rest of tobacco harm reduction products. Heat not burn (HnB) products have already been introduced abroad with resounding success and likely will be arriving in the United States within the next two years. And, of course, smokeless tobacco has been around for centuries. Both of these types of products will be at the center of the tobacco harm reduction discussion.
Vaping has certainly caught the imagination of consumers, entrepreneurs, and regulators, but any conversation about nicotine removed from smoke is incomplete without considering ALL smoke-free products.
Konstantinos Farsalinos
Konstantinos Farsalinos, MD: Konstantinos is vaping’s most prolific researcher. Simply put, it’s impossible to do justice to his enormous contribution to vaping in a short paragraph. Website | Interview
I believe 2017 will be a landmark year. The TPD will be fully implemented in Europe. We need to evaluate the impact of the regulations on product availability and development. My opinion is that the current market will not be severely affected, but the 6-month period between file submission and product marketing will create an important hurdle for future development. This is definitely a ruling that needs to be revised. In the US, FDA regulations are a disaster.
But after the presidential elections, there is room for hope. The US is the biggest market of e-cigarettes, but quite different compared to the European. I hope the Europeans will be able to communicate their perspective and experience to the US, and hopefully things will improve. COP-7 is a repetition of a disaster.
In few words, the WHO position is characterized by evidence denialism and abuse of the precautionary principle. I feel sorry for the smokers of countries which have followed the WHO recommendations to ban e-cigarettes. They are missing a huge opportunity to reduce their health risk.
“Bad quality studies accompanied by impressive press statements are becoming increasingly frequent … I think we will see some interesting developments in this aspect soon.”
Research is growing, but bad quality studies accompanied by impressive press statements are becoming increasingly frequent. This creates the need to be alert and replicate several of these studies in order to clarify misinformation and misconceptions. I think we will see some interesting developments in this aspect soon.
Finally, we should not forget the introduction of novel harm reduction products to the market, mainly heat-not-burn tobacco products. I expect that in 2017 there will be a lot of discussion about these products.
Louise Ross: An End to Negative Stories on E-Cigs?
Louise is the manager for Leicester’s Stop Smoking Service, the first stop smoking service in the UK to become ‘e-cig friendly’. She frequent and eloquently speaks on behalf of e-cigs at events such as the ECig Summit. Website | Interview
Journalists are going to get bored with writing stories about possible harms of vaping; this will prompt the anti-vaping sector to either make more and more outrageous claims, which will make them look ridiculous, or to give up and focus on something else. In the meantime, increasing numbers of smokers will try vaping, encouraged by the growth in communities of ordinary people who have made the switch and are doing fine.In 2017, more than ever before, this will include a greater number of people who didn’t want to stop smoking, but who get convinced by their friends and family. New products will come on the market which will be easier to use, and these will act as a gateway out of smoking.
More people will realise this is the trend, and not fear that vaping is a gateway into smoking; the evidence will show that as the use of e-cigs rises, smoking prevalence falls.
The evidence will show that as the use of #ecigs rises, smoking prevalence falls
Surveillance will demonstrate, by the end of 2017, that in states and countries where regulation all but stamped out vaping, smoking rates rose again for the first time in years. Policy-makers and regulators will hang their heads in shame.
Pamela Gorman, Executive Director, SFATA
Pamela Gorman is the Executive Director of the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA). Prior to working in the private sector, she was a state legislator, serving both in the Arizona House and Senate. Always a fierce defender of free markets and individual rights, her work today is focused on protecting the vapor products industry and preserving adult access to this revolutionary technology. Website
2017 is going to be marked by impacts of the FDA regulations beginning to shape this nascent industry. The most obvious shift ends the constant influx of new products and improvements to existing products. Sadly, innovation is now without financial reward to manufacturers. After August 8 of 2016, new products cannot be sold until AFTER they weave their way through the FDA’s multi-year, prohibitively expensive process, which may still result in a rejection of the product by the FDA.The race for innovation is finished until and unless we can get the federal law changed under the Trump administration and the new Congress. Companies will struggle to complete time consuming and progressively more complex required submissions to the FDA. These submissions will allow manufacturers – and the retailers who sell their products – to keep their “old” products on the market into 2018.
Rising regulatory demands on companies will shift resources away from R&D and into regulatory compliance. To meet that need, a new complimentary industry of contract compliance officers serving small to medium sized companies will pop up.
These new companies will be the big winners in this year’s vapor economy. Smart companies with a desire to operate after 2018 will also begin pouring some of those funds into their trade associations and advocacy efforts to try and get the law fixed before having to put millions into PMTA required studies.
“after the elections and the actions already taken by the Trump transition team, we are very cautiously optimistic”
You will see a renewed sense of urgency compelling elected officials to roll back FDA regulations. At the state level, many will be surprised to learn that FDA regulations did NOT cause state and local governments to leave us alone. The recent U.S. Surgeon General’s report is a good indicator of what our opposition will be lobbying for in the states. Watch for increased age restrictions to 21, taxes, flavor restrictions, and licensing requirements that act as a de facto ban on vapor shops in some areas.
As long as SFATA has the financial resources to do so, we will continue to take the fight to government bodies on behalf of our member companies. Honestly, after the elections and the actions already taken by the Trump transition team, we are very cautiously optimistic. Hopefully, at the end of 2017, I’ll be writing about the rebirth of innovation in this amazing, life-changing industry!
Professor Jean Francois Etter, University of Geneva: New Products from Big Tobacco
Jean-Francois has over 18 years of conducting smoking etiology, prevention and cessation research, including some of the first e-cig studies to be conducted.
In 2017, we will see the expansion of new products developed by the tobacco industry.In particular the international launch of the iQOS vaporizer from PMI and its success in Japan, where it already represents 5% of sales of tobacco, a figure that doubled in just one year, announces a profound change in the tobacco market. In the US, the announcement by Totally Wicked of the closure of its e-cigarette stores following the new regulation of the FDA announces a hecatomb in the e-cigarette market, unless the new administration cancels the « deeming » regulation.
In the US and the EU, it is not impossible that the tobacco industry will take most of the market from new vaporization technologies, to the detriment of the e-cigarette as we know it today, and to the detriment of manufacturers and merchants who are independent from the tobacco industry.
“In 2017, we will see the expansion of new products developed by the tobacco industry”
I hope that 2017 will see a change in WHO’s attitude towards new vaporizing technologies and towards the risk reduction approach, WHO should take leadership, base its position on science, be more courageous, and it should not align with the position of those among its Member States who are most opposed to new technologies. I also hope that in Europe, a large and effective movement will emerge and will be influential enough to eventually change the TPD.
Tim Phillips: The Sector Is Not Going Away, But There Will Be More Challenges…
E-Cig Intelligence digs deep into the trends and regulatory changes in the e-cig industry. Few should be able to predict changes in trends more accurately than MD, Tim Phillips. Website
2016 was a watershed year in terms of regulation in the sector.In May, the Tobacco Products Directive was brought into effect across 28 member states of the EU, and many companies in the sector scrambled to deal with the compliance required under that legislation. In the US in the same month, the FDA published its federal Deeming regulations, and many commentators who were previously negative about the obligations of the TPD were left feeling thankful the terms of the EU regulation were not worse; as currently drafted, the Deeming Regs will have a major impact on the ecig market in the US, both in terms of removing a huge number of smaller companies who won’t be able to comply with the testing and compliance burden, and as a knock on effect, reducing the competitiveness and innovation in the industry. This will likely lower consumer uptake in this still nascent category.
Having just read the US Surgeon General’s report, together with the WHO’s COP7 report a few weeks ago, the year seems to be ending on a rather negative note for the sector. But looking forward to next year, what is clear is that demand for alternatives to combustible cigarettes is not going away.
Heated tobacco has launched in many markets with PMI’s IQOS more successful than many expected, and other products set to launch shortly. New regulation which will bite next year will enable less-marginal businesses to sweep up a lot of extra customers. Whether consolidation will occur simply by a lot of businesses dropping out of the market, or more formally by takeovers/mergers, or a combination remains to be seen, but many companies will do well from a more ordered and consolidated market. The new Trump presidency and the situation in Congress will likely as not have a positive impact in the US in terms of changes made to the eventual implementation of the Deeming regulations.
“the sector is not going away, but there will be more and more change and fights to come”
In Europe, the TPD will require much more agility and intelligence from companies in the sector (advertising is a perfect example – there’s plenty of scope to advertise successfully under the TPD in most countries, but the unimaginative won’t get it). So again I think there may be something of a clear-out but it will less overwhelmingly favour the “big”.
In short, the sector is not going away, but there will be more and more change and fights to come, with emerging winners and losers being established next year. What is clear is that this is never a dull industry to be working in!
Richard Hyslop, IBVTA: Cause for Optimism
Richard Hyslop, Chief Executive Independent British Vape Trade Association. Richard has worked within the vape industry for the last four years and has a background working in politics, business, and trade associations. Website
2016 has been a challenging year for all involved in the independent vape industry, whether a vendor, importer, distributor, or manufacturer. It was the year when the TPD/TRPR became a reality.IBVTA did not and does not support the TPD, and many IBVTA members and others fought very hard to see it defeated, including one member who actually took a legal challenge against the TPD all the way to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
The TRPR is now in force and as law-abiding businesses, IBVTA members will comply with it, whether or not they agree with it. If “doing the right thing” is not to become a disincentive, as well as a competitive disadvantage, it is vital that these new regulations are policed and enforced.
2017 is likely to be another challenging year as the TRPR comes into full effect on the 20th May and the debate around taxation continues. It will also be the year when guidance will be produced on how companies can and cannot market their products and businesses under the TRPR.
Whilst the TRPR may be the law of the land, it is not an acceptable way for the products IBVTA members manufacture, import, distribute, or sell to be regulated in the long-term.
“Despite the challenges [for #vapers], there are many reasons to remain optimistic.”
With this in mind, in 2017, IBVTA will continue to make the case for a regulatory regime that protects consumers, whilst at the same time is vape specific and proportionate to the limited risk posed by vape products.
Despite the challenges, there are many reasons to remain optimistic.
Currently there are at least 2.8 million vapers in the UK. All of these vapers are now smoking significantly fewer or no tobacco cigarettes as a direct result. This should be a cause for celebration.
There is a thriving independent vape industry in the UK providing these consumers with a wide range of quality vape products. According to one recent study, vaping is now the fastest growing industry in the UK and after the United States the UK is the second largest market for vape products in the world. At a local level, vape shops are one of the few areas of growth on our high streets according to research published by PwC.
The UK’s independent vape industry has a global reputation for quality and innovation. Combine this with the enlightened approach many in the public health field have taken towards vaping and the positive attitudes within Public Health England, the MHRA, and the Department of Health, then the UK really does have the potential to become a global leader in vaping; both in terms of shaping the global policy environment, and also in terms of generating exports and boosting the UK economy.
This tremendous opportunity will only be realised if the regulatory and fiscal environment in which our industry operates is proportionate. Under such a regime vaping would flourish and achieve its full potential in providing a viable and significantly less harmful alternative to tobacco products as well as providing a significant and much needed boost to the UK economy.
Jim McManus, Public Health Director: A Year of Change & Division
Jim works to improve the health of over 1,1 million people in Hertfordshire. His writings and talks combine deep insight with compassion and humour. Blog
The next year will bring more change and division. An eye on the final goal – an end game for tobacco – will sometimes be difficult to see.Dangerous myths on both sides – that ecigs are more harmful than smoking and that non ecig forms of quitting tobacco are redundant – will needlessly discourage some who may benefit from a choice of ways to give up tobacco. The fact all most vapers want is a cleaner, safer form of nicotine than tobacco risks being forgotten.
The more agile smoking cessation services will counteract this by marshalling a wide choice of tools to help folk quit including cleaner nicotine (whether as ENDS or NRT) and behavioural support.
They will weather public sector funding cuts better. Those who don’t will continue to be vulnerable.
Unhappy polarisation in views will continue. Over-reaction will see one extreme continue down the fruitless road of berating public health departments for having no value while the other takes up a counter-productive anti-nicotine puritanism. Both will distract attention from the potential shared goal of ending death and disease from tobacco.
“The fact all most vapers want is a cleaner, safer form of nicotine than tobacco risks being forgotten”
Under the guise of being champions of vaping as liberal choice, a few loud voices will exploit opportunities to push a retrograde pro-tobacco agenda, painting public health functions as lacking relevance and credibility. The shrill and brittle tactics of some extreme anti-vaping public health “spokespeople” will be seized on to further undermine public health efforts. The fact smoking still kills risks being forgotten by all sides.
The needed debate about what harm reduction means can lead like a kindly light in this dark storm. Is nicotine or tobacco the enemy? If tobacco, then we need to articulate the harm reduction agenda so we can all coalesce around it.
The advent of heat not burn products may ignite these combustible divisions once more. There will be no smoke, but plenty of ire.
Sarah Jakes
A founding trustee of the consumer led charity New Nicotine Alliance Sarah Jakes is a tireless vape advocate who engages with public health organisations, policy makers and regulators in order to improve understanding of tobacco harm reduction products and strategies. Website
In a year that has seen the UK chose Brexit and the US elect Donald Trump as president I’m so glad that James chose now to ask me to predict what might happen in 2017. So much is in the balance, and by that I mean the health and lives of millions of people.In the UK we will see the TPD start to bite via the TRP Regulations and the immediately obvious effect will be the disappearance from shelves of tanks over 2ml and bottles over 10ml. Less noticeable to many will be the absence of liquids in strengths over 20mg/ml, or 18mg/ml to be safe. The rate of smokers switching to vaping will slow, as those unable or unwilling to use high powered devices with lower strength liquid find they are unable to find a combination that satisfies their needs.
In response to these changes many vapers will turn to importing from China and domestic businesses will suffer from the increased competition. Among these imports there will be an increasing amount of poor quality cloned products and we will see an increase in consumer dissatisfaction and accidents.
Across the EU we will see a confusing patchwork of regulation and many smaller UK businesses will be unable to cut through the red tape involved in continuing to sell there. Vaping in many parts of the EU will decrease as member states gold plate the TPD with use bans, flavour bans and excise duties.
The EU Commission will succeed in including vaping products in the Tobacco Excise Directive, but the minimum rate will be zero. In the UK the Government will adopt the zero rate, but other countries will not be so lucky. The Governments of those countries will find out the hard way that this new revenue stream will be much smaller than anticipated, and will be far outweighed by the cost of reducing the incentive for smokers to switch.
“The EU Commission will succeed in including vaping products in the Tobacco Excise Directive, but the minimum rate will be zero”
In the US, as some vape businesses take to the courts just to survive, others will throw in the towel. Whilst Trump may represent a change to the Obama administration which oversaw the regulations that will be the end of the industry, his apparent admiration for President Duterte of the Philippines murderous war on drugs leaves me less than optimistic.
2017 will see a range of novel reduced risk tobacco products launched by the tobacco industry as they try to compete with the vapour market. Most of these will struggle to find a foothold in the UK market in the short term. As availability of these products increases so too will the acrimony between those who support a harm reduction approach and those who are ideologically opposed. If you thought 2016 was brutal, wait to see what 2017 brings.
Jim McDonald, Vaping 360
Jim is the editor of the Vaping 360 blog, which offers superb industry analysis and product reviews for vapers. Website
2017 will be the year the American vapor industry tries to attack all of its legislative and regulatory challenges on a federal level. While it’s too early to be certain exactly how the Trump administration will change the government’s approach to vaping (and perhaps all reduced-risk nicotine products), there is a new sense of optimism among advocates.What was once just a dream of something that might be achieved sometime in the possibly distant future, the moment of truth for vaping has arrived suddenly and unexpectedly.
With Republican control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress, there is a real possibility not just for a band-aid approach like the Cole-Bishop amendment, but for a long-term solution — maybe even a rewrite of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, separating non-combustible e-cigs from the tobacco products the act was actually intended to control.
There may also be a possibility that the FDA’s deeming rule could be reversed using the Congressional Review Act, the 1996 law that gives Congress the ability to overrule executive agency regulations with a joint resolution of both houses of Congress. It’s not yet clear though if the deeming rule will qualify for this action.
“For the first time since the US [e-cig] industry began, there is a potentially sympathetic legislative environment”
For the first time since the American industry began, there is a potentially sympathetic legislative environment.
Trump will likely be eager to overturn any kind of anti-business regulation put in place by the Obama administration, and to replace the agency heads that implemented what he sees as rampant regulatory overreach. And it can’t hurt that vaping’s two biggest friends in Congress — Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and California Rep. Duncan Hunter — were both supporters of the incoming president when he was considered a long shot.
The pieces are in place for positive change. Will the year of the big push lead to a permanent fix that saves the critically endangered independent vapor industry and guarantees a brighter future? Stay tuned.
Aaron Biebert, A Billion Lives: 2017 will be the turning point in this war.
Aaron is the director of A Billion Lives. Due to be released next year, the documentary aims to expose the lies and conflicting interests that have dogged the industry from its inception. Check out the trailer at the end of this post! Website | Interview
2017 will be the turning point in this war.As more and more science comes out supporting vapor technology as a safer alternative to smoking, countries with honest leaders (such as New Zealand) that were initially against the technology will begin to change their approach. As neutral organizations begin to do more research, the countries that oppose tobacco harm reduction will have to make a choice: support technology that will save millions of lives each year, or continue to deny science.
Countries that own large tobacco companies will continue to resist the science. France will join the UK as a global evidence-based policy leader. Hungary, Estonia, and other small European countries will see improvements as the science becomes undeniable.
If advocacy organizations in the US unite, they stand a real chance of reversing the most harmful parts of the FDA deeming regulations. Surprisingly, big tobacco companies will assist (and then begin their domination of the injured market).
In the near term, the industry in the US will continue to suffer as state and national anti-vaping efforts see success.
2017 will be the turning point in this war
Production of a follow-up movie to A Billion Lives will be announced in 2017, continuing the #ABillionLives movement, giving advocacy efforts more ammunition, and putting stronger pressure on the big companies and NGOs that are promoting unscientific bias amongst the global medical community.
Oliver Kershaw: A Year of Divergent Paths
Inventor, blogger, activist – Oliver has many strings to his bow! He is best known for founding e-cigarette forum, which has helped millions of smokers to switch to vaping. Forum
This is a year of divergent paths. Regulations come into full force in the EU, with the UK and France adopting the world’s most liberal attitude to vaping. In the UK, the market looks set to remain as vibrant as ever – the MHRA described an “exponential curve” of notifications being submitted in the run-up to the TPD cut-off at the recent E-Cig Summit.In the US, however, the moral panic remains fever-pitched, and public acceptance is low. The fear that the youth of America are under grave threat of a new nicotine epidemic has registered deeply. There are some influential people concerned that this might have gone the wrong way, but it’s likely too late to make a real difference.
The opaque nature of the US regulations (what does it take to register a PMTA?) means that liquid companies will bow out as each milestone of the regulation comes into play. The first is a manufacturing registration requirement at the end of this year. The second comes into play in February, and is much more problematic because it requires ingredient disclosures that many will not be able to comply with. What, then, will happen to these liquids?
In my opinion, the FDA will move forcefully against those that do not pass the “smell test”. FDA doesn’t have the resources to go after everyone, so will go after unregistered brands selling fruit/candy/bakery type flavors, especially those who use descriptors which appear childish (using a subjective test). So far the FDA has taken a soft approach, issuing warning letters to underage sellers, and this will likely be the opening salvo against liquid companies too. That said, they will be mindful of their public health remit and are unlikely to want to cause mass disruption which causes people to go back to smoking. My belief is that they’ll go after some high-profile targets such that others simply decide to exit.
Remember, this regulation is “prohibulation” – the FDA simply cannot perform a top-down regulation – it doesn’t have the resources – it needs to thin the market down to a number which it can regulate.
So we’ll see lots of businesses taking the rational decision to exit the market at such a point as when things become too much to bear. When will this be? Well, some have already decided to do so – one of ECF’s long-standing favorites bowed out this month. In my private conversations with others, it’s become clear to me that this is going to be the dominant choice, absent of Cole-Bishop or a regulatory volte-face.
For those with the appetite for the long-haul, it’s really going to be a question of plausibility. It remains a complete unknown as to whether it’s even possible for an e-liquid or open device to be granted a PMTA. The FDA itself doesn’t seem to believe so.
“In the UK, the [#ecig] market looks set to remain as vibrant as ever.”
But, then again, the FDA itself remains the wildcard, especially following the election. I’ve seen some people stating that Zeller’s resignation would be helpful – but this is doubtful. Zeller has had to play a political game, but he does support overall harm reduction objectives. Would his replacement be similarly inclined and capable? Whoever takes his place is going to be sitting on a bureaucracy with a 20-year history of fighting to regulate nicotine, and that’s not going anywhere. IMO, Zeller’s actually the only person who could change things around, if the wider political weather changed.
Another thing that’s not going anywhere: vapers! Vapers want to vape, and they don’t want products which don’t work. The saddest thing for me is that it might all fail to reach its full potential and be the disrupter we know it can be. I feel like this is all just beginning, and the next 12 months could be the point at which it all flattens into something horrifyingly underwhelming, despite the number of lives it’s transformed on the way.
Oliver adds: “and just to prove that prediction is a mug’s game, the FDA announced last week that it’s extending the deadline for manufacturer registrations for 6 months. How this all plays out long term is anyone’s guess”
Tim Mechling, Mt Baker Vaper: Americans will see fewer vaping options in 2017
Tim Mechling is Mt Baker Vapor’s writer and content creator who has been active in the vaping community since 2013. His unblinking eye gazes unto the abyss of oppression. Blog
The initial shock of the Deeming Regulations has worn off. In its place, the vaping community faces a grim reality with sober eyes. 2017 will be a trial-by-fire for bigger vape companies, and a death knell for mom-and-pop vape shops.
Americans will see fewer vaping options in 2017. Some bigger names in the vaping industry have already fallen on hard times. Flavors, DIY supplies, and much of the customizability vapers have come to love will be restricted in the coming year.
The prohibitive cost of PMTAs will coerce vape companies to strip down to their bones; a few blockbuster flavors will be available in select nicotine levels, and anything off-beat will be eliminated.
Scoff-laws will be crucified. Vape shop owners will pace the floors, pondering how to keep their doors open.
Distrust for government and its agencies is at a fever pitch, which may bring hope to the vaping community. Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are symptoms of social unrest, and a bulging, red middle-finger has been thrust at the establishment. How the frenzy of furious populism plays out remains to be seen, but the anti-regulation conservatives and libertarians that fill the House of Representatives, Senate, and the White House are apt to challenge Federal regulations. An optimistic vaper would foresee the Trump Administration taking a sledgehammer to the Deeming Regulations. A cynic would distrust any starry-eyed promise from a politician, no matter the packaging. I personally lean to the latter.
The amount of wealth held and shuffled by Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, and Big Government is nearly unfathomable. Vaping has risen to challenge the status quo, and has marginally upset the momentum of cigarette revenue, and its peripheral markets. There is no doubt these behemoth agencies will further flex their muscle.
“2017 will be a trial-by-fire for bigger vape companies, and a death knell for mom-and-pop vape shops.”
The idealist in me sees an uprising of vapers, and a David-versus-Goliath triumph. The realist in me sees the vape industry slithering, ragged and lugubrious, unto oblivion.
Paul Barnes: A Great Deal Of Uncertainty
Paul works in IT and spends his off-hours writing about vaping science and other freedom of choice matters. Usually with tongue in cheek humour, and occasional expletives. Not for the easily offended. 18+ rating. Website
Looking back on the predictions for 2016 a few bore some fruit – especially the prediction from Jim McManus where the division in public health is all the more obvious now than ever before – which makes looking ahead to 2017 considerably more difficult. May this year saw “phase one” of the TRPR – the transposed EU TPD – come into play. Not much really happened, from a consumer point of view. August 8th saw the dreaded Deeming in the US, and a few weeks prior to “phase two” of the TRPR a number of US and UK stores have announced closures – with more happening at regular intervals. Elsewhere, Australia continues to cling to their stubborn doctrine while New Zealand seeks to become a touch more liberal. Canada is looking more and more unhealthy in terms of e-cig regulation.
So where does that leave us for 2017? Cloudy, with a chance of meatballs.
Frankly it leaves vapers worldwide with a great deal of uncertainty going into 2017. With the WHO FCTC having not really altered their prohibitionist stance despite the report from the RCP, the evidence update (and workplace guidance) from PHE, the very recent RCGP statement and the reply to the WHO from UKCTAS. We know for certain that specific signatory countries will enforce harsh measures as a result of COP7 – they were always going to regardless of the outcome, although the UK will undoubtedly remain possibly the most liberal – or at least, as far as the regulations allow. How long will that last is a question I’m sure many advocates have in the back of their minds.
“Going into 2017, many vapers and indeed vendors are still blissfully unaware of what is about to befall the industry”
As with going into 2017, many vapers and indeed vendors are still blissfully unaware of what is about to befall the industry. New e-juice ranges keep popping up and there has been a gamut of new hardware in an effort to get product to market ahead of regulatory cut-offs (TPD notification, FDA Deeming). A fact that some pro-vaping public health individuals have realised, hopefully there’ll be a more concerted effort to bring realisation to the industry.
Of course, overall perception isn’t being helped by the media over-sensationalising research. For every research paper that is published highlighting the benefits of vaping, there is at least two or three that say the exact opposite. The balance of research through 2017 will undoubtedly remain more of the same – and with the regulations biting deeper, the main protagonists in research (via the media) will only get worse.
The domino effect of prohibition (either in full or in part) will accelerate. We’ll see more US states levy taxes, the EU will no doubt follow – though to what extent remains to be seen. Instead of outright prohibition, or a medicalised route, we’ll see the continuation of ling-ch’ih – the death of the industry by a thousand cuts – and the further creation of an organised black market. Innovation will stall, with manufacturers hands being tied by the various regulatory barriers that have been, and continue to be erected by the various Governmental bodies. With that, demand will decrease – the boom of the last few years ahead of the regulatory imposition will turn into a rapid downturn – which in turn will cause smoking prevalence rates to stagnate.
Conclusion
Last year we noted that while the TPD meant restrictions on what could be sold, enforcement is going to be difficult.
And that’s already proving to be the case, with many shops selling products which have not being notified.
If this continues, expect outrage from businesses which have spent many months and huge resources first fighting and then getting ready for the TPD. However, we are likely to see some enforcement starting from May 2017.
Over in the US, meanwhile, we are waiting to see if the new US administration will take a different stance towards e-cigs. They have promised to cut regulation and protect US businesses – will this be carried out in reality? We can only hope!
In summary – things could be much worse in Europe and the UK. They are much worse in the US, but there is hope. And the WHO is really messing things up in the rest of the world…
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/vaping-news-october2016-10-11T10:13:00-05:002016-10-11T10:13:50-05:00Vaping News OctoberAdam Winfrey
October Vaping News at a glance:
A good week for pro-vaping science – E-cigarettes: Organized crime is exploding – Some public sessions at COP7 – Vaping bill sponsor admits ‘it did’ put people out of business – Where has all the nicotine gone? – Role of sweet and other flavours – E-cigs and Joe Camel – Prop. 56 Kills – Latest tobacco tax attempt – Nicotine Science and Policy Daily Digest – Friday, 7 October 2016
But council bans continue to spread – Fergus Mason
The scientific consensus behind e-cigarettes continues to strengthen this week, with two separate studies – one in England and one in India – confirming that the devices are an effective tool for smokers who want to quit. Meanwhile other researchers found that despite previous alarmist claims, e-cig vapour causes no detectable damage to lung cells.
As national crime syndicates go, the FDA is one of the largest legal organized crime rings in the world. E-cigarettes and nicotine were deemed a “tobacco product” on August 8th, 2016 by the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
I don’t have an answer as to how their decision reduces smoking. Not a clue as to how it involves tobacco harm reduction – which is their alleged intent.
Some sessions of the international tobacco-control meeting due to be staged in India next month will be held in public, according to Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva, head of the Secretariat of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), writing a Huffington Post blog.
The seventh meeting of the FCTC’s Conference of the Parties (COP7), which is due to be held in New Delhi on November 7-12, has criticized for refusing entry to relevant stakeholders, including tobacco growers, and the media.
‘Tt did’ put people out of business – Hayleigh Colombo
Indiana State Sen. Ron Alting, the Lafayette lawmaker who sponsored the controversial vaping law that essentially put a single private security firm—located in his town and run by his high school classmate—in charge of selecting winners and losers in the e-liquid manufacturing industry, is now admitting the law created an unfair playing field.
Most vapers are probably sick of hearing about nicotine by now. If you believe the media it’s carcinogenic, immoral and as addictive as chocolate-coated heroin, and Big Vaping loves to add it to liquids to trap a future generation of addicts. It’s a constant complaint from people who don’t like vaping – “You haven’t really quit; you’re still addicted to nicotine.” Large parts of society have decided that Vaping Is Bad because there’s still too much nicotine involved.
Our findings indicate that bitterness and harshness, most likely from nicotine, have negative impacts on the liking of e-cigarettes, but the addition of flavourants that elicit sweetness or coolness generally improves liking. The results suggest that flavours play an important role in e-cigarette preference and most likely use.
What do Sports Illustrated magazine, vampire movies, NASCAR, The X-Files, piña colada flavoring, and puns based on the expression “Let it go” have in common? Why, they’re all aimed at children, of course—which you would “know” if you were a member of the braindead Washington political elite….
Taxes have consequences. One is black markets. Vice.com’s “Black Market: Dispatches” just ran an episode on Ukraine’s “people who rely on the underground cigarette trade for survival during a time of war and economic struggle.” They smuggle smokes West into the wealth European Union. Here’s a preview.
Even among the complex maze of 17 statewide ballot initiatives and the 224-page voter guide this year, Proposition 56 stands out. Prop. 56 would increase tobacco taxes by $2 per pack, which is expected to be a $1.4 billion annual tax increase on cigarettes and other tobacco products (and a new tax on e-cigarettes).
If You Don’t Quit the Way We Want You to Quit, Then Don’t Bother
The Rest of the Story
After last week’s publication of a new study which found that smokers switching to very low-nicotine cigarettes did not compensate by smoking more, anti-tobacco groups jumped on the bandwagon, telling the public that these products helped smokers cut down and quit and should therefore be an integral part of a national smoking cessation strategy….
This column has already documented officialdom’s unrelenting war on e-cigarettes. In fact, those articles were some of the best-read I have ever posted, so I guess we touched a nerve. The insidious tag team—comprised of Big Tobacco and the supposed public health interest groups against smoking—is perfectly evocative of the “Bootleggers and Baptists” phenomenon, originally described by economist Bruce Yandle.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts that advises the government on public health issues, recently concluded that there’s insufficient evidence to recommend e-cigarettes as a way to stop smoking conventional cigarettes. But when we reported on that news, we heard from more than 1,300 readers, most saying that electronic cigarettes helped them kick their habit.
Visit Nicotine Science & Policy for more News from around the World
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/117530565-how-fda-rulings-on-e-cigarettes-affect-vaping-consumers2016-05-17T16:53:00-05:002021-09-23T09:51:39-05:00How FDA Rulings on E-Cigarettes Affect Vaping ConsumersAdam Winfrey
May 17th, 2016 | Adam Winfrey | Big D Vapor
The Food and Drug Administration’s Deeming Regulations for tobacco products were published on May 5th and went into effect on May 10th, 2016. Unfortunately, these regulations include electronic cigarettes, despite the fact that they contain no tobacco (only nicotine). These far-reaching new laws will decimate tens of thousands of small vapor businesses throughout the USA and will significantly decrease the availability of vapor products in years to come.
What Does This Mean To Me, The Consumer (Vaper)?
First and foremost, if these regulations go unchallenged it means that 99% of E-Liquids on the market today will cease to exist. None of your local vape shops will be able to afford the compliance or risk continuing to mix the liquid in the house illegally. For each flavor and nicotine level, millions have to be spent for FDA compliance testing, and spending those dollars will not conclusively deem the e-liquids compliant.
For the past few years, the progression and innovation we have seen from hardware manufacturers have resulted in thousands of options for vapers with lower prices. This innovation will come to a screeching halt if every single device must comply with expensive tests and regulatory compliance. We can expect fewer options, less innovation, and much higher prices. Consider stocking up on mods now!
What Does This Mean To My Local Vape Shop?
If Americans cannot successfully mitigate this legislation and appeals fall on deaf ears, you can expect the vast majority of electronic cigarette retailers to close their doors in 15 to 24 months. Unlike most retailers, who carry a more diversified inventory, Vape shops typically sell only hardware, liquid, and vaping accessories. The lion's share of a vapor store's profits has always come from liquid, especially craft liquids made by small companies or in-house. There simply won't be enough margins off of hardware and accessories alone to offset the elimination of the liquid profits. Sure, some larger e-liquid companies like Cuttwood or the ones owned by Big Tobacco will be able to invest the approximate 1,000 plus hours of required time to become compliant. However, if everyone is selling the same product, the situation becomes a price war until only the strongest are left to survive.
What Is The Industry Doing To Save Itself?
Multiple industry coalitions are working together to fight back against this unnecessary regulation. The major hardware manufacturers,Smok,Aspire,Innokin, andKanger, have joined the Shenzhen Electronic Vapor Industry of America (SEVIA) to collectively defend cumbersome red tape. On May 10th, Halo brand e-liquid's parent company, Nicopure Labs, LLC filed suit against the FDA in federal court. Several pro-vaping lobbying groups are working towards fighting the new regulations, which we will list for you at the end of this article. Since we are collectively looking at over 100k jobs in the USA alone, not to mention the commerce created to support these businesses, you can rest assured we will not go down without a fight.
Why Is This Happening?
Despite what industry outsiders may think, this has nothing to do with health or exploding batteries. This is purely a documented case of Big Tobacco losing a significant amount of market share to an industry where it has had very little success, despite all of their acquisitions of electronic cigarette companies. Mitch Zeller, head of the FDA, has openly admitted "E-Cigarettes are far less hazardous than tobacco cigarettes", yet remains firm on the legislation that will simultaneously eradicate the companies that built the vapor industry while lining the pockets of Big Tobacco.
What Can I Do?
If you believe in your right to continue vaping and/or supporting your local small businesses, you need to write your legislators and support the groups fighting for your rights. The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternative Association (CASAA) has set up a quick form that will automatically email everyone from your local representatives to the White HouseHere. Here's a list of groups you can support or follow in order to help, as complacency will make pleasurable vaping a thing of the past.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/115882629-quitday-org-vaping-scholorship-for-ex-smokers2016-04-12T09:12:00-05:002021-09-23T09:55:11-05:00QuitDay.Org - Vaping Scholarship for Ex-SmokersAdam Winfrey
Have you quit smoking with vaping? If yes, you can win massive prizes in our yearly scholarship contest. QuitDay.org now offers $3,000 in scholarships to vapers who share their vision for a smoke-free world.
Vaping Scholarship Background
From lung cancer to heart diseases to asthma to stroke to infertility, name any disease and you’ll find smoking as one of the major causes behind it. If that doesn’t alarm you, consider this: smoking has killed many times more people than all the fatalities in American wars combined. We at QuitDay.org realize that smokers are at a never-ending war against their addiction. So, we want to challenge vapers to share their story of how they successfully replaced smoking with vaping, and how it improved their overall health.
Vaping Scholarship Details and Awards
Three lucky winners are selected every year, who receive $2,000, $700 and $300, respectively for first second and third place. The scholarship award can be used to pay for college tuition, education-related expenses or other self-development needs. The best thing is, it’s easy, without any annoying prerequisites, and absolutely free to apply for everyone.
Vaping Scholarship Deadlines
QuitDay.org is currently: accepting vaping scholarship applications.
The application deadline is November 30, 2016, at 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
Eligibility and Details
You must be:
At least 18 years old
An ex-smoker-turned-vaper
Located in the United States or District of Columbia
You can send only one (1) submission in the form of a typed essay that should be between 1000 and 1500 words, and should answer the following questions:
Why do you see smoking as a problem for individuals and society?
Why do you think vaping is a safer alternative?
How did your life change after switching from smoking to vaping?
What’s your take on the current debate and legislation process in the U.S. to ban e-cigs and other vaping gear?
What message do you have for current smokers?
The essay must include the word count and be signed with a full name (both first and last name), along with the applicant’s email address, phone number, and permanent address.
The winning applicants will be determined based on the essay content, style and originality. Our judges usually look for logically organized and well-supported essays.
Email your essay as well as a scanned copy of your completed application form to vaping-scholarship@quitday.org usingthe subject: “Vaping Scholarship Application”. (Tip: You may take a photo of the application form, just make sure it’s readable)
Winner Notification
The top three finalists, as selected by the judges, will be notified via email.
Winners will be announced to the public at QuitDay.org/vaping-scholarship
Making the world smoke-free is a massive feat, and we’re committed to it. But we can’t do it alone. Join us by sharing your experience and play your part. Best of luck!
What Else Can Be Done to Support Vaping
Visit The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (cassa.org) and learn more about steps you can take to save vaping.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/113011781-dot-bans-electronic-cigarettes-on-commercial-flights2016-03-11T11:16:00-06:002021-09-23T09:57:18-05:00DOT Bans Electronic Cigarettes on Commercial FlightsAdam Winfrey
March 11, 2016 | NBAA
The U.S. DOT recently issued a final rule that bans the use of electronic cigarettes on commercial aircraft. The ban affects scheduled airlines and charter flights in which a flight attendant is a required crewmember (aircraft with 19 or more passenger seats).
The DOT said it created this regulation to improve air quality, reduce health risks and enhance safety. The final rule prohibits smoking on all commercial non-scheduled flights, except for single-entity charters and on-demand air taxi flights where a flight attendant is not a required crew-member.
This announcement follows a 2011 notice of proposed rulemaking in which the DOT proposed to amend its existing smoking rule to explicitly ban the use of e-cigarettes on all flights covered by current smoking bans. The proposal also asked specifically about including a ban of e-cigarettes on charter flights since the current regulations prohibiting smoking on charter flights were adopted in a 2012 final rule.
The DOT said it expects the effect on operators to be minimal. During the proposed rule’s comment period, DOT reviewed carrier websites and advertisements, which indicate many carriers already prohibit the use of e-cigarettes on aircraft.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/112902085-5-things-you-can-do-right-now-to-save-vaping2016-03-09T10:58:00-06:002016-03-09T10:58:55-06:005 Things You Can Do Right Now To Save VapingAdam Winfrey
This is a great article with simple executions from CASAA (Consumers Advocates for Smoke Free Alternatives Association):
(1) Send a Message! Support HR 2058 which could save the vapor industry from total destruction.
(2) Tell your Attorney General that you stand with Iowa AG Tom Miller and his statement regarding a reasoned, scientific debate about the merits of vapor products
(3) Join CASAA! It’s easy, it’s free, and we will keep you up to date on information and opportunities to take action to protect your access to vapor products.
(5) Tell your story! Please visit CASAA’s Testimonials Project and tell us about your experience with low-risk, smoke-free products like e-cigarettes and snus.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/75484293-11-places-vaping-has-embedded-itself-in-pop-culture2016-02-02T12:14:00-06:002016-02-02T12:14:21-06:0011 Places Vaping Has Embedded Itself in Pop CultureAdam Winfrey
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/71359813-2015-electronic-cigarette-vaping-summary2015-12-22T11:39:00-06:002021-09-23T10:03:52-05:002015 Electronic Cigarette & Vaping SummaryAdam WinfreyVaping and Electronic Cigarettes
2015 Review
A Groundbreaking Year For Innovation, Change, and Public Awareness
In 2015, the Electronic Cigarette industry received more press than ever: some good, some great, and some downright negative. We also experienced unprecedented product improvements, cost decreases, and increased quality across the board. Finally, we encountered tremendous pressure from legislators, the FDA, anti-vaping groups, and an undereducated public that only knows what major media outlets share with them.
One of the most frequently asked questions this year we hear in the industry is "Are pending FDA regulations going to shut down the vapor industry?". Initially, looming regulation has threatened the existence of independent manufacturers of e-liquid and hardware. The proposed legislation, backed by lobbyists and big tobacco, has pushed for certification of all liquids and hardware. Unfortunately, every single flavor or variant product would require millions of dollars of investment in order to become certified - an investment only Big Tobacco could afford. However, there's actually a large group of GOP legislators fighting for the e-cig industry, and reciprocally there is a large group of congressional democrats that are pushing anti-vaping legislation. Specifically, they have pushed heavily to eliminate flavored e-liquids stating that they encourage underage vaping. They have overlooked the fact that adults actually enjoy delicious flavors and the fact that the entire E-Cig industry embraces banning sales to all minors. In fact, most states have already passed legislation banning sales to minors, which the vaping community adamantly supports.
Luckily, the vaping community has joined arms in fighting back and a lot of ground has been made in the fight. The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA), Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), and the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA) have all rallied e-cig consumers and industry to push back against government regulation. As a result, everyone from local legislation to the White House has received millions of responses from constituents fighting for their vaping rights.
Science has made great strides in 2015, rebutting the popular go-to response from anti-vaping camps "There's just not enough research". On the contrary, conclusive studies in the U.K. this year found electronic cigarettes to be 95% safer than tobacco cigarettes. The CDC admitted electronic cigarettes are helping smokers quit, and haspublished the data. The following e-cig myths have been debunked:
Harvard: "Vaping causes popcorn lung"- Debunked, found trace chemicals were 100 times higher in traditional cigarettes, and even then still not enough to cause popcorn lung.
"Second Hand Vapor Is Harmful"- Debunked, Spanish Council For Scientific Research found less contaminates in exhaled vapor than ordinary indoor air or exhaled breath.
"E-Cigarettes Contain Formaldehyde"- Debunked, Boston School of Public Health found that you would have to superheat liquid to an intolerable and impossible point.
If you have read this far, you are probably already aware that other false claims by the media (i.e. e-cigs contain anti-freeze) were all debunked prior to 2015. University-level research continues across the globe, but you shouldn't expect the mainstream media to report it. Also, the two battery explosions (out of over 10 Million vapers) were created by using the wrong chargers and 99% of products have protective circuitry to prevent similar occurrences.
In 2015 we have seen complete shifts in the price, quality, and features of electronic cigarettes. 2014 was the year of theeLeaf iStickandAspire Nautilus, and 2015 is the year of sub-ohm and temperature control. The manufacturing of electronic cigarettes has grown exponentially, as has competition, which has cut costs to consumers. In 2014, you could expect to pay around $2 per watt or roughly $50 for a 25-watt device. Today, 200-watt mods from name-brand manufacturers like theSigelei Fuchaican be had for under $70 USD. That's a five hundred percent decrease per watt! Sub Ohm vaping, or use of coils rated lower than 1.0 ohm, has become a standard rather than a purist pursuit. At the beginning of the year, everyone was buyingAtlantis(AndAtlantis 2),Arctic, andKanger Subtanktanks. These frontrunners became so common that aficionados started seeking out more individual tanks like theZephyrusorStarretanks. The next advent came in mid-2015 with the introduction of top-fill tanks, which was long overdue! The most popular, theUwell Crown, allowed users to add liquid without removing their tanks from their devices. By the end of 2015 we're seeing almost all new tanks, especially high-end tanks like theTFV4, are all top fill.
In addition to innovations in coils, from the triple coilHatrickto the 6 coilArctic Turbo, we started to see everyone offering a nickel (Ni200) coil at the beginning of 2015. This allowedtemperature-controlled devicesto regulate the voltage to the coil to produce a consistent amount of vapor to the user's setting. When used correctly, they should consume less e-liquid and produce a smoother vaping experience. Leading manufacturers likeAspire,Kanger, andJoyetechall scrambled to produce nickel coils to retrofit existing tanks. Then, in the blink of an eye, manufacturers introduced Titanium coils which were supposed to be better than Nickel, but it's really just user preference. Now, at the end of 2015, Stainless Steel temperature-controlled coils are the latest and greatest. In fact, tanks have become so innovative, we have seen very little innovation forrebuildable atomizers. Most innovation has been in the same raw materials used in tanks, such asClapton coils.
In summary, it's been a great year for e-cig users but the industry is definitely in jeopardy. If you vape, you need to advocate. It takes five minutes to join CASAA and auto-fill a pre-drafted letter to your local legislators. Try to educate non-vapers and share the science, because too many people are going back to cigarettes as a result of electronic cigarette misinformation. If at the end of 2015, if we have high-end sub ohm starter kits like theiJust2orSubvod(Under $40 shipped), just imagine what will be available at the end of 2016! That is of course if we stand up against the government and detractors who are trying to crush the e-cig industry altogether.
A promising new documentary film is on the way to our screens: A billion lives –“a true story of government failure, big business and the vaping revolution”. See trailer above.
It gets its name from the often-quoted figure that one billion lives may be lost to diseases caused by smoking in the 21st Century. The eminent epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto summarised the outlook in a comment to the Independent newspaper:Smoking will ‘kill up to a billion people worldwide this century’(8 Nov 2012)
Sir Richard Peto of Oxford University, a co-author of the Million Women study who worked closely with Sir Richard Doll, is also the scientist who first calculated how many people this century will die from tobacco-induced cancers. “We have about 30 million new smokers a year in the world. On present patterns, most of them are not going to stop, and if they don’t stop, and if half of them die from it, then that means more than 10 million a year will die – that’s 100 million a decade in the second half of the century,” said Professor Peto.
“So this century we’re going to see something like a billion deaths from smoking if we carry on as we are.
But where do these numbers come from?
So, it starts with the idea that smoking is a cause of serious disease and that people die from it – and they would die later without it. So, in a given year, they have a higher probability of dying (or being already dead). The diagram below, from the famous study of British doctors, is one way of showing that – the probability of living to a given age after age 35. There are some differences between men and women and in different countries.
Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, et al. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004;328:1519 [link]
So, this particular study showed that 81% of men who never smoked make it to 70 but only 58% of continuing smokers. Or put another way, the median smoker loses about 10 years of life between 73 and 83, and about 20% lose 10 years between 60 and 70.
Note that some of this increased probability of earlier death may arise from other things that smokers do more or less of. For example, if they take less exercise or do more drinking that might also contribute to shifting that blue curve to the left, for example by dying of liver disease. So these curves are plots of premature death representing the average lifestyle of those studied – doctors in this case. However, most of the difference is down to smoking itself.
Stopping smoking reduces risk. The good news from this study was that “cessation at age 50 halved the hazard, and cessation at age 30 avoided almost all of it.” You can see graphically how stopping smoking at different ages changes the probability of early death here.
They obviously do not mean by this: “smoke your head off until 30, then quit and you’ll be fine” – many people who smoke until into their 30s may not find it easy to quit, and may not want to try. But I think with vaping available as an option to eliminate nearly all the risk of recreational nicotine use, a major focus of tobacco policy should be on encouraging, or merely not obstructing, middle-aged adults who cannot or choose not to quit using nicotine to switch from smoking to vaping as rapidly as possible. This means that millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of premature deaths might be avoided if smokers switch or nicotine users never smoke in the first place.
How these numbers are not calculated. A real problem with counting premature deaths is that smoking may reduce the length of nearly every smoker’s life, even by a few days or minutes, compared to living exactly the same life and never having smoked. Do they all get counted in the premature death toll? No. Actually, that is not how these calculations are done.
How these numbers are calculated.The approach taken is to look at the main diseases that cause death in smokers (cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory) and then work out how many of the deaths caused by those diseases can be attributed to smoking. The clearest case is lung cancer, where the risk for smokers is about 20 times higher than for non-smokers. So you can look at how many deaths there are from lung cancer, how many smokers there are, and then work out how many of the deaths are due to the excess risk created by smoking and how many would have happened anyway. With a few additional complexities for ex-smokers, differences for men and women etc outcomes the number of lung cancer deaths attributed to smoking. Then with even more numerical dexterity, numbers can be calculated for other diseases.
When making projections of future smoking-related deaths, several other things are needed. For example, some way of characterizing assumptions about smoking – and how that translates to disease outcomes – often with a lag between the behavior and the disease.
So, some future disease arising from past smoking is already in the system: it may take 50 years for the full consequences of arising in smoking to work through to disease outcomes.
A typical pattern in developed countries from the 1940s is that fewer women ever smoked, and female smoking prevalence peaked later and then converged with male prevalence. This is very different in developing countries, where female smoking has been much lower. But will it stay that way?
We can work through the technique above. So start with the observed cancer deaths. For example, these UK figures:
If we know smokers are more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers, we can look at the total lung cancer deaths in a population and decide how many of these are additional to what there would be without smoking. The share of this cancer that is attributed to smoking is known as the “Population Attributable Fraction”.
Key concept: the “Population-Attributable Fraction (PAF) [WHO definition]:
Population attributable fraction (PAF)… is the proportional reduction in population disease or mortality that would occur if exposure to a risk factor were reduced to an alternative ideal exposure scenario (eg. no tobacco use)
The U.S. Surgeon General 2014 report explains how it works here, and various different methods are reviewedhere. If you want the equations, they are at these links.
The method involves using the estimate ofrelative riskof premature death from a disease that has been found in large cohort studies. Cohort studies follow a group of people, track what they do (e.g. smoking) and check what fate befalls them. Relative risk is the ratio of the probability of a smoker dying of disease to the probability that a non-smoker will die from it. High relative risk can mean it is highly likely in smokers or very unlikely in non-smokers (e.g. lung cancer). Low relative risk means there may be many other causes in smokers and non-smokers (e.g. cardiovascular disease caused by diet or physical inactivity). These relative risk estimates are used to attribute the observed deaths from, say, lung cancer, to those caused by smoking and those that would have occurred anyway – giving the PAF.
The biggest of the cohort studies is theAmerican Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) – and from this study, much of the estimation of risk and premature death for smoking is derived. It is not just used for cancer but other diseases too, and not just for the U.S. This is how the relative risks turn out for the CPS-II cohort – seetable
Relative risks for adult mortality from smoking-related diseases, adults 35 years of age and older
In the case of the chart above, the application of these techniques to attribute cancer deaths to smoking comes out as follows for the UK, separated for men and women:
If these figures are totaled for different countries, the burden of smoking-related cancer can then be estimated.
For other populations and diseases.There are huge assumptions and approximations built into using the CPS-II cohort to estimate relative risks for different populations – e.g outside the U.S. or in the future. In much of the work that uses these data, conservative assumptions are made (like halving the relative risk) to take into account potentially lower relative risks in different populations. Some clever techniques are used to fill in blanks in data. For example, because lung cancer is known to be relatively rare in non-smokers, it is possible to infer previous rates of smoking from current lung cancer rates. But note the use of conservative assumptions in doing so…
Even in the absence of direct information on smoking histories, therefore, national mortality from tobacco can be estimated approximately just from the disease mortality statistics that are available from all major developed countries for about 1985 (and for 1975 and so, by extrapolation, for 1995). The relation between the absolute excess of lung cancer and the proportional excess of other diseases can only be approximate, and so as not to overestimate the effects of tobacco it has been taken to be only half that suggested by a recent large prospective study of smoking and death among one million Americans. [link]
Understanding the past and present
The pioneering work on this was done in the 1980s and early 1990s. A substantial resource of mortality projections is maintained at Oxford University:Deaths from smoking. The initial focus of the research was on developed countries.
Peto R, Boreham J, Lopez AD,et al.Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: indirect estimation from national vital statistics.Lancet1992;339:1268–78. [link][PDF]
At present [1992] just under 20% of all deaths in developed countries are attributed to tobacco, but this percentage is still rising, suggesting that on current smoking patterns just over 20% of those now living in developed countries will eventually be killed by tobacco (ie, about a quarter of a billion, out of a current total population of just under one and a quarter billion)
Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J,et al. Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950−2000. 2nd Edition. [link] – showing about 2 million smoking-related deaths in developed countries in 2000 – but also the age stratification, with smoking accounting for 30% of male deaths before 70. (Annotation added to show ~2m).
We start to see studies that look globally.
Ezzati M, Lopez AD. Estimates of global mortality attributable to smoking in 2000. Lancet2003;362:847–52 [link] –
We estimated that in 2000, 4·83 (uncertainty range 3·94–5·93) million premature deaths in the world were attributable to smoking; 2·41 (1·80–3·15) million in developing countries and 2·43 (2·13–2·78) million in industrialized countries. 3·84 million of these deaths were in men.
Ezzati M, Henley SJ, Thun MJ, et al. Role of smoking in global and regional cardiovascular mortality. Circulation 2005;112:489–97.[link] – take a global view and focus on cardiovascular mortality.
Conclusions— More than 1 in every 10 cardiovascular deaths in the world in the year 2000 were attributable to smoking, demonstrating that it is an important preventable cause of cardiovascular mortality.
Predictions about the future
There are numerous obvious difficulties projecting forward. Projections require assumptions about future uptake, smoking cessation rates, population size, and treatment for smoking-related diseases that may reduce mortality. There are also some weird effects to consider: as a country grows richer, the risks of dying from other diseases, accidents or violence may decrease, making it more likely a smoker will live long enough to die from a disease caused by smoking. This effect was visible in the doctors’ study mentioned above.
Furthermore, behaviours will all depend in part on policy assumptions – like taxation, marketing restrictions, effective quitting aids etc – and the availability of alternatives.
So I would take all future projections as an ‘order of magnitude’ approximation that is entirely contingent on assumptions. Here is one example of uncertainty, the population:
We also have to make assumptions about what will happen to smoking prevalence in future. For example, if Chinese smoking followed the pattern in Europe or U.S., we would expect to see female smoking rising to meet male smoking as it comes down. Mercifully, this is not happening. [link].
Chinese men now smoke more than a third of the world’s cigarettes, following a large increase in urban then rural usage. Conversely, Chinese women now smoke far less than in previous generations.
The one billion deaths figure
The rough ‘consensus’ emerging from these studies is smoking-attributed-mortality was about 5 million/year in 2000, and will rise to about 10 million/year by 2030, with a total death toll of about 450 million accumulating by 2050. If this carries on after that date at about 10 million per year or slightly rising, the one billion figure is reached by 2100. That’s a scenario or projection, not a forecast, because it depends on trends continuing and lots of assumptions about the future.
Nevertheless, this is what a few of the studies have concluded.
Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J,et al.Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors.BMJ2004;328:1519 [link]
The general statement that in many very different populations the future risk of death from persistent cigarette smoking will still be about one half is therefore a reasonable one, and the results thus far in a widening range of studies in other developed and developing country populations such as China and India seem consistent with it (as long as the prolonged delay between cause and the full effect is properly appreciated). If so, then on current worldwide smoking patterns (whereby about 30% of young adults become smokers) there will be about one billion tobacco deaths in this century, unless there is widespread cessation.
Jha P, Peto R. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N Engl J Med2014;370:60–8 [link] also view the [supplementary appendix]
On the basis of current smoking patterns, with a global average of about 50% of young men and 10% of young women becoming smokers and relatively few stopping, annual tobacco-attributable deaths will rise from about 5 million in 2010 to more than 10 million a few decades hence.
Jha P, Chaloupka FJ, Moore J, et al. Tobacco Addiction, Chapter 46 in Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd edition, 2006. [Link]
Cigarette smoking and other forms of tobacco use impose a large and growing global public health burden. Worldwide, tobacco use is estimated to kill about 5 million people annually, accounting for 1 in every 5 male deaths and 1 in 20 female deaths of those over age 30. On current smoking patterns, annual tobacco deaths will rise to 10 million by 2030. The 21st century is likely to see 1 billion tobacco deaths, most of them in low-income countries. In contrast, the 20th century saw 100 million tobacco deaths, most of them in Western countries and the former socialist economies.
Jha P. Avoidable global cancer deaths and total deaths from smoking. Nat Rev Cancer2009;9:655–64.[link]
On the basis of current consumption patterns, approximately 450 million adults will be killed by smoking between 2000 and 2050. At least half of these adults will die between 30 and 69 years of age, losing decades of productive life. Cancer and the total deaths due to smoking have fallen sharply in men in high-income countries but will rise globally unless current smokers, most of whom live in low- and middle-income countries, stop smoking before or during middle age.
And most recently, an in-depth analysis of smoking in China, looking at current mortality and the trend.
Chen Z, Peto R, Zhou M, et al. Contrasting male and female trends in tobacco-attributed mortality in China: evidence from successive nationwide prospective cohort studies. Lancet 2015;386:1447–56. [link]. Here you can see where large numbers in developing countries emerge. China now has about one-third of the world’s smokers and as this century progresses more of them will be dying from smoking.
Smoking will cause about 20% of all adult male deaths in China during the 2010s. The tobacco-attributed proportion is increasing in men, but low, and decreasing, in women. Although overall adult mortality rates are falling, as the adult population of China grows and the proportion of male deaths due to smoking increases, the annual number of deaths in China that are caused by tobacco will rise from about 1 million in 2010 to 2 million in 2030 and 3 million in 2050, unless there is widespread cessation.
Conclusion
Smoking over several decades does substantially raise the risk of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and of dying prematurely as a result. It is possible to put numbers on these deaths.
The global burden of disease is now rising rapidly as the effect of rising smoking and growing population in developing countries is working through to have its impact on population health.
It is a daunting task to estimate the historic or current global death toll attributable to smoking, and it requires many approximations, assumptions, and workarounds where data is poor or non-existent. However, statisticians do try to make cautious assumptions.
Projecting future death tolls depends on further unknown or unknowable quantities and, therefore, on further assumptions and approximations.
Most figures quoted for future deaths are scenarios or projections rather than forecasts and most assume current trends continue.
With all the caveats above, it is not unreasonable to say that, on current trends, about one billion lives will be ended prematurely by diseases caused by smoking in the 21st Century.
This one billion deaths figure, if it came to pass, would be a dire failure for public health. Its purpose is to identify policies that work and are acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness, intrusiveness, equity etc to alter these trends and to reduce the harm done.
If several hundred million people take up vaping instead of smoking, or switch from smoking to vaping mid-life, and if vapour (or equivalent) products start to obsolete cigarettes for many or most users, there is the potential to avoid hundreds of millions of unnecessary premature deaths. This should be a public health ambition and not something to fight against.
This strategy is promising because it goes with the grain of consumer preferences and does not require public spending, coercion or punitive and regressive measures – or the massive unintended consequences of prohibitions or excessive regulation.
This strategy does require public health and tobacco control practitioners to do the following: to stop misleading smokers about the risks of vaping; to stop pretending there are adverse population consequences – there is simply no sign or likelihood of adverse effects; and to stop campaigning for policies that protect the cigarette trade and implicitly promote smoking.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/69647621-cdc-admits-e-cigs-help-smokers-quit-and-has-data-to-prove-it2015-11-27T16:25:00-06:002021-09-23T10:18:15-05:00CDC Admits E-Cigs Help Smokers Quit and Has Data To Prove ItAdam Winfrey
A NEW STUDY FROM THE CDC SAYS ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL IN HELPING PEOPLE QUIT SMOKING. PHOTO:VAPING360.COM.
Sales of electronic cigarettes are slowing, but the Centers for Disease Control may have just done the industry a favor that could help reignite growth.
According to a recent survey of tobacco shops and convenience stores, the once meteoric expansion of alternative-smoking products is moderating, and may soon be stubbed out, particularly with the Food & Drug Administration poised to implement new rules that could cause virtually all products to be pulled from store shelves. But a new study by the CDC hints at the benefits the industry offers, and maybe what e-cigs need to light a fire under sales.
According to the National Public Health Institutes, few people other than smokers are using electronic cigarettes, and those who are using them are doing so to quit smoking tobacco. Because that's long been touted as a benefit of the products, it could be used to slow the juggernaut of regulation and control that's speeding ahead trying to stamp them out.
Although the CDC has long buried the positive effects of vaping, choosing instead to highlight only those points that further the anti-tobacco company agenda it's pushing, its latest study of adults who use electronic cigarettes found that, while 12.6% of Americans have tried an e-cig, only 3.4% of non-smokers have tried one. Moreover, just 0.4% of people who never smoked a combustible cigarette currently used an e-cig.
That belies the claim made that electronic cigarettes are something of a "gateway drug" to introduce people to smoking. In the same way that marijuana is supposedly a stepping stone to cocaine use on the way to heroin and meth addiction, e-cigs are reportedly an avenue traveled by Big Tobacco to get nonsmokers to start smoking tobacco. This study undercuts that theory, but more importantly, highlights the benefits that e-cigs provide.
Its biggest findings revolve around those who actually do partake in e-cigs:
47.6% of current smokers had tried e-cigs
55.4% of smokers who had quit had used e-cigs
What that shows is that people who smoke are using electronic cigarettes to try and quit. If healthcare advocates are really looking to cut down the incidence of smoking, they should be applauding the role e-cigs could play in achieving that.
According toWells Fargo, e-cig sales should hit $1.5 billion this year, with personal vapor products growing to an even larger $2 billion sales level. But where it was once thought that e-cig sales would become a $10 billion industry, and sales would surpass those of combustible cigarettes, a CSP-RBC Capital Markets tobacco survey indicates there may be more smoke than fire there as tobacco stores are seeing demand peter out. Wells Fargo reports year-over-year sales are down as pricing has been slashed, even as unit sales are up.
Much of the blame is laid on a lack of product innovation, which could be the result of the biggest cigarette companies wading into the market and buying up some of the e-cig industry's biggest players.
BREAKING THE CYCLE OF COMBUSTIBLE CIGARETTE USAGE MAY BE THE BIGGEST BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED FROM ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES AND PERSONAL VAPING SYSTEMS. PHOTO: VAPING360.COM.
Lorillard got the ball rolling several years ago with its acquisition of blu eCigs, which quickly jumped out front with a near-50% market share. But that has fallen to below 30% in recent periods as Reynolds-American(NYSE:RAI) and Altria(NYSE:MO) introduced their own brands. And when Reynolds bought Lorillard earlier this year, it sold off blu to British cigarette company Imperial Tobacco so that it could promote its own Vuse brand, which has quickly become the top-selling vapor product in convenience stores and gas stations.
But the so-called cigar-like boom may become a bust if it doesn't attract more people, which is why the CDC study is helpful. It points out that e-cigs are proving effective in helping smokers reduce their cigarette use, or quit altogether.
Several other studies back this up, including one from The American Association of Public Health Physicians, which concluded that e-cigarettes could "save the lives of 4 million of the 8 million current adult American smokers," while the influential journal The Lancet published another that indicated e-cigs were as effective as nicotine patches in helping smokers quit.
There are real costs associated with smoking, costs that can be ameliorated by the use of electronic cigarettes. By promoting the nicotine replacement-therapy products as a viable and effective alternative in reducing the incidence of smoking, the Centers for Disease Control may have unwittingly given the industry a big shot in the arm, and saved it from the anti-smoking lobby and itself.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/62622085-new-cdc-data-shows-e-cigs-actually-work-for-cessation2015-11-03T08:57:00-06:002021-09-23T10:19:37-05:00New CDC Data Shows E-Cigs Actually Work For CessationAdam WinfreyNovember 3, 2015 | Guy Bentley | Daily Caller
A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has blown a major hole in the case against e-cigarettes.
Many of the most vehement critics of e-cigarettes fear the devices could prove to be a gateway drug and will raise the risk of non-smoking vapers being lured into trying the real thing.
Critics also fear that we haven’t seen the long-term health effects of vaping and that regulators and lawmakers should take a stricter stance on taxing e-cigarettes and raising the age at which they can be bought.
But according to aCDC report released on Monday, public health activists have little reason to fear a rising tide of new smokers in wake of the vaping revolution. The report is the first of its kind with the first estimates of e-cigarette use among U.S. adults from a nationally representative household survey.
The CDC study shows that just 0.4 percent of people who had never smoked tobacco were current vapers, using the device either every day or some days. Among the adults who had never smoked cigarettes, a meager 3.4 percent had ever tried an e-cigarette. In total, 12.6 percent of Americans have tried an e-cigarette.
Percentages were significantly different across all smoking status groups SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Health Interview Survey, 2014.
Supporters of e-cigarettes received some good news with the figures showing that 47.6 percent of current smokers had tried vaping and 55.4 percent of smokers who had quit had used e-cigarettes.
A little over 20 percent of current smokers who had tried to give up in the last year were using e-cigarettes, according to the CDC. Just under four percent of Americans are classified as regular e-cigarette users.
The study follows data released by the CDC in April showing regular smoking continuing to fall among high school students while e-cigarette use was increasing, with 9.2 percent of students saying they smoked a cigarette in the last month – a fall of 3.5 percent from 2013. Over the same time period, students who reported using e-cigarettes jumped from 4.5 percent to 13.4 percent.
While there remains a significant degree of skepticism about e-cigarettes, not least from Senate Democrats who are urging tighter regulation, prominent anti-smoking groups have attempted to dispel the myths surrounding their use.
In August, Action on Smoking and Health released a study concluding there is no link between the surge in teens taking up e-cigarettes and then switching to regular cigarettes.
Published in the journal Public Health and conducted with polling company YouGov, the research showed teens are experimenting more with e-cigarettes. In 2013, four percent of U.K. 11-18 year-olds said they had tried e-cigarettes “once or twice,” with that figure rising to 10 percent in 2015. But According to ASH, “almost all of those reporting regular use were young people who had been or were current smokers.”
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/61914821-ecigarettes-and-vapor-to-become-a-major-election-issue-in-20162015-10-30T15:26:00-05:002021-09-23T10:22:15-05:00eCigarettes and Vapor To Become A Major Election Issue in 2016Adam Winfrey
Daryl Cura demonstrates an e-cigarette at Vape store in Chicago, Wednesday, April 23, 2014. The federal government wants to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors and require approval for new products and health warning labels under regulations being proposed by the Food and Drug Administration. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)
October 30th | Todd Robberson | The Dallas Morning News
I joined a pre-debate panel discussion Wednesday night in Irving sponsored by theInstitute for Policy Innovation. Also on the panel were Americans for Tax Reform founder Grover Norquist, State Sen. Van Taylor and State Rep. Matt Rinaldi. The panel, like the audience, was oozing with conservative values, and Ted Cruz campaign stickers were being passed out like Halloween candy.
Norquist, a national libertarian leader who has rallied Republicans behind his no-tax-increase pledge 219 House members and 49 Senators have taken the pledge), spoke first and focused his 15-minute talk on the major issues that are helping the GOP win local and state elections across the country. He talked about gun rights, unsurprisingly. He is on the board of the National Rifle Association.
But the big surprise was when he suggested that one big issue gaining a toehold ahead of the 2016 elections is … (drumroll, please) vaping. As in e-cigarettes. It turns out that the Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, are bound and determined to yank the e-cigarettes right from the lips of freedom-loving Americans in order to protect Big Tobacco and the government’s tax share from cigarette sales. Because that’s what Democrats do.
“The do-gooder movement was never about public health; it was always about money,” Norquist and colleague Paul Blair wrote in theNational Reviewthis month. “Since 1998, governments have collected more than $500 billion in cigarette taxes and payments from smokers. In 2013, Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) payments and taxes helped the government rake in nearly $44 billion. No such punitive tax regime exists for e-cigarettes. Each time a smoker picks up an e-cigarette in Michigan, the state loses $2, and the federal government loses $1.01 per pack; in Illinois, $1.98; and in New York, $4.35. It adds up quickly, and for big spenders in state capitols, that’s a problem.”
It turns out, according to Norquist, that there’s a big underground movement across America to oust Democrats from state legislatures — led by people who crouch in corners, occasionally puffing on those magical electronic sticks and exhaling a plume of vapor wherever freedom already hasn’t been garroted and choked to death by tax-addicted liberals.
Norquist said two elections in New Mexico already have been won by the pro-vaping/pro-freedom movement. I can’t find examples where anti-vaping incumbents were ousted by pro-vaping challengers, so we’ll just have to take Norquist’s word for it. New Mexico’s legislature did, however, pass a law earlier this yearbanning the sale of e-cigarettes and liquid nicotine containers to minors.
That and other measures have helped spawn a National Call to Action by aNew Mexico e-cigarettes forum, which warns that a Food and Drug Administration proposal is now on the desk of Office of Management and Budget, “and the table of contents leaked (see here), it is essential that all vapers take action to prevent 99% of all vapor products being taken off the market. This may be our last chance.”
Amazingly, this hot-button issue didn’t merit a single comment in Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate. I suspect that’s either because the mainstream GOP candidates are in the pocket of Big Tobacco and therefore don’t dare utter a word against the conspiracy to wipe out e-cigarettes. Or (more likely) it’s the lefty liberal news media, led by debate host CNBC, whose questioners deliberately didn’t ask about e-cigarettes because the socialist media just wants to focus on fantasy football gambling and stuff like that.
Well, my eyes are now open. And here I thought that the concern over e-cigarettes boiled down to the fact that they haven’t undergone rigorous health testingto ensure they’re safeand aren’t simply another cancer-delivery device that’ll wind up costing American taxpayers billions of dollars in healthcare costs, the way tobacco cigarettes did. I also thought the effort to limit minors’ access to e-cigarettes was designed to protect them from a far more efficient and addictive nicotine-delivery system that threatens to get them hooked faster than conventional cigarettes ever could.
Norquist’s concern is that this new effort at regulation is going to choke off a huge growth industry in which jobs are being created in the manufacture and export of vaping devices for sale in countries where demand is high for something to replace tobacco. I guess that would be the new areas in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan where ISIS and the Taliban havebanned conventional cigarettes.
“Thousands of good-paying jobs are being created by an industry that is probably going to save hundreds of thousands of lives. The only thing that can stop it is people claiming to be public-health advocates. These are people who pushed for tobacco taxes to discourage smoking and are now pushing for the same new taxes on products that achieve what they never could: getting people to quit. But their fraud has been exposed. They were never about public health; they were always about the money,” Norquist and Blair write.
Where once there was a fog of vapor and tobacco smoke, we now have electoral clarity.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/60984453-dot-bans-e-cigarettes-from-checked-baggage2015-10-27T11:43:00-05:002021-09-23T10:22:58-05:00DOT Bans E-Cigarettes From Checked BaggageAdam Winfrey
Travelers will no longer be permitted to carry battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices such as e-cigarettes in checked baggage on flights,the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announcedMonday.
The rule also prohibits passengers from charging such devices and their batteries aboard aircraft.
Passengers may, however, continue to carry e-cigarettes for personal use in carry-on baggage or in their pockets but may not use them on flights.
"We know from recent incidents that e-cigarettes in checked bags can catch fire during transport," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement. "Fire hazards in flight are particularly dangerous. Banning e-cigarettes from checked bags is a prudent safety measure."
The DOT cited two recent incidents in which e-cigarettes caused fires inside packed bags:
On August 9, 2014, at Boston’s Logan Airport, an e-cigarette in a passenger’s checked bag in the cargo hold of a passenger aircraft caused a fire that forced an evacuation of the aircraft. On January 4, 2015, at Los Angeles International Airport, a checked bag was found to be on fire in a baggage area. Emergency responders attributed the fire to an overheated e-cigarette.
The rule does not apply to other devices containing batteries for personal use, such as laptop computers, cell phones and cameras, the DOT said.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/60711813-for-the-sake-of-public-health-leave-vaping-alone2015-10-26T13:09:00-05:002021-09-23T10:25:11-05:00For The Sake Of Public Health, Leave Vaping AloneAdam Winfrey
10/25/2015 | Daniel Hall | Guide To Vaping
For the sake of public health, leave vaping alone. Words I have often said over the last couple of years, as we have been fighting on every level to keep the vaping industry alive in the face of the many entities who would like us to disappear. Over the last month or two, I have heard and seen these exact words across many publications and reports. Not from the vaping industry, but from those on the outside who are now beginning to understand the ramifications of the success of this new technology.
The Playing Field Is Changing
Less than a year ago, public perception was guided entirely by falsified scientific research and puppets who were being paid to tell untruths. While this behavior is still rampant, since the release of a report from Public Health England declaring “Vaping Is 95% less harmful than smoking”, it appears we have seen a slight shift in the way this industry is viewed. As Americans are cowering in corners, preparing for the hammer of the FDA to fall, local municipalities are banning the use of vaping equipment everywhere, but we appear to have voices of reason speaking out on our behalf.
The largest opponent base currently facing off against the vaping industry should arguably be our greatest allies in the fight against tobacco products. The anti-smoking coalitions should be standing shoulder to shoulder with former smokers who have broken free of the very things they have been fighting against for years. Do they stand against us because of misinformation or because their puritan attitudes will not be quelled until any form of nicotine use has been exterminated. Their outcry for many years has been that cigarettes posed a threat to public health, yet here we stand with a product that has been scientifically proven to eliminate almost all of their worries and has the potential to save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives. They are currently trying to destroy the very tool that has been created to accomplish their goal, and in all honesty, it feels as though they are hacking at the fire hose while their house is burning. Unfortunately for the vape haters, as quickly as one study comes out it is crushed by scientific fact. For every post made to vilify vaping, 30 already exist to counter its arguments. We have become very good at defending our cause but we are now getting help from the outside.
Who Is In Our Corner
While we have many vaping advocates, one who is quickly becoming well-known amongst vapers and our opponents originated well outside the box.
Clive Bates is currently the Director of The CounterFactual: public interest consulting and analytical advocacy. This man has never vaped, never smoked and was at one time the director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
Head of one of the most well-known public health campaigning organisations. The role included both domestic and international activity focused on tobacco marketing, product and packaging regulation, tax, smuggling, smoke-free places, treatment for addiction and harm reduction. I worked on development of the WHO’s first international treaty – the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Here we have a man who was at one time deep in the heart of the anti-smoking camp. To him, smoking was, and still is detrimental to public health. For a man who worked so hard to rid the world of cigarettes, to be working as hard as he does to bring vaping into a better light, our industry MUST be doing something right. Here we have someone who truly cares about the health of the public, not the well-being of corporations and politicians who have grown accustomed to bumper paydays. While others are looking for better ways to increase tax revenue on this new “dangerous addiction” he is looking for ways to put out the misinformation fires and get this disruptive technology into the hands of anyone who has ever picked up a cigarette.
This is just one of many proponents who are popping up to defend us. In all honesty, we currently need thousands more who are outside the industry to stand up and be counted.
His message is clear, in an article earlier this week titled:
He pretty much laid out the groundwork for how public health officials, and governments should approach the electronic nicotine device industry as it spreads around the world. The message is clear and simple, it pretty much starts by telling them they are all wrong.
Dear Public Health Grandees (you know who you are),
I consider myself a public health advocate and, though I’m not a vaper and have never smoked, I support vaping as a tobacco harm reduction strategy, with enormous potential to reduce death and disease globally. It’s a good approach for public health as it doesn’t require prohibitions, coercion, punitive taxes or rely on fear and it goes with the grain of behavior and what people want. I thought it might help you if I explained what I have learned about vaping and vapers, and why your relationship with them is so poor.
After briefly explaining what vapers are doing he makes a very simple yet effective statement (which he can factually back up).
Vapers think you don’t understand their model – and you don’t care what the evidence says. You have shown no sign of understanding how this works – and keep seeing it as a tobacco industry plot (they were late to the party) or some sort of rogue medical product. Neither is true. But vapers rightly suspect you are careless with the truth: most public health organisations united to support a ban on snus in the European Union in 1992, again in 2001, and once again in the 2014 Tobacco Products Directive. This is despite indisputable evidence that snus, a very low risk way of taking recreational nicotine, has been highly positive for public health where it is permitted and used in Scandinavia – displacing smoking, diverting smoking onset, and supporting user-driven quitting. There is no scientific, ethical or legal case for banning it – but you supported it anyway. This is the same public health model as vaping, so it is no wonder they don’t trust you. Until you face up to the lethal error you have made on snus, you have not earned the right to a hearing on vaping. To the extent that smokers believe what you say, you are likely to be protecting cigarette sales by creating unfounded fear about a much safer alternative and causing damage to health that would otherwise be avoidable.
I encourage you to read the entire article for yourselves, but I will share one more excerpt here:
The real public is not like the bland smiley types you see in NRT adverts or the dumb animations of Change-4-Life. Public health is a gritty business, not about the provision of happy-clappy advice to a peasantry grateful for your wisdom and awed by your status. If that is how you think, you’re in the wrong job.
This man will stand toe to toe with the heads of nations and we should be prepared to do the same. He has no dog in this fight but is more than happy to put the needs of the many before the pockets of the few and as vapers, we should be ashamed we aren’t already by his side. We are an industry, we are a community and we have in our hands the tools that the anti-smoking zealots have been dreaming of for years. It is now our task to convince them that if they want to achieve their goal, they will have to help us achieve ours.
As always, enjoy your vaporizer and vape safe!
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/56359045-senseless-attacks-on-e-cigs-new-e-liquid-laws-in-indiana2015-10-05T09:36:00-05:002015-10-05T09:37:00-05:00Senseless Attacks on E-Cigs - New E-Liquid Laws in IndianaAdam Winfrey10/5/15 | Michael D. Shaw | HealthNewsDigest.com
This column has already documented officialdom's unrelenting war on e-cigarettes. In fact, those articles were some of the best-read I have ever posted, so I guess we touched a nerve. The insidious tag team--comprised of Big Tobacco and the supposed public health interest groups against smoking--is perfectly evocative of the Bootleggers and Baptists phenomenon, originally described by economist Bruce Yandle.
This latest attack comes in the form of certain Indiana laws, passed this year. Specifically, we refer to Indiana House Enrolled Act 1432 (regulates e-liquids); and Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 463 (regulates the sales of e-cigarettes, treating them as tobacco products). Among other problems, these laws focus only on so-called "open system" vaporizers, while completely exempting the "closed system" variety.
A closed system e-cig consists of a battery and either cartomizer (cartridge and atomizer combined into one piece); or cartridge and atomizer, provided together in a single unit. This type of e-cig can be either disposable or rechargeable.
Open system vaporizers consist of interchangeable batteries, atomizers, tanks, or cartomizers. Some users remove the cartridge, and employ clearomizers (essentially a clear cartomizer) or tanks. What makes these products "open system" is that they afford vapers a good deal more flexibility in how they can be utilized. They can use a vast range of different e-liquids; they can use a variety of battery types, including variable voltage; and they can take advantage of many types of tanks or clearomizers.
Not surprisingly, the open system devices are becoming more popular. While some e-cig users prefer the older closed systems because they are simpler, the real opponent of the open systems is Big Tobacco, which sells only the closed system devices. By an odd coincidence, the closed system units are not nearly as efficient in accomplishing total tobacco replacement.
The Indiana laws impose burdensome regulations, but only on the open systems, and target the e-liquids specifically. This is curious since the open and closed devices are virtually identical in both their chemical composition and functionality. The regulations have been described as imposing casino security and Big Pharma manufacturing standards on the production of e-liquids. To what end?
Apparently, proponents of the laws invoked the notion of "adulteration," whereby the e-liquid can be contaminated owing to poor manufacturing processes; or more commonly, doctored to contain controlled substances. Superficially, such adulteration is easier in an open system, although it can also be accomplished in a closed system.
Bear in mind that whatever adulteration might occur is virtually always done by the vaper himself. More than that, why would any legit e-liquid supplier risk his business by purposely adding a controlled substance to his product? Sadly, though, any appeal to health--especially the health of children--no matter how dubious is usually enough to line up the support of feckless legislators.
It probably didn't hurt that Big Tobacco and interests that would directly benefit from the law lobbied heavily in favor of it. One of the more over-the-top appeals was a "poignant" video featuring a child being harmed by some sort of e-liquid, which was later discovered to have been purchased at a flea market--not any kind of legit supplier.
Suffice to say that strange politics were definitely involved in this matter, including an Indiana casino magnate who now wants to enter the e-cig business, via a crony capitalism monopoly. Litigation challenging the laws is underway, with a second action on the horizon. Should the laws stand, e-liquids will be hard to come by in Indiana, and a black market will surely flourish, not to mention the proliferation of less-than-ideally produced liquids, or the increased sales of cigarettes.
That virtually all health-related NGOs, as well as most relevant government agencies are lined up against e-cigarettes should tell you all you need to know about the sorry state of public health policy. I promise you that it goes far beyond e-cigs.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/50200261-new-cdc-data-shows-smoking-continues-to-fall-as-vaping-increases2015-09-02T13:22:00-05:002021-09-23T10:27:29-05:00New CDC Data Shows Smoking Continues to Fall as Vaping IncreasesAdam Winfrey
September 1, 2015 | Gregory Conley | American Vaping Association
.
Is the slow death of the combustible cigarette accelerating?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Vaping Association, a leading advocate for the benefits of vapor products such as electronic cigarettes, is calling attention tonew survey dataon adult smoking from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) released today by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). The report finds that smoking by adults declined to a historic low of 15.2% in the first quarter of 2015 (down from 16.8% in 2014 and 19.4% in 2010).
“This is great news that is worthy of celebration. Public health benefits every time a smoker quits,” said Gregory Conley, President of the American Vaping Association. “If this decline continues, we stand a chance of actually attaining a 12% smoking rate by 2020,” added Conley, referring to the CDC’sHealthy People 2020 goalfor smoking by adults in the year 2020.
.
“It is undeniable that vaping has played a significant role in promoting cessation among adult smokers,” said Conley. “It is time for activists to stop making nonsense claims that vaping is somehow leading to more smoking by adults or teens.”
.
Aprior analysisof the 2014 NHIS data by University of Louisville Professor Dr. Brad Rodu found that nearly 2 million former smokers reported vaping during the prior month, with 1.25 million of them being daily users. While it is not possible to prove how many of these ex-smokers used vaping to quit smoking, it’s notable that 85% of the 2 million former smokers using e-cigarettes reported quitting in the prior five years (i.e., during the time period e-cigarettes have been available).
GRAPH:
As illustrated below, year-to-year declines in adult smoking are not always a sure thing.
.
.
After experiencing strong declines from 1997 to 2004 (24.7% to 20.9%), adult smoking rates entered a period of stagnation from 2005 to 2009. In 2010, the first sign of a new period of decline emerged, as smoking dropped to 19.4% (from 20.6% in 2009). Since then, smoking has fallen to 16.8% in 2014 and 15.2% in the first quarter of 2015. For year-to-year smoking data, seepage 56of the new report.
You can learn more about AVA and vaping by visiting the AVA website. You can also find us on Facebook and Twitter.
About the American Vaping Association: The American Vaping Association is a nonprofit organization that advocates for all small- and medium-sized businesses in the rapidly growing vaping and electronic cigarette industry. We are dedicated to educating the public and government officials about public health benefits offered by vapor products, which are battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine or nicotine-free solution and create an inhalable vapor.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/48529861-despite-evidence-fda-targets-e-cigarettes-with-proposed-regulations2015-08-24T14:32:00-05:002021-09-23T10:29:25-05:00Despite Evidence, FDA Targets E-Cigarettes With Proposed RegulationsAdam Winfrey
Despite evidence that electronic cigarettes are both safer for users than tobacco and also help smokers kick the habit, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has launched a campaign against them. According to FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Ostroff, the FDA is looking to enact a “deeming rule” that would expand the agency’s regulation of tobacco to include e-cigarettes, which do not use tobacco. Critics contend that such an illogical decision underscores that the FDA is at thebehest of lobbyiststhat benefit financially from tobacco and nicotine addiction.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its proposal earlier this year for new rules on e-cigarettes, including reviewing new e-cig products before they are sold and outlawing sales of the e-cig devices to minors, as well as requiring health warning labels on the products. The public comment period for the proposed rulemaking ends on August 31.
The FDA has defended its proposal by asserting that e-cigarettes have not been properly studied, leaving consumers unaware of potential health effects related to their usage. (If only the government were so concerned about the lack of long-term studies on the genetically modified organisms it has approved for American consumption.)
The FDA’s stance on e-cigarettes got a boost of support from the Centers for Disease Control, which resorted to outright lies about e-cigarettes to convince users that they are no better than actual cigarettes. In May the CDC issued a statement, which read, “If you only cut down the number of cigarettes you smoke by adding another tobacco product, like e-cigarettes, you still face serious health risks. Smokers must quit smoking completely to fully protect their health — even a few cigarettes a day are dangerous.” (Emphasis added.) As previously mentioned, e-cigarettes are non-tobacco products.
Contrary to assertions by the CDC and the FDA, however, California Polytechnic State University professor of economics Michael Marlow asserts that e-cigarettes should be left alone, as they are valuable tools in helping smokers quit smoking. “If e-cigarettes help smokers reduce consumption of more harmful tobacco or maybe even allow them to quit cigarettes, even if e-cigarettes themselves are somewhat harmful, it still would be an overall reduction of harm,” Marlow states.
In fact, evidence shows that e-cigarettes have been the most successful tool to help smokers quit smoking. “E-cigarettes have become the greatest source of ‘creative destruction’ that we’ve seen against the tobacco industry,” Marlow claims, which may be the motivation behind the decision to regulate them. “Unfortunately, maybe it’s also a source of creative destruction for those who make a living out of tobacco control,” Marlow observed.
According to theTobacco Control Journal, the nicotine replacement therapies that have been approved by the FDA, such as nicotine gum, have no better success rates than quitting cold turkey.
Some view the FDA’s proposed regulations against e-cigarettes as an attempt to keep competitive products off the market, as the pharmaceutical companies behind those nicotine replacement therapies benefit from smokers’ inability to quit.
Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical and executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, opines, “Some of the groups advocating for this anti-science, anti-public health charade … are influenced by undisclosed but generous financial support from the pharmaceutical industry, which is devoted to keeping effective competition to its poorly performing nicotine replacement therapy patches, gums, and drugs off the market.”
TheNew York Timeshas reported that GlaxoSmithKline, which sells Nicorette gum, and Johnson & Johnson, which manufactures nicotine patches, have helped lead a “strong opposition” against e-cigarettes. What’s more, the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products, which headed the regulation of e-cigarettes, is led by former lobbyist Mitch Zeller, whose consulting clients included GlaxoSmithKline.
TheWashington Examinerwrites on the power of pharmaceutical lobbying in Washington:
No industry spends more on lobbying in the U.S. than the drug industry, and drugmakers' agendas are often the bigger government. Without the efforts of the drug lobby, for instance, Obamacare probably would have died in the summer of 2009. President George W. Bush’s single biggest expansion of government was creating the Medicare prescription drug benefit — at the behest of the drugmakers.
“The alarmist concerns raised by the drug companies are understandable,” Dr. Ross told theWashington Examiner, “because they’re rent-seeking [a term that refers to seeking profit through public policy].”
And while the drug companies profit off the sale of their ineffective smoking remedies, is it too cynical to note that the federal government makes a substantial amount of money off smokers’ inability to quit?
In 2008, theNew York Timesreported that the federal government collected nearly $7 billion annually in cigarette excise taxes. In 2010, the number was as high as $15.5 billion, wrote the Daily Caller.
TheNY Timesarticle went on to explain how else the federal government profits from cigarette smoking:
But taxes are not the only government revenue from cigarettes. Settlements in the late 1990s to end state lawsuits against tobacco companies mean that the cigarette industry is paying states nearly $250 billion over 25 years. Under the agreement, those payments to states will continue flowing even beyond 25 years as long as the tobacco industry is healthy. But the payments would phase out as cigarette company profits decline and would ultimately disappear if people stop smoking.
So the government has become a financial stakeholder in smoking, some would argue, even as public health officials warn people about its deadly consequences. Smoking declines as cigarette taxes increase, but a core group of smokers hangs on to the habit.
Stephanie Saul, who wrote theTimesarticle, was compelled to ask, “Would politicians shut down an industry that supplies so much money?”
In other words, who else stands to lose from the impact that e-cigarettes can have on the tobacco industry?
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, health officials are touting the benefits of e-cigarettes. This week, Public Health England has announced that vaping is safer than smoking and could lead to the destruction of the traditional cigarette.
The Guardianreports, “The health body concluded that on ‘the best estimate so far, e-cigarettes are about 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes and could one day be dispensed as a licensed medicine in an alternative to anti-smoking products such as patches.”
A 111-pageexpert independent evidence review found "no evidence so far that e-cigarettes are acting as a route into smoking for children or non-smokers," a finding that directly contradicts astudy by the University of California that found that adolescents who used the devices were more likely to smoke cigarettes.
"My reading of the evidence is that smokers who switch to vaping remove almost all the risks smoking poses to their health," said Professor Peter Hajek of Queen Mary University, who co-authored the report with Professor Ann McNeill of King's College London.
Maybe the FDA has not yet gotten the memo.
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/47993157-public-health-england-declares-e-cigarettes-a-game-changer2015-08-21T13:43:00-05:002021-09-23T10:35:18-05:00Public Health England Declares E-Cigarettes A Game ChangerAdam Winfrey
August 19, 2015 | MSN Health & Fitness
It's official. E-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than smoking and could be available on the NHS according to a comprehensive review by Public Health England (PHE). The PHE review describes smoking cessation using e-cigarettes as a potential "game-changer" that could save 4,000 lives a year. E-cigarettes are to be licensed as a medicine in the UK next year, so it's likely that doctors and stop smoking services will be able to begin prescribing them from 2016.
An estimated 2.6 million people in the UK now use e-cigarettes, according to the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) – and that figure appears to be growing all the time. One of the reasons for this rise in popularity is that the devices are becoming more widely available. Last year, Boots bowed to customer demand and began selling Puritane e-cigarettes to over 18s, while Superdrug and Lloyds Pharmacy already stock the marking-leading brand Nicolites, as well as Vype - and you can even snap up leccy ciggies at your local Tesco.
But not everyone is convinced. The British Medical Association (BMA) has expressed concerns over the safety of e-cigarettes, and although the PHE review didn't find any evidence that e-cigarettes give children a gateway into smoking, the UK government has passed legislation to make it illegal for anyone under 18 to buy e-cigarettes. The ban will come into effect in October. Tighter restrictions on e-cigarettes will come into force next year when they become licensed as a medicine, and the Labour-controlled Welsh government is pushing ahead with a ban on using e-cigarettes in enclosed spaces, despite objections from the Conservative opposition.
A significant number of shops, pubs and restaurants – including McDonald's and Wetherspoon's – have banned the devices from their premises, and several rail companies have followed suit, outlawing e-cigarette smoking on trains and in stations. According to a 2014 YouGov survey, a majority of Brits (52%) think that advertising for e-cigarettes should be banned, while a poll conducted by ITV found that 33% of people believe it is socially unacceptable to use an e-cigarette in public, and 52% reckon it sets a bad example.
What exactly are e-cigarettes?
E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices, usually designed to look like ordinary cigarettes. Their purpose? To simulate the experience of smoking, without many of the harmful effects. The key difference is that they deliver nicotine vapour instead of tobacco smoke. It's the toxins in tobacco smoke that cause many of the health issues associated with smoking.
Each e-cigarette is made up of three components: a battery, an atomizer, and a replaceable cartridge containing nicotine suspended in propylene glycol or glycerine and water. Levels of nicotine may vary. Some brands also contain flavorings. When the user sucks on the e-cigarette, the liquid in the cartridge heats up, which causes some of it to evaporate. This vapour then delivers a hit of nicotine to the lungs.
To make them appear more authentic, some e-cigarettes also feature light at the end, which glows whenever the vapour is inhaled.
Are the chemicals safe?
While experts agree that electronic cigarettes are an infinitely safer option than regular cigarettes, the jury's still out on the extent of any potential threat they pose to public health.
Could the chemicals used cause any problems, for example? Not according to ASH. A recent briefing from the charity concludes: “There is little evidence of harmful effects from repeated exposure to propylene glycol, the chemical in which nicotine is suspended. One study concludes that e-cigarettes have a low toxicity profile, are well tolerated, and are associated with only mild adverse effects.”
And what about that smoke-like vapour? Research suggests it could cause exceptionally mild irritation to the throat – but beyond that, it is thought to cause no harm whatsoever. However, the BMA is more cautious. "While e-cigarettes have the potential to support tobacco harm reduction, any benefits or disadvantages to public health are not yet well established," says BMA Board of Science deputy chair Ram Moorthy. "This reflects the lack of conclusive evidence of their effectiveness as a smoking cessation aid, concerns regarding the variability of the components of e-cigarette vapour, and the absence of a significant health benefit associated with dual use of e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes."
How much do we really know?
Given e-cigarettes are a relatively recent invention, we still don't know what the long-term implications of their usage may be. And it's also important to remember that ingredients vary from brand to brand. For example, there are currently no rules in place surrounding the purity of the nicotine used. Until regulation comes into effect in 2016, this issue won't officially be addressed.
Speaking about the proposed under 18s ban, England's chief medical officer Professor Dame Sally Davies said: “We do not yet know the harm that e-cigarettes can cause to adults, let alone to children, but we do know they are not risk-free. They can produce toxic chemicals and the amount of nicotine and other chemical constituents and contaminants, including vaporized flavorings, varies between products – meaning they could be extremely damaging to young people's health.”
What's more, many critics argue that, far from encouraging smokers to kick the habit, e-cigarettes are helping to 're-normalize smoking. This is essentially the reasoning behind the proposed Welsh ban in enclosed spaces. If it again becomes commonplace to see people in public buildings brandishing cigarette-like devices with 'smoke' apparently coming out of them, will others feel less self-conscious about lighting up for real?
Alison Cox, Cancer Research UK’s head of tobacco policy, says: “Tobacco cigarettes cause one in four cancer deaths. Hundreds of children start smoking every day and we don’t want the marketing of e-cigarettes to confuse the message that smoking kills. We aren’t opposed to e-cigarettes being marketed to adult smokers – and hope that the marketing effort encourages many smokers to give up.”
Can they help you quit?
In the UK, e-cigarettes are mainly marketed as an aid to quit smoking. In this case, their use is only temporary. The theory – as with all forms of nicotine replacement therapy – is that your cravings for nicotine are satisfied without your body being exposed to the other toxins found in tobacco. The dose is gradually reduced until you've stopped completely.
A key potential benefit of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid is that they satisfy the 'hand to mouth' habit while people are in the process of giving up. One New Zealand study found that users experienced reduced cravings, withdrawal symptoms and smoked fewer regular cigarettes a day when given a placebo e-cigarette.
In fact, a study conducted last year by researchers at University College London found that e-cigarettes are more effective than nicotine patches and gum in helping people quit.
However, research suggests that some regular smokers simply use e-cigarettes as an alternative to smoking in places where cigarettes are banned. These people have become known as 'dual users': they've got no intention of giving up, but e-cigarettes provide a fall-back option when tobacco isn't allowed. Even so, you could argue that by using an e-cigarette indoors – rather than going outside to smoke normally – these people are still benefiting their health by cutting down, albeit unwittingly.
So how widely used are e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking? A 2014 survey by ASH found that 52% of ex-smokers had used the devices to help them quit, up from just 9% in 2010.
Ultimately, it seems e-cigarettes can offer a less harmful option for smokers who want to give up or cut down, and both the products themselves and the way in which they are marketed need to be tightly controlled.
For more information and advice on giving up smoking, visitNHS Smokefree
]]>
https://www.bigdvapor.net/blogs/news/46765765-royal-society-for-public-health-rsph-promote-e-cigs-over-smoking2015-08-14T17:07:00-05:002015-08-14T17:10:01-05:00Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) Promote E-Cigs Over SmokingAdam Winfrey
August 12 | James Meikle | The Guardian UK
Health chiefs across the UK have been urged to take a less negative attitude towards e-cigarettes and embrace their use in the battle against more harmful tobacco smoking. The Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) says a public education programme is needed to differentiate the problem of addiction to nicotine, which is an ingredient in both e-cigarettes and tobacco, from the inhaling of dangerous chemicals such as tar and arsenic in tobacco cigarettes.
NHS stop smoking services should offer more help to people seeking to end their habit by using e-cigarettes, the society says, calling also for new “exclusion zones” barring smoking, but not e-cigarettes, outside schools, bars and pubs and in public squares and parks.
Smoking cessation services are unable to provide e-cigarettes to people trying to quit tobacco because none yet have a medicines licence, unlike other nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), such as gum, lozenges and patches. But the RSPH says more services should follow the example of those in Leicester and north-east England in offering behavioural support to those wanting to quit tobacco and using e-cigarettes to try to do so.
Chief executive Shirley Cramer said: “Over 100,000 people die from smoking-related disease every year in the UK. While we have made good progress to reduce smoking rates, one in five of us still does [smoke]. Most people smoke through habit and to get their nicotine hit.”
The RSPH would rather people didn’t smoke, said Cramer, but getting people on to nicotine rather than using tobacco would make “a big difference” to the public’s health.
“Clearly there are issues in terms of having smokers addicted to nicotine, but this would move us on from having a serious and costly public health issue from smoking-related disease to instead addressing the issue of addiction to a substance which, in and of itself, is not too dissimilar to caffeine addiction.”
The society, which commissioned an online survey of 2,072 adults from polling company Populus earlier this month, said it was concerned to find that nine in 10 still regarded nicotine itself as harmful. It was more encouraged by indications that half those surveyed would be more likely to use areas outside bars and restaurants if there were tobacco exclusion zones and by support for other parts of its package.
The RSPH advocates licensing all tobacco sellers so that local authorities can ban sales by any shops that fail to obey legislation such as age restrictions and display bans. It calls too for the mandatory sale of NRTs in shops selling tobacco, and repeats a call first made last year to rename e-cigarettes nicotine sticks, vapourisers or nicotine control products.
Advertisement
The package put forward by the charity – which includes more than 6,000 public health professionals in its ranks – would, if widely adopted by the government and other authorities, represent the biggest shift in attitudes towards e-cigarettes in the decade since they came on to the UK market.
An estimated 2.6m people now use e-cigarettes, which have experienced such a surge in popularity that more than one in seven tobacco smokers are now thought to use them. But official and medical attitudes towards both some forms of tobacco control and e-cigarettes vary considerably across the UK and there are already signs of alarm that putting nicotine addiction on a near-par with that for caffeine might undermine the wider no-smoking message.
Public Health England, a government body, has commissioned a review of evidence on e-cigarette safety and the behaviour of both tobacco and e-cigarette users by academics at King’s College, London and Queen Mary University, London. It is expected to be published within months.
Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has shown no interest in the capital following New York in banning smoking in many open public places, although a voluntary ban has been tried in two public squares in Bristol and is being evaluated. Brighton and Hove council, which already has voluntary bans in its children’s play areas, is considering extending the measure to beaches and other open spaces.
Meanwhile, the Welsh government is preparing to extend the current ban on tobacco smoking in enclosed public places to e-cigarettes too, believing it will help prevent e-cigarettes “re-normalising” smoking. Yet legislation soon to take effect in both England and Wales will ban smoking of tobacco, but not e-cigarettes, in cars carrying under-18s.
Advertisement
The Department of Health in England said:“The best thing a smoker can do for their health is to quit completely. However, for those not ready to quit, evidence shows using e-cigarettes, in the short term, poses a lower risk to health than smoking.”
It added: “We are regulating these products to make sure they are even safer and want to see local stop-smoking services welcoming smokers wishing to use e-cigarettes to support their quit attempts. Although we recognise that e-cigarettes may help adults to quit, we still want to protect children from becoming addicted to nicotine, which is why we have made it illegal for under-18s to buy them.” There were no proposals in the pipeline to introduce any further smoke-free legislation.
Hazel Cheeseman, director of policy at health charity Ash, was more positive about the RSPH package. “Scientists have known for many years that it’s the smoke in cigarettes that’s deadly, not the nicotine. Unfortunately, this is not well understood by smokers, medical professionals or the media, many of whom still think nicotine causes heart disease and cancer,” she said. “The persistence of this misconception will cost lives as smokers who otherwise would switch to alternative sources of nicotine are put off. The time for this misunderstanding to be put right is long overdue.”
The Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association (Ecita) welcomed recognition that e-cigarettes “have an important role to play in reducing the harm associated with smoking combustible cigarettes”. They were “first, and foremost, a low-risk alternative to lit tobacco, and studies show that users can become smoke-free when using these products,” it said.
“It is unfortunate that so much misinformation has been disseminated about electronic cigarettes in the last few years. This has contributed significantly toward a growing fear and confusion surrounding these products.”
Pro-tobacco group Forest supported proposals that would make it easier for smokers to use e-cigarettes, but director Simon Clark said renaming e-cigarettes was a “silly” idea. “It ignores the fact that e-cigs are popular because they mimic the act of smoking. The name is part of their appeal.
“Calling them nicotine sticks or vapourisers suggests a medicinal product, and that misses the point. For many consumers, e-cigarettes are a recreational product. If public health lobbyists don’t understand that, they could sabotage a potentially game-changing device.”