7 Things E-cig Policy Makers Need To Know

Pharma Vaporizer Brings Big Billionaire Names

Gates and Bloomberg
"Donating money to anti-vaping efforts while simultaneously investing in a pharmaceutical grade smoking cessation “vaporizer” that is completely in its own category – Pharma – could appear suspicious. Hale won’t need PMTA approval, because it will not be a tobacco product, but will require FDA approval as a drug."


As e-cigarettes come under fire, Hava Health readies a vape pen to help people quit smoking

By contrast, Hava Health is pitching a smoking cessation tool. “We have a patented design,” says Israel. “What we do is we separate nicotine from the other compounds. We reduce the nicotine as we leave the other oils the same. Over time we reduce the nicotine and increase the clean oils and we get them to zero percent.”

Reduce nicotine percentage downward. Umm, I think we've been doing that already with open system vaping. I bet it won't be as cheap as my diy.

Smdh  

If you’re from the United States or probably any Western country, you will know how quickly our culture can go from one extreme position to the next on just about any issue. Around 25-30 years ago, nicotine went somewhat suddenly from being a socially acceptable vice that could be done in nearly every public place by almost anyone to a highly stigmatized addiction that turned millions of smokers into second-class citizens. Unfortunately, since the most common delivery of nicotine had been through traditional cigarettes that have been lethal for so many people including both my grandfathers, the stigma behind nicotine has persisted into the era of vaping. And it doesn’t help that the practice “looks like” smoking.

However, in and of itself nicotine is not dangerous. It occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables, and does not cause lung cancer. It’s a drug, just like any substance or activity that releases dopamine in the brain. I’m personally much more concerned about the consumption of highly-caffeinated, high-sugar drinks, which are not age restricted, “flavor” restricted, and aren’t taxed to death. I’m also much more concerned about the proliferation of flavored beer and spirits in the last couple decades, which have minimal restriction on advertising and haven’t been scrutinized by the FDA to any degree comparable to JUUL or the e-cigarette industry in general. And while those substances can be very addictive, they are often encouraged in social settings, can be “enjoyed in moderation”, and aren’t considered an epidemic. Without getting too political, I’m entirely convinced that progressives would rather have 400,000 smokers continue to die each year because they didn’t switch to vaping than a new generation take up a significantly less harmful habit.  

The news of a looming flavor ban is sickening! As an adult former smoker who used ecigs to liberate myself from cigarettes, I am appalled!

It is not my fault that kids are vaping flavors and nicotine intended for adults.
It is not my fault that people are vaping dangerous chemicals in THC mixes.
It is not my fault that people who lack knowledge about vaping consider it on par with smoking.

Parents need to own up to monitoring their own kids! These teens would be smoking cigarettes if they weren't vaping- just as they were doing before vaping came along. Teen smoking numbers are down because of vaping. It is this teenage generation's alternative to cigarettes. This should be part of our national conjecture on the topic!!!

We (legitimate adult users of vaping supplies) need to stand up for ourselves!!! There are millions of us.

Let us be heard!

We need to stand together and protest around our country on the same days/times to have our voices heard.

I say we all go to our local city halls and/or right outside of our workplaces near smoking areas on the same day/time with signs of protest to demand that our opinions be heard.

I also say that we compile lists of pro-vaping and anti-vaping elected representatives so that we may be able to vote our haters out of office!!!  

hey guys.
as we all know the vaping industry hits on some interesting topics in harm reduction. we are seeing the reality of regulation more and more these days and with that comes a whole new wave of statistics and reasons for and against advocacy of this industry. one thing that i have noticed is that while addressing various concerns as vaping gains popularity is the subject of where minors lie. anticipating regulation it became important to not grant minors access to this technology. more and more often an article will come out admitting the advantages of vaping and the benefits of placing some restrictions on vaping that are consistent with tobacco regulations. these articles admit that as popularity of vaping rises that the number of adolescent smokers is also decreasing, but adolescents who have tried vaping rises.
to me this isn't that bad? i don't believe that nicotine liquid should be available to minors. if a teen is thinking about picking up a disposable nicotine free e-cig, isn't that just one less teen trying to get a cigarette? if anything i believe that it is definitely preferable that this technology be available to a minor that is seriously considering smoking. again, e-cigs are proving to be beneficial to asthmatic users. does no one remember the e-cigs that were produced to sate appetites for sweets and touted as a weight loss aid?
i am seeing this ammendment being made in otherwise positive articles about vaping. it takes me right back to being 16 when i accompanied a younger friend trying to buy nicorette so he could quit smoking. after a very short conversation with the pharmacist he refused to sell the gum to my friend. his response is that he could just get his mom to buy the quit smoking aid like she bought his cigarettes.
i know it is a slippery slope and i would definitely not freely offer nicotine free e-cigs to minors, but isn't the decline in teen smoking worth it?  

I was pretty upset with the wired article and wrote a lengthy response for my blog. Thought I'd share.

[h=2]Wired: http://www. wired. com/2015/04/war-vapings-health-risks-getting-dirty/"

The War Over Vaping’s Health Risks Is Getting Dirty“ - My Response to this Misleading Article[/h]I was really bothered by how misleading this article was, so I’m gonna break it down.

Before I begin, a clarification: There are many issues regarding ecig or “vaporizer” usage, and on many of them, there’s no disagreement between anti-vapers and pro-vapers. For instance, both groups do not want children getting ecigs. However, many people - like in this wired article - muddle a bunch of the issues together, so I’ll be teasing them apart.

For nicotine enthusiasts, 2015 will be remembered as part of a golden era. Less than 10 years after they were introduced in the United States, e-cigarettes have gone relatively unregulated by health agencies, with companies and users making their own rules in a nicotine-laced Wild West. E-cigarette companies have been advertising their products to adults and children alike, claiming to help smokers quit while simultaneously promoting lollipop-flavored liquids…
Reminiscent of glamorous smoking ads of the last century, many of the ads feature celebrity endorsements; in a Blu ad, Jenny McCarthy flirts with the camera while rejoicing that she can now smoke without scaring guys away with her smell. And many of them seem shockingly child-centric…
​
1. Advertising to adults: This is a legitimate question. Personally, I’m leaning toward lighter regulations for ecig ads bc numerous studies have shown they are much safer than cigarettes (American Heart Association, x, x, x, x, x ) and can act as an effecting smoking cessation aid, though they are not yet approved for that purpose (American Heart Association, x, x ). But again, a legitimate question.

2. Advertising to kids: No-one wants that. Furthermore, no-one has done that! When critics like the author of the wired article allege that is happening, they almost always are referring to the non-tobacco flavors offered. However, the reason sweet, fruity, and candy flavors are offered is because they are extremely popular amongst adult vapers (x, x). Saying they’re marketed to children is like saying sweet alcoholic drinks are marketed for children because all adults would obviously prefer bourbon. It’s ludicrous. Adults like sweet flavors too.
2b. On a related note: Some have been concerned that ecigs may increase teen use of cigarettes, but the evidence thus far says otherwise. (x, x).

…Last week, the California Department of Public Health launched a anti-vaping campaign called Still Blowing Smoke. And in January, the San Francisco Department of Health launched #CurbIt, pointing out the dangers of e-cigs and their brazen plays to hook kids while warning residents that vaping is only allowed in the same places as smoking.
There’s plenty of evidence behind the campaigns’ claims—studies that link e-cigs to asthma, lung inflammation, MRSA infection risk and exposure to harmful chemicals. But with scant data on the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes and their usefulness as a quitting tool, the ads use a number of classic psychological strategies to help beat back the ire of pro-vapers…
​
3. The Still Blowing Smoke ads were themselves blowing smoke. I’d like to discuss three of their main tv ads.
3a. One suggested that ecigs are marketed for kids bc of the flavors, as discussed above.
3b. Another suggested (or rather, alleges) that vaping is a “Big Tobacco” conspiracy! While it’s true that Big Tobacco has bought in to some ecig production, the vast majority of vape businesses are small businesses, such as the brick-and-mortar “vape shops” that are emerging. Perhaps more importantly, this is guilt by association. If Big Tobacco owned Chantix, a popular smoking cessation aid, would that automatically mean it’s evil? And unlike the vast, vast majority of small vape businesses, Big Tobacco has an incentive to make cigs fail: Users are more likely to continue smoking! (Not to mention the very impressive revenue that states gain from tobacco sales, which vaping threatens. x, x)
3c. Finally, they aired a commercial with a small toddler reaching for a vape, presenting that as a risk. Which it is, of course - just like with any other chemical left around the house, be it alcohol, cleaning supplies, or whatever! That isn’t a vaping issue; it’s a parenting issue.
More info on those ads here.
4. The #CurbIt campaign (x) similarly suggests that vapes are part of a Big Tobacco conspiracy and marketed to children (sigh).
4a.What bothered me most was the phrasing they used in one particular ad: “We know e-cigarettes are harmful, just like cigarettes.” While one could argue that it merely meant, “ecigs are also harmful”, it seems to me to be implying that they are just as harmful, which is patently false.
4b. And as others have pointed out: One is likely inhaling more toxic fumes from the curb than from vaping!
4c. Of course, that does leave the question of second-hand-vape exposure, which #CurbIt also alerts the public to. However, the evidence for second-hand vpe exposure is still very thin, with many experts thinking it has a minimal effect if any. (x, x ).

5. To be sure, no-one thinks that vaporizers are completely harmless. Almost nothing is! The question is relative harm (as well as harm-reduction). Are ecigs bad for asthmatics - well, how bad? Certainly they’re better than cigarettes. Might ecigs cause some lung inflammation? Very possibly, but are we going to outlaw every activity or product poses any amount of tissue inflammation?! Clearly that’s an absurd approach. We need to look at overall health, relative health, and common standards in other areas. (For instance, caffeine is addictive, but the public has no qualms with allowing people to use it.)

6. I’ll add that in addition to the lack of studies demonstrating long-term adverse affects, the research on short-term affects are mixed, with many indicating that it is very safe in general, and particularly in contrast to cigarettes.

One CDC ad relies on anecdotal evidence to make its point. It features a story from an e-cigarette user, a 35-year-old wife and mother named Kristy from Tennessee who says she started smoking e-cigarettes hoping to quit combustible cigarettes. Instead, she began to smoke both, until her lung collapsed. The American Vaping Association reportedly called the ad “patently dishonest,” saying that it implies vaping led to lung disease, when in reality Kristy had gone back to smoking cigarettes alone in the months before her lung collapsed. California’s anti-vaping campaign lists toxins that humans once thought were safe—arsenic-laced powdered wigs, radium therapy, and of course cigarettes—and compares them to e-cigs, using a deceptive associative tactic that we’ve called out before.

​
7. This is one of the few points where the piece describes one obvious instance of misleading advertising - and the vaping community’s obvious and necessary response to such deception. (And for what it’s worth, there are thousands and thousands of people who credit ecigs with saving their lives #VapingSavedMyLife). But even here, the article’s authors don’t really take the anti-vaping activists to task for it. In fact, they almost seem to endorse that very same tactic:
The problem is, as in the early days of campaigns against cigarettes, there isn’t definitive evidence that e-cigarettes cause long-term harm—a point that pro-vapers will be quick to remind you of. But there also isn’t definitive evidence that they’re safe. And there are many good reasons to assume they’ll be found in time to increase cancer and heart and lung disease.

​
The Wired article doesn’t explain what those reasons are… just that it’s a good assumption! (I guess they also think they’re like arsenic-laced powdered wigs.)
What firm science there is to rest on is fairly obvious: E-cigarettes are almost certainly less toxic and carcinogenic than regular cigarettes. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not a health hazard. “We already know you’re breathing in a lot of toxic chemicals, which is bad,” says Glantz. “You’re breathing in a lot of toxic particles, which is bad. You’re taking in nicotine, which is bad. A cigarette is by far and away the most dangerous consumer product ever invented. So to say it’s not as bad as a cigarette is not saying very much.”

​
8. This was, to me, perhaps the most balanced paragraph in the article, but even here I’d challenge some aspects. In essence, of course breathing anything other than air isn’t going to be good for you, but it’s a matter of degree for the general public, and relative health for smokers. This might be a good time to mention that the studies thus far indicate that 99% of vapers are smokers or ex-smokers (x, x ). That is, they switched from “the most dangerous consumer product ever invented” to something less harmful, perhaps much, much less harmful, for at least part of the time.

In the absence of incontrovertible evidence, then, public health agencies have to continue to play a little dirty themselves to get citizens to pay attention. In a couple of years, researchers will begin to do association studies to pull out long-term health effects. Until that science rolls in, the, prepare to sit back and enjoy the show. These two camps will be hashing it out for a while.

​
9. This another area where I disagree: If there is a lack of evidence, don’t treat it like a deadly substance. If the evidence suggests that it’s getting many people off of a horribly injurious habit, then definitely don’t treat it like a deadly substance.

All in all, very disappointed in the article. It basically boasted propaganda for a cause that may further harm millions. It presents very little actual information, and seems to ignore the information which extols the virtues of vaping over smoking. To be sure, we need more studies, as many of the study’s done so far have been faulty (like the popularized “formaldehyde” study - x) or contain a conflict of interest. Still, much of the evidence thus far is positive, and legislating as though it were negative is unfair to vapers and the millions suffering from tobacco cigarette addiction.
All Wired really seemed to care about discussing is the social media attention the debate is getting - and probably just trying to cash in on that by stirring the pot.
P.s. Of Interest: List of studies related to ecigs and vaping. (x)  

I would bet that the majority of the people that post here are ex-cigarette smokers ... You started vaping as a means to stop smoking cigarettes.

And I am willing to bet that very very few of you would have purchased flavored cigarettes (if they were available) when you were actively smoking cigarettes.

So, my question is .... Why are the majority of the ex-tobacco smokers here buying fruit, breakfast cereal, custard, bakery, candy, etc flavored juice to put in your atomizers?
___________________________

Me ... I DIY my juice which is a mix of various tobacco flavors to include some cigar overtones.

Me ... I just don't personally vape something that smells and tastes like apple pie, etc ... but that's just me.  

And so it begins......

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Wednesday it plans to ban the sale of non-tobacco-flavored electronic cigarettes amid a vaping crisis.

“The Trump Administration is making it clear that we intend to clear the market of flavored e-cigarettes to reverse the deeply concerning epidemic of youth e-cigarette use that is impacting children, families, schools and communities,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement. “We will not stand idly by as these products become an on-ramp to combustible cigarettes or nicotine addiction for a generation of youth.”

Michigan became the first state to prohibit sales of most flavored e-cigarettes last week in a bold move to curb the underage vaping epidemic. The ban, which will take effect in a few weeks, will cover both online and in-store sales of all e-cigarette flavors except tobacco.

Trump administration plans to ban sale of flavored electronic cigarettes  

Does anyone know if this sept 9th pmta thing will effect diy and if it does will the liquid nicotine cost go up? I'm thinking I should buy the nic now n worry about rest of diy kit later as many questions surround this new regulation ..Anyone know will it effect diy? Cause my emails are loaded with pmta blowout sales from major online vape shops..if there wasn't a ban here in NY I'd stock up! NY not only has flav ban but nearly all out vape ban! The shops I used to get juice at won't even sell me coils anymore! And their actually allowed to sell me vaping hardware but find it easier to just write "we no longer ship to NY" So some shops will n some shops won't..I've really had to dig around to get coils etc..that's why I'm starting diy but this by ban effected that too! River supply won't sell me 1 thing,Liquid nicotine wholesalers aren't sure n keeps saying they,ll get back to me n never do,liquid barn seems like they will,Delosi will n nude nicotine will..oh n bull city will but they don't have the nic I need.I'm pretty set on river supply smooth salt nic,LNW doesn't mention smooth or hit,Delosi just emailed me and said they never heard of that and nude nic has armor salt smooth but a lot more expensive than river supply or LNW. I've researched a lot about it because if gonna be making 25-50 mg salt nic I wanna make sure its top quality,clear n not peppery at higher MG's.I've ordered EJUICE salt many times n can notice a difference in the quality n even the buzz I get from diff eliquids. So should I play it safe n get the nic now ( somehow) or do you guys think it might not effect future costs?? Big tobacco really has us over a barrel with VAPING as akot of politicians have stocks in tobacco n Bg tobacco is very powerful n seems to have alotta sway over the government, meanwhile they all know its much safer n literally a life saving product and is the most affective way to quit smoking while still feeling like your still smoking but with a million times better flavor,evaporation or lingering odors..its all about $$ as it always is.I've never smoked but lost nearly entire family to lung cancer from smoking so I have a very strong n passionate feeling about vaping..I enjoy it and its not the nic that causes these deadly respiratory conditions- its the tar n poisons left in the wake of combustible tobacco. But we all know this but they continue selling ciggs everywhere with lil to no hastle,alcohol too and their using teen vaping crisis as their reasons n flavors! It already has adult regulations,especially ordering online you need a credit card and most vaping adult items don't apply to teens nor do they even know how to use these apparatus. Get rid of the 10$ disposables packed with high mg salt nic n sugar..Boom prob solved, now leave us adults be n let us vape if we want cause teens are gonna do what they want anyway.. I'd rather they not vape but compared to drinking,smoking n drugs( which seems lately easier to get) I'd much rather they vape but their not 21 so who's at fault for that? So ban the entire vaping industry kills 2 birds 1 Stone (no more teens vaping n no more worthy adversary to smoking) I'm sick of the control system and its all coming to a head especially in the US- I won't get into politics but that "IS" what this is all about.Send our damn second stimulus checks n leave us adults to decide for ourselves to vape or not weather its on a 15$ pod or a 150$ mod or a 35$ pod mod..There's so much to choose from but might not have any juice to put in them if we keep going in this direction.There's enough people unemployed now without going after vaping too!!! It relieves my stress to vape just like ciggs do for many people n right now I'm pretty damn stressed! Thank u for any advice or helpful comments about decent nic salt purchase guys..sorry to rant  

"
Vaping is supposed to be a form of harm reduction, that is, allow nicotine addicts to have access to the drug without the harmful tars and chemicals in cigarettes that cause cancer, heart disease, and other maladies.

Last year, the Journal of the American Heart Association published a study finding that vaping posed as great a heart risk as smoking itself. That study fueled public policies at all levels of government to stifle the industry. A lot of small business people had their livelihoods destroyed or damaged as a result.

Now, the study has been retracted — which is a very big deal in science — because the editors are “concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable” due to what appears to have been an uncompleted peer review process..........."

Major Anti-Vaping Scientific Study Retracted | National Review


Score one for our side. 'They will not stop until tobacco becomes regulated like a hard drug - 'We will not stop until our rights, especially our right to use a less harmful form of tobacco, such as vaping,
is assured.  

This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?

A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.

As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)

As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.

The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.

It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.

The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”

Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.

Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...

This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293