Are e-liquids marketed to children?

Let’s talk about e-liquid. More precisely e-liquid bottles. Even MORE precisely, e-liquid bottle labels.

The same font Kraft
uses on Kool-Aid

There has been a lot of talk lately about electronic cigarettes and e-liquid being marketed to kids... Those of us that use e-liquids know that this is balderdash. Firstly, all those flavored e-liquids exist because adult like flavors. And secondly, enjoying all those flavors costs a bit of money. More money than most kids are likely to spend just to experience a flavor.

Consider that if you want flavor you need more than a cig-a-like. You need a 'personal vaporizer', and the absolute, bottom rung, minimal starter the fails miserably at flavor presentation and vapor production, is going to start at around $30... and that's before you spend $10 - $20 or more on a bottle of flavored e-liquid.  Let's just call it a $50 minimum investment for a child to enjoy one of these flavors. Now you tell me, how many kids are going to spend $50 on a low quality vaporizer and a bottle of e-liquid rather than buying flavored cola and candy?

Looks exactly like an old
Rocket Pop ad

A marginally better ‘starter kit’ can usually be found online starting around $50… the cost is generally higher in a brick & mortar shop. But if we believe that electronic cigarettes are marketed to kids because flavor And therefore kids use electronic cigarettes because flavor Then kids must be using a setup that will actually deliver flavor. For that, we need to spend some money. Accurate, full flavor presentation and vapor production is going to start at around $100. If you’re really into flavor and vapor expect to spend twice that. And if you’re really really into flavor you can expect to spend a lot more. A lot more than kids can afford to spend… that is, unless they’re out dealing drugs, or robbing houses, or mugging people… but then, electronic cigarettes would hardly be the biggest problem with such kids.

So WE all know that before anyone can use any of the ‘flavors’ that are purportedly marketed to children, they first have to be willing to invest in costly hardware. That hardware cost alone is an fairly reasonable gatekeeper preventing most kids from using e-liquids.

It sure looks like a kids juice.

But the general public doesn't know that. What the general public thinks they know is what they were told by politicians and the media… The media and the politicians are looking for the worst case examples and holding those up as proof of marketing to children. They're looking for anything that they can find that mimics a recognized product intended for kids, and anything with cartoonish labels that might appeal to kids... Sadly there is plenty out there for them to find. And we need to care. 

We need to discourage e-liquid manufacturers from using labeling that the anti-vaping zealots will use against us. We can do this by telling them how we feel about their labeling, and we can do this be refusing to purchase e-liquid with questionable labeling. We need to discourage retailers, both online and brick & mortar, from selling e-liquid with questionable labeling. Again, we can let them know how we feel, and we can chose not to purchase the liquid in question, or in extreme cases, we can choose not to purchase from the retailer at all if they carry a questionable liquid.

Lost Art Liquids changed this
label design after negative reaction
from the vaping community.

While one e-liquid manufacturer has pulled a particularly egregious label that was a nearly exact copy of a well known kids breakfast cereal box and replaced it with something that, while still questionable, isn't nearly as bad, other manufacturers are turning a deaf ear to consumer concerns.  It’s clear that some segments of the vaping industry is uninterested in self regulation, and that leaves it up to us, the consumers, to regulate for them. If we regulate what we buy, then rather quickly the vendors and manufacturers will either regulate what they sell and make, or they will go out of business. Let’s hope for the former, but either outcome robs the opposition of ammunition that they can, and will, use to sway public opinion against vaping.

Not as bad, but still questionable
labels from Lost Art Liquids

Counterfeits are bad, but clones are a sign of a market gap.

#499479589 / gettyimages.com

I want to design and sell a new mod and I shall call it "Trooper" that way, when it gets coppied it'll be the "Clone Trooper"

Okay, maybe not. I mean, aside from the bad pun. not a one of us would be the least bit happy if we had invested time and money to bring a product to market only to have someone else flood the market with cheap knockoffs of our work... but that's not the consumer perspective is it... so let's try looking at this a different way. Mechanicals and rebuildables are expensive. mind numbingly when one think on their simplicity. Even if they are not simple to design and manufacture, they are simple in function. Never mind the cost inherent in bringing a new product to market, I need something that works and is affordable.

 Let's say you go shopping for a watch... What are your optoins. You could go to Tourneau and shop for the quality watches that range from around $80 all the way up to almost $200,000.. or you could buy the less expensive, but functionally similar watch from Walmart where the prices start at $7. So what do you do? Well, the vast majority of people will go to Walmart and save a few dollars. Assuming that a less expensive watch is available for Walmart to sell.

The real problem is that everyone is making Patek Philippe and no one is making Casio.

Let's say that you used to be an average American smoker, and let's further assume that your previous smoking budget is now your vaping budget. Okay, so the average American smoker spends just over $1800 a year on cigarettes. That translates to about $5 a day, or $150 a month. Now, how much do you spend each month on e-liquid, batteries, wire, wicking material (or premade coils) and other miscellaneous vaping supplies.... If you only vape a little, then no big deal, you're probably spending a lot less than when you smoked, but if you're a heavy vaper, the kind that might be interested in... say... a mechanical mod and a dripping atomizer, then your daily operational costs are higher, and if you're not mixing your own e-liquid you can easily spend your entire budget... leaving nothing for new mods and attys. So let's say your careful and spend about $20-$25 each week on vaping. You save about $50 to put towards new hardware, or, about $600 a year.

Right now I'm using a setup that cost about $500... wait...am I really going to buy only one each year?

And that's why we have clones. I would rather buy more than one mod and atty each year... I'd like to be able to try out a new tank atty every now and again, maybe pick up the latest dripping atomizer, or get that new mod because... well, because it's dead sexy! So now we see why we need Casio. Hardware that's reliable, but affordable. And Casio never hurt the market for Patek Philippe.

Similarly a marketplace with lots of affordable options. not 'clones', but independently designed, affordable, reliable hardware... would fill the needs of the average vaper... without impacting the market for more exclusive, more expensive, limited production hardware. The vaping industry is still young, and for now, the proliferation of 'clones' is evidence of a need for more such products. As the industry matures, we can look forward to more companies stepping in to fill the gap. Until then, we need hardware, and clones are inevitable, but we should not be rewarding those companies that are profiting on the design, logo, and reputation of others.

To be clear, I'm not an elitist about authentic mods, I don't look down on others that own clones, we need hardware, and authentics can be hard to come by and prohibitively expensive. I do, however, have a very low opinion of the manufacturers that make clones that are clear counterfeits with copies of the original manufacturer's logo, and fake serial numbers...

Shout Out: Tasty Vapor

I've thought about this for a while… do I recommend or review any products? My first thought is no, there are products that I love, products that I hate, and products that I’m ambivalent about, but does it really matter? Well, maybe. If a vendor or manufacturer is a member of SFATA or is otherwise active in protecting vaping they should be acknowledged for that, if they also have an awesome product…

I’m still hesitant, but I’m sitting here with such an awesome bottle of e-liquid… a liquid that I would never have tried on my own. And it’s made by a vendor that is not only a SFATA member but also has also shown up in Sacramento to oppose AB1500 and support SB648 “as proposed amended”. And it really is tasty. The e-liquid, not the vendor, well sorta both…

Okay, so what am I going on about?
Tasty Vapor Strawberry Lemonade Premium Dripping Liquid

I’m usually very narrow in my appreciation of citrus. Aside from limes for my tequila, I like oranges and orange creamsicles. And that’s usually about it. So a lemonade type e-liquid? Not something I would be likely to even sample.

And then Geoff of Tasty Vapors hands me a bottle of his Strawberry Lemonade Premium Dripping Liquid.

I happened to have a backup mod with a freshly wicked RDA, so I gave it a try right away.

The only thing I noticed with that first hit was the citrus. As I said, I’m not usually a big fan, but we were outside in the heat, and the vape was crisp and refreshing. Second hit, the strawberry starts coming through… and I’m convinced. What am I going to do when this bottle runs out? I’m going to trek over to Tasty Vapors and buy more.

This isn't a simple, blunt flavor, it’s more subtle and evolving. The citrus is most noticeable in the sinuses, while the strawberry flavor lingers in the mouth, and the whole thing is faintly sweet… and not sugary, sticky sweet. It’s a fresh fruit sweetness. It's, well, ...tasty. this is an e-liquid that I would recommend to everyone, even those that aren't particular fans of lemon or lemonade flavors. It's that good.

I’m fond of saying “support the vendors that support our community” so get your butt, or browser, over to Tasty Vapors and give some of their e-liquids a try. especially their Burmanii (an awesome cinnamon blend) and their Frosted Oatmeal Cookie (both have been big favorites of mine for a while now), and of course, their Strawberry Lemonade.

SB 648 - Summary of the hearing in the Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization

Yesterday my wife and I headed out to Sacramento and met up with other vapers and vendors to attend the Senate Governmental Organization Committee hearing on SB 648. The short version is that the hearing went well.

In case you aren't up on the details of SB 648 it was introduced by Senator Ellen Corbett last year. As originally written it would have banned the use of electronic cigarettes anywhere that smoking is banned. The bill languished in the Governmental Organizations committee for months. Until last week. Corbett removed much of the bill, leaving it as a prohibition against selling electronic cigarettes in vending machines. This is something we can all support, unfortunately the bill also contained language that would define an electronic cigarette as a “cigarette”. Or at least it did until late Tuesday when it was amended to remove the problematic language.

There was some very real concern that the latest amendment might be removed under pressure from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and the American Lung Association. The result was that when we arrived at the capitol building we still didn't know if we would be supporting or opposing the bill. But confirmation came just before the hearing, the amendment was in, the definition of electronic cigarettes as “cigarettes” was out, and we would be supporting SB 648.

The hearing itself started out the way these things normally do. Corbett addressed the committee, talked about the bill… yadda yadda yadda. Then the lobbyists for NJOY and VMR testified in support of the bill as amended. Followed by public testimony. Us. And this was the first bit of true amusement. As our small group of Northern California vapers and vendors approached to testify the committee chairman blurts out “Wait, this is testimony in support of the bill.”

Yes Mister Chairman it is, and yes, we’re supporting this bill, and yes, we know you’re confused, but just go with it…

So we all gave our support to SB 648 “as proposed amended”. Then came the oppositions turn. The very people who had been pushing for this bill were now going to testify against it. Why? because even though the bill does exactly what they claim to want, namely to keep electronic cigarettes out of the hands of minors, they didn't want to lose the language that would have defined e-cigs as cigarettes, they didn't want to lose the leverage that it would have given them to regulate and tax e-cigs as cigarettes. After all the opposition speakers were done GO Chair
Isadore Hall criticized them by saying “I am stricken that they would oppose a bill that would keep kids from getting e-cigarettes” and that “If they are against this bill they are for kids smoking.”

Schadenfreude!
It’s not often that we get to see our opponents treated this way. And it’s not every day that the ANTZ get pushed off of their self proclaimed moral high ground, toppled from their pedestal, and publicly disparaged. 

This was a victory for California vapers. Maybe a small victory, but one with big implications as it leaves electronic cigarettes as separate from the definition of a “cigarette” or a “tobacco product” and leaves open the path for being legally treated a different class of product. The ayes have it, the bill passed the committee, and now… well, now we wait and watch and prepare to fight again in the event that future amendments change the impact of this bill before it reaches the governor’s desk.

Poll Alert

What the hell is a 'Poll Alert? Well, media likes to do these reader/viewer polls from time to time... and sometimes they like to use the results to frame future statements about public opinion. It's in our best interest not to let the anti-vaping crowed generate the perception that everyone opposes electronic cigarettes... so if/when I become aware of one of these polls I will post it here.

Halfway into this article about a doctor claiming that electronic cigarettes should be banned in public is a poll asking readers their opinion.

Don't let the ANTZ frame the public perception of public opinion!

Call To Action - SB648 Wednesday 6-25 @ 1:30 PM in Sacramento, CA.

CA SB648 IS ALIVE AND BACK! Be part of fighting this bill, Wednesday 1:30pm in Sacramento, CA! If you can't make it, contact the committee members!

WHERE:

Capitol Building room 4202
Sacramento, CA

WHEN:

The hearing is at 1:30pm so we aim to gather at the front steps of the capitol building at 1pm.
SB648 is first on the agenda so that’s nice.

DETAILS:

A threat that had been dormant in California has come back from the dead. The threat is CA Bill SB648. Last time around it was quite an interesting hearing with lots of great testimonies but it was also a struggle which resulted in the bill becoming dormant. Well, not any more it isn't.

Corbett has made amendments to the bill that took out most of the items in there. It leaves a bit about vending machines and protecting kids from access, which we are all in agreement on of course. However, it also has wording in the bill that sets the foundation and definition of e-cigarette = cigarette. This is a highly dangerous precedent that we can’t allow to slip by because that definition would equate vapor with smoke and everything else that applies to smoke would soon follow. This could be taxation (perhaps even an equivalency tax), licensing for stores, etc.

In its current form the bill itself does not look like it is important but we believe this to be deceptive. If this bill, in its current form, passes the G.O. committee and goes up the stack it gets gradually harder to kill the bill or get amendments made. All the while, Corbett will be able to add things back into the bill or even add new amendments to it, again making it harder at each step for us to deal with it.

It is therefore imperative that we try and either get an amendment on the wording in this bill or, if that is not possible, aim to completely defeat it.

You can find the bill text here.

Details on the committee hearing this Wednesday here.

For those of you who can’t join us. Please contact the Governmental Organization committee members and let them know why defining an e-cigarette as a traditional combustable cigarette is a bad idea even though you agree (which I presume you do) that kids should not have easy access to e-cigarattes. The contact details for the committee are here:

Good Reason To Vape #4: Not likely to set off a bullet.

At the intersection of childhood curiosity and incompetent parenting we find a story about a 12 year old boy injuring himself when he ignites a .22 caliber bullet with a cigarette lighter.

From thevindicator.com:

Deputy Hobson stated that upon interviewing the young man as to how he got injured from the bullet, the young boy told Dep. Hobson that he had held a cigarette lighter under a .22 caliber bullet to see what would happen. The bullet exploded sending bullet fragments through his left middle finger and lodging in the left eye lid.

The obvious questions arise. 1: What kind of parent lets their 12 year old child play with bullets? And 2: What kind of parents lets their 12 year old child play with a cigarette lighter? Or, if we want to be generous, we can ask a third question: What kind of parent leaves bullets and cigarette lighters lying around where a 12 year old child might get a hold of them?

The good news is that the boy did not suffer any vision damage or significant injury.

Maybe someone should switch to electronic cigarettes and a taser so that this doesn’t happen again?

 

Fight For Your Right

Awesome graphic created by reddit user patdavid. Click on the image to purchase this image on  t-shirts, stickers, posters, etc.  Also available in the Solidarity version

#adultslikeflavors

If piña colada e-liquid is marketed to kids by virtue of its flavor, does that mean that piña coladas are kids drinks?

If I Wanted The Taste of Burnt Tobacco and Tar, I Could Have Kept Smoking

I just read a press release from Citizen Electronic Cigarette...

I'll start off by saying that I have never heard of this company before... despite their claim of having 'burst onto the forefront of the eCig product landscape' Well, I guess it's possible that I've just been living under a rock or something so I'll cut them some slack... then again, maybe not. I have a hard time taking seriously any electronic cigarette company that doesn't appear to know what an electronic cigarette even is.
From the press release:

An electronic cigarette, eCig or eCigarette, is a battery powered vaporizer which simulates tobacco smoking by producing a vapor that resembles smoke.

If I'm not mistaken existing law defines an electronic cigarette as a device that can provide an inhalable dose of nicotine by delivering an inhalable solution.

No mention of simulating tobacco smoking, and no mention of 'vapor that resembles smoke' So I take a look at what everyone is using: the copper mechanical with the rebuildable dripping atomizer? The stainless steel mechanical with the rebuildable tank atomizer? The 18650 variable voltage mod with the adjustable airflow clearomizer? The eG0 style battery with the latest dual bottom coil metal cased glass clearomizer? do any of these simulate tobacco smoking?

But the real kicker is that Citizen Electronic Cigarette seems to think that the "ability to feel and taste like the real deal" is somehow a positive selling point. I enjoyed smoking, and as a smoker I would have told you that I enjoyed the taste of my cigarettes. and then I made the switch to vaping and... guess what. burnt tobacco does not taste good! Why, in the name of all that is good, would anyone trying to quit smoking want a product that, at best fails to offer a better experience, and at the worst reinforces cravings for the real thing by mimicking the 'feel and taste'?

Dear Citizen Electronic Cigarette, and Senator Harkin, and Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Boxer,

Adults Like Flavors!

A Weeks Worth of Anti-Vaping Ordinances

This week is seeing a flurry of anti electronic cigarette action, it’s Thursday and already we've seen seven different city councils move to restrict the use of electronic cigarettes.

• June 16th Pittsburg, CA City Council introduces ordinance to include electronic cigarettes to its ban on public smoking
• June 17th El Paso Texas passes a citywide ban on smoking e-cigarettes in public spaces where smoking was already banned.
• June 17th Languna Niguel, CA introduced an ordinance amending the city’s no smoking ordinance to include prohibition on use of E-cigarettes.
• June 17th Dublin, CA City council introduces an Ordinance Amending certain sections of the Dublin Municipal Code to clarify that electronic smoking devices, which are commonly referred to as e-cigarettes, and their vaporous byproducts are prohibited, controlled, and /or regulated in the same manner as tobacco products and smoking pollution.
• June 17th Temple City ,Ca First reading and introduction of ordinance no. 14-994. The proposed Ordinance would place the same regulations on e-cigarettes and other electronic smoking devices that are already in effect for other tobacco and marijuana products.
• June 18th San Diego, CA the San Diego City Council's Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee will hold a critical public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would ban the use of smoke-free e-cigarettes everywhere that smoking is banned.
•  June 19th Seaside, CA adoption of an ‘urgency iterim ordinance’ establishing a moratorium prohibiting the issuance of permits, entitlements, license, or any other approvals on the establishment and operation of any new smoke shop or electronic cigarette retailer. 

The question is, what’s behind the cancerous spread of anti-vaping ordinances?

Most smoking bans have been enacted under the guise of protecting non smokers from exposure to second hand smoke, which is reasonable. Similarly, In the absence of regulations limiting what substances can and cannot be in e-liquid, it makes perfect sense to protect the public from second hand vapor exposure. The problem is that most of these ordinances are not intended to be temporary. In its simplest form, e-liquid is consists of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, or some combination of the two. The second hand exposure risks of these substances is not statistically significant. But what about the nicotine? Many, if not most, vapers, use e-liquid that contains nicotine. But is second hand exposure to the nicotine from e-cigs really a risk? So far, every study on the topic seems to say no. As far as drugs go, nicotine is right up there with caffeine, in fact the amount of nicotine that might get into your body from second hand vapor is on par with the amount of caffeine you might get from exposure to coffee steam. So if we assume an e-liquid containing nothing other than propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and possibly nicotine there would be little reason for concern.

The problem is, adults like flavors. In fact, we need them. All those flavors are a critical component of overcoming cigarette addiction, but we don’t always know what’s in the flavors being used in e-liquid. Diacetyl anyone? Which is why the industry needs to take steps to ensure that e-liquids are safe. It may be too late, but the best bet for electronic cigarettes is for the industry to band together and define standards for e-liquid ingredients/additives as well as standards for labeling that lists those ingredients. An industry that self regulates to produce products that have no demonstrable risk is less likely to be crushed by government restrictions.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh SB648 R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

In his house at R'lyeh, dead SB 648 waits dreaming

I was just informed that SB648 is stirring from its slumber, and is being amended to require tobacco licenses to sell electronic cigarettes... likely a prelude to subjecting electronic cigarette products to excise taxes.

Not much in the way of details yet, but it looks like State Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett plans to push this through the California Senate Governmental Organization Committee.

If you're not familiar with SB648 you can read the 08/05/13 version here.

URGENT: NEW YORK STATE TRYING TO BAN E-LIQUID SALES TO ADULTS!

A critical vote will be taking place in the New York State Assembly very soon on a bill that would ban the sale of e-liquid to adults in the State of New York!

No, you did not read that wrong. Prohibitionists in the New York Senate want to make it a crime for a business to sell e-liquid to New York adults. This bill has already passed the New York State Senate and needs to be stopped either in the Assembly or by getting Governor Cuomo to veto it.

We believe that electronic cigarettes are a smarter alternative for smokers to traditional cigarettes. We oppose measures that would punish adult consumers for making that smarter choice. We hope you would take this opportunity to educate your lawmakers that e-liquid products are a positive both for the New York economy and the welfare of smokers looking for an alternative.

As a consumer of electronic cigarettes, you know better than most that these products are NOT tobacco, are NOTHING like combustible cigarettes, and that cost and full access to them are important to you. YOUR story must be heard by the legislators to make positive change, so make sure your voice is heard!

HOW YOU CAN HELP STOP THIS BAN

(1) Call or E-Mail Your New York Assembly Rep. IMMEDIATELY

We need vapers to immediately call or e-mail their New York State Assembly representative and ask them to vote NO on Bill A09309. Please respectfully let them know that you are a user of vaporizing products, that you vote, and that you will be looking to see how they vote on this bill. Furthermore, let them know that this will ban tens of thousands of e-cigarette products and put 100+ businesses in the State of New York out of business almost immediately.

Find out who represents you easily by going to this page on the New York State Assembly’s website.

From the Dublin Ca. City Council Agenda for June 17, 2014

REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, June 17, 2014 

DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER, 100 Civic Plaza 

6.3. Ordinance Adding Regulations on Electronic Cigarettes to the Dublin Municipal Code
[STAFF REPORT] *
The City Council will consider amending certain sections of the Dublin Municipal Code to clarify that
electronic smoking devices, which are commonly referred to as e-cigarettes, and their vaporous
byproducts are prohibited, controlled, and/or regulated in the same manner as tobacco products and
smoking pollution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 4.40 (Tobacco Retailers), Chapter 5.56 (Smoking Pollution Control), Chapter 8.08
(Definitions), Chapter 8.43 (Tobacco Retailers) of the Dublin Municipal Code.

*The link to the staff report doesn't appear to be working right now.

Adoption of the proposed ordinance would ensure that the vapors from electronic smoking devices are treated the same as secondhand smoke. It would prohibit vaping in public places including, but not limited to, parks, community events, places of employment, and smoke -free apartment housing units. The ordinance proposal would also prohibit the opening of a vapor lounge within the City of Dublin, which is a business establishment solely focused on using electronic smoking devices. Finally, in areas where secondhand vapor was a continual problem, residents would be able to seek for an injunction or other legal remedy to abate the nuisance.

Contact: Office of the City Council (925) 833-6600

San Diego Call to Action

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association June 16,  2014 URGENT UPDATE!! SAN DIEGO E-CIGARETTE USE BAN IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED On Wednesday June 18th, 2014 at 2 PM, the San Diego City Council's Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee will hold a critical public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would senselessly ban the use of smoke-free e-cigarettes  everywhere that smoking is banned.  To stop this ordinance, please (1) attend and testify at the June 18th hearing in San Diego on the 12th Floor of City Hall (202 C Street) and/or (2) call or e-mail the City Council members to express your opposition. (Contact information for City Council members as well as talking points are included in the full Call to Action, link below.)   We ask that if you attend the hearing, you refrain from vaping as a sign of respect. Please note: This email is being sent to CASAA members in California, not simply people living in San Diego. If you have a significant connection to San Diego, please respond to this Call to Action.    CASAA San Diego Call to Action

What Not to sell to beginner vapers.

I recently stumbled upon something that really bothered me... a site offering a starter kit described as "the perfect setup for any beginner seeking to chase clouds."

Wait just a second there... what?
Beginner? seeking to chase clouds?
No. No. and No.

 This is so many kinds of wrong that I'm not sure where I should start.

a clone mechanical mod
a clone RDA
a drip tip
an OHM reader
an Efest IMR 18650
a 2 bay charger
and some 0mg liquid

Lets think for a minute about who vapes, and why.

Most of us embrace vaping as cigarette users. What that means is that when we need a fix, our setup needs to be able to deliver... right away. no tinkering, no dripping, just instant vapor. What we need is a safe, easy to use device. an ego or 18xxx APV. most definitely NOT a mechanical mod. Any new user that has to fiddle with their device before using it, and then fiddle some more after five puffs, isn't likely to stick with it. Instead they're likely to go back to the instant gratification of smoking a cigarette.

That is, if they don't blow themselves up first.

The beginner who gets this kit is going to have to rebuild coils... coils that they don't know anything about building. They don't know what wire to use, or where to get it. they don't know what resistance to aim for. They don't know what is and isn't safe. And they are going to want a spare 18650. If they're already going the cheap route and buying a $75 set of clones rather than paying for the real thing, what are the odds that they'll also buy cheap 18650s? Esecially if they don't know that they need batteries rated for high amperage.

And cloud chasing? it's fine for those that are into it, but is it any reason to start vaping?

Selling a sub $100 kit with a mechanical and a rebuildable to beginners is a recipe for disaster. Bad enough in a Brick and Mortar where someone can give a quick tutorial on how to use it, but online? At best it's irresponsible, at the worst it's negligent. Save the mechanicals and the rebuildables for the experienced user.

SFATA announces Age To Vape program

I wanted to get this posted yesterday… and then life interrupted my plans.

Anyway, a day later the question remains the same: Does your favorite Brick & Mortar shop have a minimum age sign? Would they even know where to get one?

This week The Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade association launched the Age To Vape Program for electronic cigarette retailers.

Businesses that sign up agree to enforce age verification, even in the absence of any existing regulations in their area. They also agree to enforce any existing age restrictions specific to their state, county, and/or city. And to post Age To Vape signs on the door and at the register of their business.

Businesses that sign up will also be included in a public registry listing Age To Vape participants.

Vaping vs. Chewing Gum

The next time some ties to tell you about the evils of vaping and why it should be regulated into oblivion or banned outright, ask them how they feel about chewing gum.

First off, chewing gum is clearly marketed at children. I mean just look at the brightly colored packaging! and those fruity flavors? definitely targeted at children!

It's also unhealthy! A recent study published in the journal Eating Behaviors showed gum chewing mint-flavored gum reduced the intake of healthy food (fruit) and increased the likelihood of eating junk food such as potato chips and candy. Gum chewing can lead to symptoms of temporomandibular joint disorder and can contribute to irritable bowel syndrome. In addition, artificial sweeteners such as sorbitol and mannitol, often found in chewing gum, can cause diarrhea in otherwise healthy people.

What about the other ingredients? just because you don't generally ingest your gum doesn't mean that those ingredients don't go into your body.

 The ingredients in gum travel into the bloodsteam faster and in higher concentrations than food ingredients, because they absorb straight through the walls of the mouth, and these ingredients do not undergo the normal filtration process of digestion. - C. Thoms Corriher

Now think about some of the common ingredients listed on a pack of chewing gum:

• Gum Base
• Maltitol
• Mannitol
• Artificial and 'Natural' Flavoring
• Acacia
• Acesulfame Potassiu
• Butylated hydoxytoluene
• Calcium Casein Peptone-calcium Phospate
• Candelilla Wax
• Sodium Stearate
• Titanium Dioxide

And then there are toxins. A study published in the September 1992 issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that the lanolin in chewing gum contains several types of pesticide. Some of the identified pesticides potentially could accumulate in fat tissue, and some could accumulate in the milk of breast-feeding women. According to the MedlinePlus website products that contain lanolin can cause poisoning.

Chewing gum... it's being sold to our children and it contains poison.

But it gets worse! some chewing gums also contain nicotine!

Kids might start chewing gum because it's the 'cool thing to do' and then get addicted to the nicotine. which clearly makes chewing gum a gateway to smoking cigarettes!

And let us not forget that chewing gum is certainly a public nuisance. I can't tell the number of times I've narrowly avoided prison time by, just barely, resisting the urge to violently remove the teeth of someone loudly smacking their gum. I mean, seriously, and for the love of all, if you really feel the need to masticate like a cow, go do it in a grassy field somewhere, away from me! Then there is the old gum and wrappers all over the sidewalks. how much do our cities spend each year cleaning that up?

Attention, vapers in Contra Costa County, CA!

Original posted on Facebook by Stefan Didak. Re posted with permission.

Attention, vapers in Contra Costa County, CA!

If you are a vaper in Contra Costa County and you are against the passing of outdoor public usage bans on vaping and do not wish to see these unscientific ordinances pass in your city or town, please contact me ASAP by sending me a private message.

A small group of us will be attending the City Council meeting in Oakley next Tuesday the 10th at 6:30pm and will be speaking in opposition to this nonsense. If you are interested in joining us, please let me know. Otherwise, we will be gathering outside of City Hall at 6pm.

Various organizations that believe the earth is flat and vaping leads to smoking are pushing the City of Oakley to be their new shining example in "tobacco control" ordinances. If this passes it will spread like wildfire in other cities in Contra Costa County and a few others have already fallen victim to the practices of these organizations (which often will offer bribes, oh pardon my language, THEY call it GRANTS to pass "tobacco control" ordinances).

The City of Oakley does not appear to consider vapor products "a possible public health threat" and is instead basing their entire ordinance on that it might be "a nuisance" to some people and have used words like the following to underscore their point (do not try and laugh too loudly):

"Use of electronic cigarettes often creates a nuisance to persons near the user of the electronic cigarette in that the vapor cloud can contain odors of the liquid being vaporized and unknown biologic materials from the user's body may be contained within the vapor cloud".

If you are unable to join us, please do let the City of Oakley know what you think of their proposed ordinance. You can use the following online form to do so: http://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/subpage.cfm?id=676008

The meeting date is June 10th, 2014 and the Agenda Item number is 4.4.

I have provided smaller versions of the staff reports for your reading (dis)pleasure here:

http://designatedvapingarea.com/oakley_sr_1.pdf

http://designatedvapingarea.com/oakley_sr_2.pdf

The current agenda for June 10th can be found on the following page:

http://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/subpage.cfm?id=1215262&CFID=34657379&CFTOKEN=82081458

City of Oakley

Residents enjoy a charming area with an abundant housing supply, quality schools, and a friendly atmosphere that truly make it, 'A Place for Families in the Heart of the Delta.'

CI.OAKLEY.CA.US

What not to do.

Well then, it looks like things happened while I was distracted by work.

Freetovape.org
And videos promoting it.
Don't do it.
don't.
don't
don't

It all sounds good right? well, no. it doesn't.
Annoying the hell out of our Congressional Representatives and Senators and the FDA is not the best way to get them to work with us.

If you're antsy to do something right now write an op-ed piece and send it to a local media outlet

 ...and join CASAA.

And if you're antsy to do something now consider these options listed on the CASAA site

• Submit your story to the CASAA Testimonials Project
• Prepare a one- or two-paragraph summary of your personal story for use with various Calls to Action that will be issued.
• Continue to encourage others to join CASAA. Membership is free, and more members will increase our influence and reach. CASAA members are more informed on the issues, and having the proper information will result in more effective advocacy.
• Ask vendors to provide information on CASAA to their customers: 
• CASAA has a "We Support CASAA" Graphic for use on commercial sites. 
• CASAA offers vendor kits at cost which is designed to let customers know about CASAA.
• Informational flyers and brochures are also available on our website for download to print and hand out at vape meets and stores or even for employers and medical professionals. 
• Let people know about CASAA’s social networks and encourage them to join our forum on ECF, follow us on Twitter, subscribe to our blog and/or join us on Facebook, so they do not miss important information.
• Share CASAA’s blog posts and emails about the FDA rules and our plan, so they also know what we are doing and what to expect.

Todd vs. Amerivape: What we failed to learn

A short summary of events, in case you missed it.

Todd, of www.toddsreviews.com was putting together a video review of the Amerivape Manhattan.
He had a concern about venting. In short, it appeared to Todd that the Manhattan didn't vent.
He contacted Amerivape.
Amerivape responded that the Manhattan was designed to vent “at 35 psi or when the button is pressed.”
Todd got back to Amerivape after check the venting with the button pressed… it appeared to Todd that the Manhatten didn't vent.

This is where things started to get unpleasant.

Todd posted his review and Amerivape got angry... they threatened legal action
… and then accused Todd of threatening them.

All of this resulted in a bit of a shit storm on social media. (read more here if you're interested)

The thing is, even after things have started to cool down, Amerivape has a lingering problem.

It’s not threatening to sue a reviewer, it’s not deplorable customer relations, it’s something that few people seem to be saying anything about. It’s consumer confidence in the consistency of Americape products.

Todds video showed the Manhattan not venting when he blew into it, both with and without the button pressed. This is a reasonable concern. And Amerivapes explanation about venting at 35 psi is a reasonable response… but then youtube user Craig Cosby posts a video titled “Ameravape Manhattan video showing no venting issues” in it we see a water leaking from a Manhattan….
Think about that for a second.
Fill the tube with water and watch it leak out… at what? 35 psi? not even close. Maybe 14.7 psi. Add another video  by youtube user chuff aluffigus showing airflow through the vents at 5 psi… and now we see the problem that Amerivape is facing.

3 Manhattan mods
3 videos
3 different venting behaviors

What Amerivape has is consistency problem… a quality control problem.

If every unit doesn't perform to the published specification, then those specifications are meaningless. And we, the consumers have no way of knowing if our mod will vent at 5 psi, or 14.7 psi, or 35 psi, or any pressure level at all. Think about it, let it really sink in, then consider what happens in the event of a battery failure… a thermal runaway… With full venting this could be unpleasant with hot flaming gasses shooting out… at higher psi it could be very unpleasant with the mod potentially resembling a small rocket. And with no venting… well, with no venting the mod is really just a short pipe. Pipe plus explosive thermal failure equals…

Now, I’m not saying that the Amerivape Manhattan is a pipe bomb waiting to happen. What I am saying is that any mod that lacks venting is a pipe bomb waiting to happen. I’m also saying that any manufacturer that lacks the ability to ship products that are consistently within target specifications may be selling you a mod with unknown venting…
They may be selling you a mod with adequate venting.
They may be selling you a pipe rocket.
And they may be selling you a pipe bomb.

What we, the consumers, should be learning from this is that we need to insist that the manufacturers of our hardware and liquids have both quality assurance and quality control practices in place. Or we need to take our money elsewhere.

What if our government did... nothing?

I started doing some research for a planned piece on the fiscal impact of consumers shifting from traditional tobacco products to vaping... and as I looked at some of the numbers I found myself repeatedly getting distracted by one question. What if the our government did nothing to restrict vaping? What it it treated electronic-cigarettes just like any other consumer product and let the public shift from smoking to vaping unhindered.

Currently, the average smoker spends more than $1800 a year on cigarettes. About half of that goes straight to taxes (56.6% according to Phillip Morris, but we're going to stick with the simpler 50% for the sake of ease) and the other half goes into the economy... well, sort of. In reality only about $135 of it actually goes back into the local economy, the other $765, give or take, finds it's way into the coffers of big tobaco and their share holders.

Okay, so for each smoker that makes the switch our government would loose about $900 in excise tax revenue every year. This is bad right? except that for each former smoker our economy also gains about three times that amount... or, rather, it sheds about $2700 a year in costs ... direct medical costs and lost productivity costs.

And that $1800 a year that the average smoker spends? imagine that these dollars are spent on local goods and services... like, say, independent vape vendors. Imagine that each of the local vendors who earned those dollars then re-spends that money on more local goods and services. In short, the 'Local Multiplier Effect' results in each former smoker spending $1800 per year with an effective value to the economy of potentially $3,270 . That's $3,270 per individual that is fueling the economy and empowering business… And not just local business, small, private businesses, "The American Dream" businesses. "Shrinking the Gap Between the 1% and the 99%" businesses. "The Gears of the Nation" businesses.

In the long term, if every smoker switched to vaping.... say goodbye to $32 billion in excise tax revenue annually... and say hello to an economic boost as consumers spend that extra $32 billion a year.

Yes, there would be losers, Tobacco growers and cigarette manufacturers would be hit especially hard, nicotine replacement products would all but disappear, and the medical industry would loose an estimated $44.3 billion a year as smoking related medical needs evaporate. but I submit to you that the gains, the gains to our families, our local businesses, our communities... the gains to our economy, would be greater than the losses if our government would just do nothing to restrict electronic cigarettes.