Search This Blog

Saturday, January 31, 2015

US "Tobacco Economy" = %1 of US GDP

To put the magnitude of the problems faced by the vaping community here in the US think about this.

According to the Tax Policy Center we can estimate that US tobacco tax revenue in 2014 would be around eighteen billion dollars ($18,000,000,000) annually.

The Master Settlement Agreement provides an additional ten billion ($10,000,000,000) in revenue.

Where does this go?

To the "tobacco economy" of course!

This means about $28 billion per year spent on keeping you from smoking.

Where does this go?

To lawyers, "programs" to reduce smoking, "youth" programs, oversight, regulation, various funds to monitor regulation, youth programs, government agency to monitor the regulators, etc. 

Of course this includes all the ANTZ funding, and so on as well.

My guess is at least $150 billion per year in direct (see this from the CDC) and indirect medical costs - but this is probably low...

Maybe $200 billion all told per year.

If the US "tobacco economy" were a country it might just make the top 50 (see wikipedia) - around the size of the Czech Republic, Peru or Iran.

So think about this:  If vaping succeeds in making smoking (true combustion tobacco) go the way it did in Sweden (down to maybe 1% because of SNUS) it would be like wiping out the economy of an entire country, like the Czech Republic, for example.

The Czech Republic has some 10 million people, Iran like 76 million.

According to this may 250,000 are directly employed in the US in the "tobacco economy" directly.

Probably another 1.5 million in medical staff.

So maybe 1.75 million people making a living because 440,000 people die of smoking-related illness.

These estimate are probably very conservative.

But all in all this probably represents at least 1% of the 16.8 trillion dollar US economy each year.

What would it mean if traditional "cigarette smoking" were to vanish overnight?

Literally millions of economic refugees - no job, no hope - smoking is dead...

EJuice in Indiana: Criminalized Frosting

For some time I have been troubled by the very strong relationship between e-cigarettes (and its associated friend vaping) and baking.

"Baking?" you say.


For many decades products like this King Arthur "Coconut Flavor" have been sold. 

What is it?

Propylene Glycol and flavoring; coconut in this case.

There are thousands of these flavors sold on-line, in Walmart, virtually anywhere people wish to bake.  Baking and cooking are trillion (with a "T") dollar industries around the world.

Flavorings are used around the world on a daily basis to make the food we eat.

All perfectly legal, all available to everyone, anytime, day or night, of any age.

Of course, there are more things involved in baking that just flavoring.

This article, for example, demonstrates how to include vegetable glycerin in things like frosting along with flavorings.

Propylene glycol and flavoring and vegetable glycerin...

Er, wait, vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol and flavoring - aren't they ejuice ingredients?

In fact, are they exactly ejuice at 0mg of nicotine?

Now, in Indiana they want to make the exact same ingredients "special" based on their intended use (page 5/14):

"Sec. 8. "E-liquid" means a substance that is: (1) intended to be vaporized and inhaled using a vapor pen; (2) manufactured and sold in a refillable or umsealed 12 container or any container larger than two (2) milliliters."

So if I intend to bake a cake with these ingredients and I smell the cake I am okay to breath the "vapor" produced the oven heating these ingredients.

But if I put these exact same ingredients into a "vaper pen" there's a problem...

Would I go to a vape shop to buy eliquid made of these ingredients, particularly in Indiana?

No, I would go to Walmart and buy ingredients for frosting and cake and mix them myself.

So how exactly do these laws Indiana proposes stop anyone from vaping bad ejuice?

They don't.

So how exactly do these laws Indiana protect anyone from bad ejuice formulations?

They don't.  In fact, they make a black market out of baking ingredients.

No doubt if you purchase a flavoring and VG at the local Walmart you'll be stopped.  Just like if you purchase sudafed in more than one bottle quantities you're stopped because you might be making meth.

They just add more reasons to arrest and prosecute people who innocently cross law enforcement.

They just redirect people to the exact same resources from other, legal unregulated places.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

OSHA on Breathing Glycol "Fog"

In the early 1990's actors working in various shows that used fog machines complained to the feds that the "smoke" was a problem - causing asthma and other breathing issues.  The actors, doing shows day in and day out for years were concerned about the health risks.

I've been on stages with smoke machines and I recall it being similar to how I experience vaping today.

NOTE: Several types of "fog" were studied including ones based on propylene glycol (aka "vape").

As singer and/or athlete's they felt entitled to working in a "clean" environment.

"In 1994, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published a study of 224 actors in Broadway productions that ruled out theatrical fog as a cause of asthma. Dryness and throat irritation in "some individuals" was the limit of the problem, the study concluded. "
Original stories:

The results of the 1994 CDC study are here:

A variety of "glycol" vapor was studied including those that today are considered unsafe, such as ethylene glycol.

The conclusions:

"Based on the results of this study, there is no evidence that theatrical "smoke," at the
levels found in the theaters studied, is a cause of occupational asthma among performers.
Some of the constituents of theatrical "smoke," such as the aerolized glycols and mineral
oil, could have irritative or mucous membrane drying properties in some individuals.
Therefore, it is reasonable to minimize exposures by such means as relocating "smoke"
machines to avoid exposing actors to the direct, concentrated release of the aerosols,
minimizing the amount of "smoke" necessary for the production, and using only fog
fluids approved by the manufacturers of the machines. The glycols used should be at the
level of "food grade" or "high grade.
" Glycol-based systems should also be designed to
heat the fog fluids only to the lowest temperature needed that achieve proper
aerolsolization. This would help to avoid overheating the fluid and minimize the
generation of decomposition products

Note the underlined portions.

Standard, modern VAPE tech from OSHA.

How interesting is that?

Poor S.O.B.'s doing the current formaldehyde testing are violating OSHA's idea that the temperature needs to stay "low."

Note the use of "food grade" or "high grade" glycol, e.g., USP.

Now this is not a "big win" for vaping but it shows that breathing glycol fog has been around for more than twenty years and is quite safe.  Particularly since these technologies are still in use today.

Vaping: Why So Few Activists?

I have been doing a lot of my own research on vaping in general.

One thing I have noticed is that, in general, about one to one and a half percent of the "vaping public" seems to have any concern about the FDA and regulations.  (I have a means to track responses to various postings in various places and comparing posts about things like new box mods and atomizers to posts about serious stuff (at least to me) like I write about here.  Of course, this is not a scientific pole but I think its valid enough to make my point here and for you to be concerned...)

Now by "concern" I don't mean average "Joe Vaper" who grunts out "fuck the FDA" when asked about his vaping rights.

Instead I mean someone who actually has reviewed the general state of the deeming regs, knows about local and state political vaping-related activity, knows something about nicotine outside tobacco, someone who's up for debating ANTZ types, etc.  And I don't mean active members of CASAA or SFATA, etc. because they typically are assuming those organizations are doing the activism for them and they are just foot soldiers being told what to do. 

I am talking about leaders.

Now personally from reviewing things like "Occupy Wall Street" and unionization activity (one in five employees is a union activist according to the link) the number of vaping activist in the general vaping population seems to me to be really low.

In fact, not just really low, but actually ridiculously low, like (for those that don't know their percents) one in one hundred.

This seems to me on the face of absolutely absurd.


Personally I see dramatic declines in smoking related to vaping - I read about dramatic health benefits compared to cigarettes (see other stuff on this blog and at "Vaping Truth" on  Personally none of my immediate family smokes any more (perhaps six people - and not just because my wife owns a vape shop - she personally helped them all quit smoking).

Doesn't anyone else notice these effects?

I have been trying to get my head around why this activism rate is so low.

For me, I try to be an activist because I perceive direct health benefits for my immediate family. 

I am also a financial activist for vaping.  Vaping is also far cheaper. (If you can save $30 a week vaping over smoking that's $1,500 a year.  Compare this to your last income tax refund check...)

That alone should make at least one in five vapers an activist.

Consider, let's say, it costs $15,000.00 USD to start a business like a vape shop (just trying to pick a "middle of the road" number here - you can do it for less or more - but that's not the point).

If you had a significant other that smoked would you spend that amount of money if you knew you could send them to something like a "rehab" and they would just quit permanently?  (At $7 a pack you'd get your health and money back on cigarette savings alone in six years - never mind gas and wasted trips to the store at 10PM.) This gets to be more of an issue as people age - when your twenty you could probably care less - forty you probably care much more - and fifty five and up you probably care a lot.)

On the sexist side women seem to care more than men in terms of "family activism" in my experience.  Typically a woman (say a "head of household") will be interested in getting all of her family (husband, sister, mother, kids) to vape rather than smoke: to save money and improve health.  I am quite certain mothers will buy vaping supplies for children that are under age (gasps and shrieking form the audience) so they will never again smoke a cigarette.

Many agree that vaping is the first thing that has the potential to put (and in fact is putting) a big dent in the smoking numbers world wide.

But there are relatively few activists.

And many (but not all) of those that I do see seem fearful - fearful in particular of the costs of litigation (whether it be for a summary $50 violation of "vaping ban" or for a Constitutional law case).  Of angering "the powers that be."  Of being on the news.  Of rocking the boat.

Personally I see vaping as perhaps having the biggest impact on human health since, I don't know, the invention of vaccines.

Yet no where near the level of activism you see for something like "global warming" or "occupy wall street" or ""

The question is why?

I two main reasons for this (and I am willing to be argued with even on the basic premise that there aren't enough activists).

1) Smokers have been abused and bullied. From "Bullying Definition - Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose." Note that apparently bully is only defined by the government for "school age children" - but we all know that bullying is really "... the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power."

Note that in all definitions of "bullying" there's no restriction on the reason.
The LA Times thinks that the consequences of bullying last into middle age and the result I think is that smokers today tend to shy away from others because they perceive their "smoking" as a significant social flaw that makes them outcasts.

For the last several decades smokers have been bullied simply because they smoke.  Told they are killing themselves and others.  Told they are abusing their children and pets and everyone around them with their "second hand smoke."  Told they are a burden on society because "their habit" kills 440,000 people a year and maims untold millions with COPD, emphysema, etc.

(I won't write about the benefits of nicotine here...)

Don't run into any proud smokers any more, do you?

So smokers, in my opinion and because of this, are afraid in general to step forward.

2) Vaping organizations in general, in my opinion, do create an environment that fosters activism beyond or outside the scope of the organization's purpose.  For example, consumer organizations focus only on consumers, industry groups only on their functions.

This shunts people with ideas or interest away from the true issues and into one or more silo's or slots that tend to "shut down" their enthusiasm.

People are also "afraid" to "rock the boat" lest they be branded as outliers "harming the cause."

This means fewer activists.


For God's sake you see police hauling adults away from New York city parks because corporations make too much money and because some people make more money than others.

Wait a minute - what about people dying because of smoking?

Oh wait, vaping might be unsafe... (fill in any of ten thousand nonsensical ANTZ formaldehyde articles here.)

So your second floor apartment is on fire and you have a decent statistical chance of death (a one in three chance of dying early from smoking from this for example).  So let's say the same applies to the burning apartment - a one in three chance of death.

There's a rickety-looking ladder outside that might break and you might fall and get hurt but you might make it.

What do you do?

Stay in the apartment because the ladder is rickety and wait ten more minutes for the fire department to bring a better one?

Or do you go for it?

The bullies say "you're no good - might as well wait there because you're nothing but an evil "smoker."

I say we need to encourage more people to try the rickety ladder before the whole vaping thing, no pun intended, goes up in smoke.

Friday, January 23, 2015

The "Right Not to Smoke"

I have been studying what legal precedents exist around FDA regulations.

I believe that legally you do not have the right to vape or smoke (yes I know about "life, liberty, ..." however from a legal perspective the state can shut you down with local laws, etc.)

However, I believe that you do have the right not to smoke because A) smoking is a disease and B) you have the right, found by many courts under the US Constitution, to treat yourself accordingly and as you see fit.

You do not have the right, for example, to use THC, a controlled substance, to do treat yourself because its regulated.

But, from what I see, you do have the right to use something legal and unregulated to treat your own disease

Again, I think this is a Constitutional right.

The details:

An interesting comparison to vaping is the "raw milk" debate.  I provide this for background only because many people believe pasteurized milk unhealthy (like smoking) and its interesting to see what the FDA does about it.

In general raw milk is forbidden by state law and the FDA has created a ban on it being shipped between states.  The idea is that many believe raw milk to be far better for you than pasteurized milk (vaping better than smoking).  As this idea grows (but as the number of significant problems from people drinking raw milk do not) companies, in order to grow, want to ship their products across state lines.


The FDA does not like this and works hard to shut down anybody doing so.

This goes back many years.


The interesting part is this issue has some Constitutional elements that may have some parallels with the future of vaping.

Bottom line: Do I have the right to do what I consider healthy for me?

In the case of using something (like raw milk) already banned or regulated by the FDA the answer would appear to be no.

Courts have found you have no right to take medicine "unapproved" by the FDA - at least in the US (though you can, and people do, go to Mexico for such treatment).

On the other hand, if you consider smoking to be a medical problem (see Tobacco Addiction DSM-305.1) courts have found that you do have a right to treat your own disease as you see fit.

Federal Courts have, over many decades, repeatedly indicated that you do have a right to "treat your own disease" in numerous of decisions.

(Note this is currently being played out in court in Australia.)

I found this link most helpful.  This is a tough slog as far as reading goes but I think well worth anyone's time who is serious about vaping advocacy's.

There's a list of cases on page 33 indicating decisions about "your right to treat your own disease."  As you can see its not new and goes back decades.  For example (cherry picked from the link above) you can see what has been decided (my italics):
  • England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 259 F.2d 626, 627 (5thCir. 1958) (“... we think it is that the State cannot deny to any individual the right to exercise a reasonable choice in the method of treatment of his ills, ....”), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1012 (1959);
  • Erickson v. Dilgard, 252 N.Y.S.2d 705, 706 (N.Y.Sup. Oct 1962) (Refused to order blood transfusion to an adult with internal bleeding. “... the Court concludes that it is the individual who is the subject of a medical decision who has the final say and that this must necessarily be so in a system of government which gives the greatest possible protection to the individual in the furtherance of his own desires.”);
  • In re Brooks’ Estate,
    205 N.E.2d 435 (Ill. Mar 1965) (Jehovah’s Witness could refuse blood transfusion for bleeding peptic ulcer);
  • Winters v. Miller, 446 F.2d 65 (2dCir. May 1971) (59 y old Christian Scientist involuntarily committed to mental hospital and forced to receive “tranquilizers, both orally and intramuscularly”, despite no judicial finding of mental incompetence. Court held she had a right to refuse medical treatment.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 985 (1971);
  • Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 780 (D.C.Cir. May 1972) (“The root premise is the concept, fundamental in American jurisprudence, that ‘[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body. . . .’ [quoting Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)]”), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972);
  • Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P.2d 1, 9 (Cal. Oct 1972) (“... a person of adult years and in sound mind has the right, in the exercise of control over his own body, to determine whether or not to submit to lawful medical treatment.”);
So the question now becomes very interesting.

Tobacco use is a disease - clearly the DSM indicates it as such - as does the action of ANTZ and many others over decades - it kills people, some 440,000 a year.

While I may not have the right to smoke or vape because of privacy or other legal considerations I see that it may be possible to have the right to vape to treat a smoking addiction.  At least at home, i.e., not out in a public place.

This would also mean the legal access to legal products that allow me to do so.

Unfortunately the FDA's prepared response to vaping is both clever and insidious. 

By creating the legal fiction in the deeming regulations that "nicotine" is a "tobacco product" the FDA want's to eliminate your right to vape by making your treatment of your own disease (vaping so as not to smoke) in fact an extension of your disease.

Pretending that nicotine, a scientifically recognized compound found in nature many places besides a tobacco plant, is a "tobacco product" and thus subject to regulation they want to render your Constitutionally guaranteed right to treat your own disease invalid.

Then, as with raw milk, you will have to "get permission" from the FDA to vape.

But I think that vapers have some additional options...

Raw milk is and was - as listed in the lawuits and cases above - regulated.  The regulations were set in place before they were challenged.

The trick here is that currently neither vaping nor nicotine is currently regulated. 

Vapers, on the other hand, may have an advantage because they are already treating their own disease with a perfectly legal and unregulated solution: vaping and nicotine, i.e., exercising Constitutional rights.

Thus the next legal question then becomes this:

Can the FDA take away a legal thing by regulation?

The answer, unfortunately, is yes.  For example, making something a "Schedule 1" drug.

Now this works pretty simply with something like pot.  THC is present only in pot and is not a recognized USP substance (U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention).   THC isn't found in nature anywhere else so it makes sense to ban pot plants.

There's no evidence of THC in someone's body unless they use pot.

Now opiates, another equivalent to nicotine for purposes of discussion here, are a bit different.  They are manufactured and do not occur naturally. 

But again, opiates do not naturally occur in someone's body unless they consume or use them.

But nicotine is different, at least according to the CDC study listed here (see #22).  People who don't use nicotine test positive for cotinine - a nicotine metabolite.  In fact, all people would apparently test so.

So nicotine metabolites are found in everyone's body - unlike the other substances I mentioned.

And cotinine is known to play what looks like an important roll in the functioning of your body (see going back 50 years).

Thus vaping puts more cotinine into your body (as well as nicotine) - puts more of what would appear to already be there - into you.

A little different than a drug.  In fact, more like nutrition.

In fact, vitamin B12 is found in tobacco, but its not the subject of the "deeming" regulations.  And its regulated by the DHSEA.  The same law that lets natural substances like vitamins be sold without FDA approval.

So I argue that vaping is A) you exercising your Constitutional right of treating your disease of smoking with cotinine by B) utilizing a naturally occurring, USP-recognized, DHSEA chemical compound found in numerous plants. 

Further, I argue this is Constitutionally protected behavior.

Now, this is just my opinion and I do not believe that this somehow overrides state or local laws banning vaping.

Nor do I think it give you the right to blow big clouds.

But it may be a crack in the door to keep vaping free.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Bill Godshall Update (From Newsletter 1/20/2015)

Scientific Research

2014 Gallup Poll finds 5% of US ex-smokers quit smoking with nicotine patches, 3% with electronic cigarettes, 2% with prescription drugs and 1% with nicotine gum.

Note that while Obama’s DHHS unlawfully banned e-cigs in 2009 and has demonized them since, nicotine patches and gums have been subsidized, aggressively marketed and touted by federal/state/local health agencies and Big Pharma funded ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, etc. for past two decades, as have prescription drugs for past decade.

Brad Rodu – Formadehpye vs Fact: Levels are far lower in e-cigarettes than in cigarettes

Study finds adult smokers who vape are far more interested in flavored e-cigs than nonvaping smokers, who are far more interested in flavored e-cigs than nonsmoking teens; refutes unsubstantiated claims that flavored e-cigs appeal to nonsmoking youth.  On a 0-10 scale of interest for flavored e-cigs, the study found a 3.19 for adult smokers who vape, a 1.08 for adult smokers who never vaped, and a .41 for nonsmoking teens.

Interestingly, while Single Malt Scotch was the least desired e-cig flavoring by adult smokers (1.01), it was the most desired e-cig flavoring by nonsmoking teens (.52), and was more desirable than Bubble Gum (.47), Cotton Candy (.49) and Gummy Bear (.44), three flavors e-cig opponents have repeatedly insisted appeal to youth.

ACSH: A new survey show slightly more than zero interest in e-cig flavors among nonsmoking teens

Survey of 191 college students who “ever used” an e-cig finds 176 “only tried” e-cigs, 15 reported “occasionally use” and 0 reported “daily use”; finds NO evidence that e-cigs are gateways to cigarettes.

Study: E-cigarettes probably not a gateway to regular smoking

Analysis of CDC 2012 NYTS data finds just 64% of US teens believed “smoking a few cigarettes every day” caused “a lot of harm”, and just 33% believed “smoking cigarettes some days but not every day” caused “a lot of harm”; CDC didn’t mention these findings in agency’s many fear mongering reports and press releases citing selective NYTS data to demonize e-cigs, cigars and hookah to lobby for FDA’s proposed deeming reg

ACSH: A new study of teens’ tobacco habits reveals disturbing misinformation about smoking


CDC study finds 44,000 drug poisoning deaths in US in 2013, more than doubling since 1999; but Obama’s CDC and FDA focus on exaggerating negligible and hypothetical risks of lifesaving e-cigs to lobby for FDA’s proposed deeming regulation

Herkimer County (NY) Coroner won’t reveal cause of death of NY child that news media claimed was caused by ingestion of e-liquid, says he cannot discuss the case or autopsy report with anyone but family members or law enforcement

Quit-smoking drug Chantix/Champix suspected in 30 suicides in Canada

Mike Siegel: Why are groups recommending a smoking cessation drug that has been linked to hundreds of deaths?

CDC funded lies and lobbying

CDC funded California Health Dept’s so-called “Facts” brochure unlawfully lobbies to ban vaping by urging readers to “support policies that do not allow e-cigarettes to be used indoors and where children are present”, falsely claims e-cigarettes “can cause cancer and birth defects”, “appeal to children”, “are poisonous”, “contain harmful chemicals”, “can hurt the lungs just like cigarette smoke”, “are just as addictive as regular cigarettes”, “do not help people quit smoking”, “may hurt others” “just like regular cigarettes”; falsely claims “medicines ... are very effective at helping people quit smoking cigarettes“;

THR Advocacy

Sally Satel op/ed in NY Times: Will the FDA kill off e-cigs?

ACSH’s Gil Ross – Public health’s cigarette sellout: Smoke em if you got em
AVA’s Greg Conley: Big Tobacco’s war on vaping

Ronald Bailey: A ban on vaping harms public health

Clive Bates: Annual quiz on e-cigarettes and harm reduction

E-cigarettes may be effective way to quitting smoking (CO)

Carl Phillips: Glantz attempt at dialogue makes clear the vacuousness of his arguments

THR Satire

Bandaids “lure kids into NRT” say experts

THR Business

Korean cigarette imports decline 14.4% as e-cigarette imports increase 348%

GSK’s nicotine patches and gum feel the heat from e-cigarettes; drug company exec admits e-cigs have reduced sales of GSK’s tobacco derived nicotine products, which is why Big Pharma funded WHO, anti-tobacco groups, researchers, etc. have demonized and keep lobbying to ban e-cigs (and smokeless tobacco)


HHS execs doing good and living large, flying first class around the world

Bill McMorris: Pentagon’s war on tobacco fails

US Senator Nelson to reintroduce bill to require child resistant packaging for e-cigs

FDA issues Draft Guidance (for public comment) “Policy for Low Risk Devices” that agency could/should (with a few small changes) also apply to e-cigarettes to promote public health and reduce smoking.  In sharp contrast, FDA’s proposed deeming regulation would protect cigarette markets and threaten public health by banning >99% of e-cigarettes now on market and by giving e-cig industry to Big Tobacco companies.

FDA’s CTP invites law school students to become unpaid interns to implement FSPTCA (that Phillip Morris and Big Pharma shills CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Pinney Associates negotiated, agreed to and lobbied Congress to enact) to protect Marlboro cigarettes and Big Pharma products from market competition by smokeless tobacco and recently e-cigs.


Univ of Kentucky challenges Lorillard’s e-cig trademark application for “blu Nation”, claims it would damage school’s “Big Blue Nation” trademark, tarnish its reputation

E-cig taxation

The Grover Norquist Show: Leave Vapers Alone!

Lorillard joins Reynolds American in advocating unwarranted state taxation of e-cigs (that also requires licensure, imposes additional regulations, bans and costs on smaller e-cig companies and vape shops that compete against Big Tobacco companies).

NATO’s Thomas Briant: 10 states have indicated intentions of raising cigarette, OTP or e-cigarette taxes

53 page draft bill in Washington State (similar to HB 2795 from 2014) would protect cigarettes and destroy many e-cig vendors in WA; would tax vapor products at 95% of sales price; ban WA businesses (but not out-of-state retailers) from shipping/transporting vapor products sold via Internet or mail order; require WA Health Dept to create regulations for “labeling and advertising” of vapor products, including nicotine content labels that must be verified by a lab certified by the WA Liquor Control Board and a warning regarding so-called “harmful effects of nicotine”; ban sales of all flavored vapor products except menthol, wintergreen and mint; ban sale of vapor products (but not cigarettes) to anyone under 21; require licensure of all vapor product vendors; ban free sampling of vapor products; require child-resistant packaging for all vapor products; etc.

Mt Baker Vapor posts Call to Action urging WA vapers to oppose anti-vaping legislation

David Brunori: Want bad tax policy? Here’s a blueprint (about WA Gov. Inslee’s budget proposal, including his proposed 95% tax on vapor products)

ATR: Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller pushing tax hike on electronic cigarettes

Indiana lawmakers propose e-cigarette regulations, taxes

Indiana bill (SB 384) would tax vapor products at $0.0083 per milligram of nicotine per milliliter of e-liquid (e.g. $5.98 tax on a 30 ml bottle of 24mg/ml nicotine e-liquid).

Lot's more if you subscribe....

Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Vaporscloud Update (1/14/15)...

Some interesting topics: Let's Talk Batteries...

I've moved a lot of my vape-related posts to this vaporscloud group: Vaping Truth

A group called M.O.V.E of medical people that support vaping.

Thursday, January 1, 2015

One Million Seconds

I am writing a little piece over on vaporscloud about the history of the PrimusZ and

As far as I know its the first example and description of a system taking hit-data from a mod and tracking it on a web page.