The R Street Institution is a non-profit, non-partisan think tank based in Washington, D.C. Their mission is to support limited but effective government and free market economy. They accomplish this goal by performing in depth research into policy at the state and federal levels. In January 2017, R Street performed a policy study on the FDA Deeming Regulations from 2016. In addition to challenging the policy contained in the Final Deeming Regulations of 2016, they dissect the stigma placed on the vaping industry through propaganda, media, and public health campaigns.

  R Street Policy Study No. 81 is an extensive examination performed by Clive Bates, Eli Lehrer, and David Sweaner. The study assertively proposes reasonable and compromising amendments to anti-vaping policy to date. This is a stance that may have been lacking in previous litigious efforts and one that needed to be taken. I have yet to read a collection of undeniable facts so deeply rooted in evidence and research. The pages of the study contain dozens of citations adding credibility to each claim they make.

  R Street barrels out of the starting gate with some heavy statistics. They say, "In 2015, 36.5 Million Americans, or 15 percent of U.S. adults, combined to smoke 264 billion cigarettes. Cigarette smoking caused more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States - more than HIV, illicit drugs, alcohol, motor vehicles and guns combined. Smoking related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion annually." These numbers are referenced from a Center for Disease Control fact sheet. That should be enough to grab someone by the neck tie.

  Next, they take a stand stating, "perverse tobacco policy is failing the American public." These papers written by R Street are formulated to influence change among these policy makers. The best part is that they didn't just demand change they elaborately drew out the changes that need to happen and why. They also point out the flaws associated in an abstinence only approach. R Street states that, "this intolerant approach rarely works well in any branch of public health. There is an opportunity to move to a market-based "harm reduction" approach." 

  The investigation into these topics developed well established proposals to a flawed policy. R Street suggests eight strong proposals to adapt goals for a "harm reduction" focus that could help the 36.5 million smokers in the United States. 

1. Seize the huge opportunity presented by low-risk nicotine products
2. Cancel the FDA deeming rule before it destroys the U.S. Vaping Market
3. Establish a standards-based regime for low-risk nicotine product
4. Use new labels to inform consumers about relative risk
5. Stop using the public health test to protect the cigarette trade
6. Restore honesty and candor to public-health campaigns
7. Refocus tobacco science on the public interest, not bureaucratic expansion
8. Challenge vapor and smokeless prohibitions under World Trade Organization rules

 These proposals are not unreasonable by any means, and again, are backed up by solid evidence. Each topic is heavily elaborated throughout the study. We, as vapers and industry members, want standardized regulations to ensure public safety. Although, these regulations should be proportional to the risk presented by our products. R Street does a fantastic job to convey a rational and justifiable proposal for change. 

  This year began on a positive stride for vaping and vaping advocates. Canadian research concluded favorable results in a review entitled Clearing the Air. This effort was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and was conducted by a number of credible professionals at the University of Victoria in British Columbia.

  Canada has always been a proponent of progressive study of the vaping industry and its potential health benefits. They have taken an evidence based approach in determining the effects of vaping on us and our youth, unlike our US FDA counterparts. Their studies are unbiased and founded on objectivity and scientific query. Clearing the Air based their studies primarily on three topics. These topics included the potential of smoking cessation, use by minors, and risk of second hand exposure.

  In regards to smoking cessation, they were unable to establish a definitive conclusion on just how effective vaping is. Although, they did find encouraging evidence of smokers quitting. According to the review, “many researchers found an appreciable number of vapour device users are quitting tobacco.” Furthermore, this seems to be even more evident with the influx of new, more advanced devices. Even though they do not take a firm stance on vaping’s effectiveness for cessation, they do state, “it is clear that claims for a negative impact on cessation are unjustified.” This is a strong statement that contradicts the tactics used by FDA.

  Next, they discussed the concern that vaping would lead to tobacco use by minors. This concern is simply not based in fact, yet it has been the FDA’s publicity machine since the deeming regulations were enacted. The study found that tobacco use in the US, Canada, and other countries has steeply declined for 12-19 year old citizens. The staggering fact is that this decline continues as vaping increases. They surveyed tobacco use rates in US states that both had and did not have bans on sales to minors. They found that there was a lower tobacco use rate in states where adolescents had access to vapor devices They also established compelling evidence that discredits “gateway effect” claims. According to the review, “23-72% of teens have reported consuming non-nicotine liquid.” Therefore, these teens are not consuming any nicotine and the chance of converting to nicotine containing, combustible cigarettes, is highly unlikely.

  Finally, they covered potential risks from second hand exposure from vaping. These studies found that there is a measurable amount of nicotine that is absorbed by people inhaling vapor secondhand. There was insufficient data on secondhand nicotine absorption to deduct a definitive conclusion on this subject. Although, they did state, “tests determined that second hand vapour is far less toxic than cigarette smoke, often by several orders of magnitude, and that it does not contain carbon monoxide or volatile organic compounds.” In further inspection of these emissions they found that of the 79 toxins in a conventional cigarette, there was no trace of at least 61 of these in any e-liquid tested. They proceed to say, “Vaping produced exponentially lower levels of cancer causing agents, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and volatile organic compounds.”

  This study will not likely change the overall view of vaping for the common public, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. Canada has already announced a major revision to its tobacco regulation proposal as it pertains to vaping. As more science comes to light, there will be less for the regulatory authorities to slither around. We can only hope that more scientists will be intrigued to inquire into our industry. We have a sneaking suspicion that they will find a much healthier option, and one that could eradicate the public health problem smoking has caused.

One solution for customers could be to whip out your Visa or Amex to pay for your favorite juice, but this option will only work for a limited time. Typically, when one company makes a move like this, their competitors follow suit shortly after. Therefore, it is to be expected that companies like Visa, American Express, and Discover will file similar regulations soon. 

By January 15, 2017, all online transactions for vaping products will be subject to the following requirements:

• Age Verification of all customers
• Compliance with FDA's rules for labeling, marketing, advertising, promotion, and manufacturing
• Compliance with state and federal requirements (verified by attorney letter)
• $500 registration with MasterCard through payment gateway
• Nicotine health warning displayed prominently on website
• Disclosed billing terms on website
• Required adult signature on delivery

Many of these requirements have already been implemented by Smoke Crossroads and most other online retailers. The most troublesome item on that list is the adult signature. This small detail could potentially double consumer end shipping rates. We at Smoke Crossroads will do everything in our power to prevent these increases from translating to higher prices for our customers. 

To conclude, we would greatly appreciate feedback on this topic. We would like to facilitate your purchases and make them as convenient as possible. We would like to hear your answers to questions like:

• Would you still shop at Smoke Crossroads if shipping rates increased?
• Are there other payment options you would like to see on our site?
• Would being present to accept shipments cause an inconvenience?
• How can we best facilitate your experience at Smoke Crossroads.com?

Please send your feedback to marketing@smokecrossroads.com or comment on this blog post!

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the final stages of announcing a new set of regulations for all electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and vapor products. Free-market innovation has resulted in significant developments in the number and quality of these tobacco-free products that are helping Americans kick the unhealthiest habit known to man – smoking. The FDA’s proposal, however, threatens the very survival of the vast majority of the vapor product industry.

For large tobacco and pharmaceutical companies, this is great news. The FDA’s proposed regulations stand to benefit both industries, which represent some of the most well-funded and powerful lobbying interests in the United States.

Vapor devices compete with products marketed by pharmaceutical companies to help people quit smoking, like Nicorette gum and the nicotine patch. These nicotine replacement products have taken a hit in recent years as many consumers have turned to vapor products after pharmaceutical options have failed them.

The emergence of vaping also has Big Tobacco concerned. America’s largest cigarette companies have released e-cigarette products, but have thus far been unable to establish dominance in the market. Overly burdensome FDA rules could be just the ticket they need. Bonnie Herzog, a senior analyst with Wells Fargo Securities, commented last week that that the FDA’s proposal is “broadly positive for the big tobacco manufacturers since it will increase the barriers to entry.”

Under the FDA’s proposal, all vapor products on the market will have to retroactively undergo a “premarket” review process. For a single product application, the FDA estimates that a manufacturer will need to put out $330,000. Within the industry, the real cost is expected to easily run into the millions of dollars. Even with the lower cost estimate, the agency’s own economic analysis spells doom for all but a couple companies. That analysis predicts that approximately 99% of products on the market will not even attempt the application process, let alone gain approval.

The FDA claims that it does not have the authority to modify the premarket review requirement under the 2009 Tobacco Control Act, which gave the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco and nicotine-containing products. The agency says that the statute requires them to consider any product that has come to market since February 15, 2007 as a “new” tobacco product. The FDA calls this February 2007 provision the “predicate date.” It is this date that would needlessly roll back technology almost a decade and close businesses.
This week, members of Congress have an opportunity to change the FDA’s direction in a way that will benefit consumers, small business, and public health. On Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up an agriculture spending package. Harm reduction advocates are hopeful that the committee will take up and pass an amendment to the bill to modernize the February 2007 predicate date for vapor products.

Changing the predicate date will not interfere with the FDA’s ability to establish rigorous safety and manufacturing rules for vapor products. The agency will retain their existing power to set product standards. If the FDA takes this route, any standard issued would apply to all products within the agency's jurisdiction.

Without a modification of the February 2007 predicate date, Marlboro and Camel cigarettes will remain legal, but it will become a federal felony to sell tens of thousands of vapor products that are currently legally available and helping smokers quit. The status quo in the United States – smoking – will remain.

Approximately two-thirds of the vapor market is held by companies with no connections to Big Tobacco. That’s because the tobacco companies offer very few options to consumers looking to customize their quit journey. But given their ability to afford onerous regulation, Big Tobacco could be the only player left standing in the e-cigarette market.

Last year, attempts were made to change the predicate date by members of both the House and Senate. Congressional Democrats successfully killed the amendment and attacked Republicans for siding with Big Tobacco. They were misguided in that accusation. This shouldn’t be a partisan fight. Both parties should celebrate the prospect of a creation of the free market helping make cigarette companies a relic of the past.

The FDA’s current proposal will freeze innovation and kill jobs through unnecessary and costly paperwork. For the millions of Americans who try to quit smoking every year, Congress should act to ensure that overregulation does not prevent smokers from accessing effective and safer alternatives. Republicans and Democrats should welcome this much needed change.

Gregory Conley, President, American Vaping Association

Source: 

Conley, Gregory. "Congressional Action on Electronic Cigarette Regulations May save Vapers." The Hill. N.p., 18 Apr. 2016. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.

Original Article

220W is recommended for resistance of 0.1-0.37 Ohm

250W is recommended for resistance of 0.1-0.32 Ohm

Remember to be careful because these modes are going to be pushing all 3 batteries very close to max voltage. It is bonkers.

http://www.wismec.com/download/UpdateWismec_160411.zip