Author: GTNF Trust Staff

What to expect in 2016

By Dmitry Churakov

The year is just getting started and it’s a good time to focus on what key trends we should be on the lookout for in vaping hardware. I would venture to say that this year will not bring us any radical breakthroughs. Technology has been steadily evolving, but sadly I don’t see us being on a verge of a game-changing device. It’s not for a lack of innovation and vision of hardware developers, or funding available to bring those inventions to market. It’s more about the pace of development being hampered by worldwide regulatory uncertainty. Having said that, let’s take a look at will be driving the current “pragmatic evolution” in the near future.

The first driver are the smokers. Those who stick to traditional tobacco for one reason or another. They might have tried e-cigarettes but chose to go back to smoking because the e-cigs didn’t seem like a viable alternative. Either because the smokers considered them too complicated, unsafe, or because vaping simply didn’t give them the same level of satisfaction.

Let’s not forget that the e-cigarette as we know it today is what it is because of those former smokers that stuck around, and played an active role in molding the current products. Those smokers are now vapers, and the myriad products on the market, and most of their cousins coming out in 2016, are made to serve the vapers’ needs.

Yet, there is nothing on the market for smokers—the key audience for our industry. Many manufacturers have noticed it, and are slowly beginning to release products that have many of the sophisticated features of modern vaping devices, yet are easier in utility, far more accessible in distribution, and are more affordable for beginners.

Another important trend to follow is the new chapter in development of closed systems. It will be crucial facilitator for both attracting the next generation of vapers, as well as yet another trend we must pay attention to—new methods of vaporizing (to be discussed soon). Cooking a basic dinner is simple, and buying basic ingredients for it is cheap. Yet the market for precooked meals is steadily growing. Because consumers typically choose convenience above all. The same principle is true for our segment. Once the vape shops, gas stations, supermarkets, and local 7-11s will be stocked with the next generation of e-juice capsules, disposable and rechargeable devices, and new forms and formats or liquid refills it will radically alter the consumer dynamic.

Coming back to the new methods of vaporizing—nothing about it will drastically change in the coming year, yet it’s still an important trend to follow, and I will soon explain why. What we will see are new materials for heating elements, and significant enhancements in the heating performance. It will be driven by the need to make the products safer, with better controls of heating and vaporization. It goes goes hand in hand with the attention manufacturers are now paying to the ways end-users interact with their devices. We will be seeing a lot of reimagining of the current familiar features. They will be coming out in new forms and new combinations. Yet the time is not yet ripe for disruptive changes. In part this is due to the fact that there is little evolution in liquid technologies, and this will stall the market for radically new vaporizing systems.

The reason why all of this is important, is because this very stagnation will force the market to focus on the most important trend—development of a universal, or cross-platform, utility. Hardware without a rigid conformity to either heat-not-burn, dry herb, vape, or e-liquid. As I said before—more convenient and simple the hardware will drive the demand, which will increase distribution. Let’s not forget that the retail success is the key benchmark of our technological advancement.

Dmitry Churakov is CEO of Wingle Group, a China-based research and development consulting service geared toward the e-cigarette and adjacent technologies and manufacturing processes. He is also a co-founder of Calumet Advisors, an international strategic consulting company dedicated to the e-cigarette segment.

Artery Vapor’s Gold Rush Kit is a winner.

By Mike Huml

Consumers in every industry claim to always want something new and different, yet when that product is made available, it’s almost always divisive. In vaping, a product that deviates too far from the unwritten standards is either criticized or ignored because it’s too different. Every mod needs to have certain features: 510 threading, a spring-loaded pin, variable wattage, a box or tube shape. So the challenge that manufacturers face is how to make a device stand out from the rest in a vast ocean of vaporizers while not alienating their target market. The answer is small, incremental changes to the popular trends. This new kit has all of the standard features expected from a 50-watt TC box mod but with one major change: It’s the smallest box mod of its kind on the market.

The Gold Rush Kit is the breakout vapor device from a new manufacturer called Artery Vapor. It comprises the Nugget box mod and the 49er sub-ohm tank. The kit also includes a USB charging cable, an extra nickel coil and some replacement O-rings. A stainless steel version will be released first, followed shortly by a less expensive zinc version that is available in three colors: copper, gold and silver. The main selling point of this kit is the size—it’s incredibly small. The Gold Rush Kit will inevitably be compared to the Mini Volt from The Council of Vapor, which is of similar stature. Overall, the Gold Rush Kit is marginally smaller, but it offers a few features that aren’t available on the Mini Volt, such as temperature control functionality and 50 watts of power instead of the Mini Volt’s 40 watts. However, the Mini Volt houses an internal 1,300mAh battery, compared to the Nugget’s 1,000mAh.

The first thing to notice about the Nugget is its weight. It has a nice, solid feel to it despite its size but is by no means cumbersome. Nothing about it feels loose, rattly or cheap. Overall, the device is very well-made. The screen boasts a medium brightness that may be slightly difficult to decipher in direct sunlight, but it’s large enough to view and operate with minimal eye strain. Three buttons above the screen make for simple operation, even for beginners. Pressing any two buttons simultaneously will bring up the menu, allowing the user to change settings. The Nugget is capable of temperature control with nickel and titanium wire and is firmware-upgradable to allow for stainless steel temperature control in the future. The centered 510 connection features a spring-loaded, gold-plated copper positive pin that ensures any 22-millimeter atomizer will fit flush, although some taller tanks will undoubtedly look top-heavy. The included 49er Tank, however, looks proportional and slick atop the Nugget.

The 49er Tank is standard fare as far as modern sub-ohm tanks are concerned, which is to say it sports all the features one would expect. This includes top-filling, the ability to adjust or shut off the flow of juice, and adjustable airflow. The performance is perfect. While the vapor production obviously won’t match an extreme sub-ohm tank, such as the TFV4, or a rebuildable, even cloud chasers should find satisfaction. Airflow is more than adequate for lung-hits, and the flavor is definitely above average compared to other sub-ohm tanks in its class, such as the Kanger TopTank. The included APC coils perform extremely well, and break-in taste is virtually nonexistent. A standard 0.5-ohm Kanthal A-1 coil is preinstalled, while an additional 0.2-ohm nickel coil is included with the kit. Stainless steel, titanium and Clapton coils are available post-purchase. The coils’ lifespans are par for the course and are largely determined by the heat at which the user is vaping and the juice they’re using. A ballpark estimate would be one week for an average lifespan of each coil before it needs to be replaced.

Performance of both the Nugget and 49er Tank have been surprisingly good. The Nugget’s temperature control works as intended with a slight browning of dry cotton when set to 400 degrees Fahrenheit. When taking longer drags, there’s no sense that the device is cutting on and off, a shortcoming of many early or cheap temperature control devices. The buttons are responsive with good tactile feedback, and there’s no noticeable delay between pressing the fire button and the atomizer firing. The Nugget performs exactly as a 50-watt box mod should, with no inherent issues or missteps. The only downside to a mod of this size is the battery life. At 1,000mAh, a full day’s use shouldn’t be expected with the 49er on top. For those using sub-ohm atomizers, this device will primarily be for light users, or used as a backup device or traveler. For those interested solely in mouth-to-lung vaping under 15 watts, the Nugget offers battery life similar to most eGo batteries. However, the small size is the main selling point here, and out of all the features that could have been sacrificed to achieve that small size, battery life is the least offensive. Keep in mind that the Nugget can still be used while it’s charging, so a dead battery isn’t the end of the world. In order to save battery life, the Nugget includes numerous options for automatic shut-off. The user is able to choose how long the device is idle before automatically powering down, from 10 minutes to 90 minutes. This setting can also be turned off so the device can be picked up and used immediately, regardless of how long it’s been idle.

Sub-ohm tanks have been undergoing small changes since their inception over a year ago. While basic functionality remains the same for the most part, features like top-filling and juice flow shut-off are becoming standards. The 49er Tank retains these innovations and provides an experience that keeps up with more established brands. This is a perfect example of Artery showing perfect restraint, which is a smart move considering this is their debut atomizer. Adding anything else would have been a huge risk, and instead, they’ve ensured the widest customer base by including the most recent tried-and-true features. Artery claims that the 49er Tank holds 2 milliliters of e-liquid, but in reality, it’s approximately 3 milliliters. A 4-milliliter version is also planned. The 49er isn’t very well-suited to mouth-to-lung hits even with its airflow closed off completely, but the lung-hits are very satisfying and flavorful. Like the Nugget, the machining is hands down among the best for sub-ohm tanks. The entire tank can be disassembled for easy cleaning, and all the threading is amazingly smooth. None of the parts ever bind up and get stuck or feel crunchy. Stainless steel and glass construction ensures durability and gives the tank a sleek look, particularly when attached to the Nugget. The base of the stainless steel drip tip is Delrin to reduce heat transfer, and the tank effortlessly keeps up with even the thickest liquids when chain-vaping. Conversely, each pull is smooth with absolutely no gurgling or spitback. Artery knew exactly what they wanted to create and achieved it. The 49er Tank not only suits the Nugget perfectly but would work well with any mod capable of 30 watts or more. Finally, the coils just work. There are five total options, and each is a vertical coil design with organic cotton wick surrounding it. Again, nothing revolutionary here, but that’s not detrimental. It’s a design many consumers are comfortable with, and coupled with the quality of the tank, the performance of these coils is sure to impress.

All in all, the Gold Rush Kit from Artery is a winner. Few people will perceive this as a primary device, but that may work in a retailer’s favor. This is a kit that can easily be sold to anyone, regardless of whether or not they need something new. The small size and great performance of both the mod and the tank will appeal to almost every vaper. On the other hand, it can also be sold as a top-quality starter kit. The operation is easy enough that beginners will require minimal instruction in its use. For those looking for a mouth-to-lung option, any 510 tank will work on the Nugget, and eGo clearomizers are compatible if paired with an inexpensive 510-to-eGo adapter. In addition, advanced vapers may enjoy the Nugget as a novelty, as it would work well with short RDAs such as the Derringer, particularly if built with 26-gauge or thinner wire. Fifty watts should be more than enough in that application.

The Gold Rush Kit has the potential to appeal to vapers of all levels and interests. The trick is to market it in such a way that it fills a need for each and every vaper. For beginners, it’s a great starter kit that could serve as their primary device. For intermediate users, it’s a complete kit with an excellent sub-ohm tank and temperature control functionality and is best-suited as a travel or backup device. For enthusiasts, it pairs perfectly with shorty RDAs, and while the performance will be on par with their expectations, it’s sure to be a conversation piece because of its unexpected size compared to the clouds it can produce. For all users, the size of the mod and the kit as a whole will certainly draw attention, and the quality is there to back it up. The Gold Rush Kit from Artery Vapor creates an excellent first impression and should have a place on every store shelf.

What starter kits should you carry in your inventory?

By Mike Huml

As an owner of a vapor or e-cigarette business, keeping up to date with the latest products can seem like a full-time job in itself. The pace at which the industry changes is truly a phenomenon. Luckily, when it comes to starter kits, simplicity is key. This means the device doesn’t become obsolete quite as quickly as more advanced models. New technology eventually trickles down to the starter kit level, where all the bells and whistles are stripped away, leaving only the rawest form of technology that new users can understand and enjoy with minimal confusion. The current generation of starter kits builds upon the easy-to-use operation of previous starter kits, while tacking on new features such as temperature control and top-filling.

As the vapor industry grows and quality standards increase, one rarely needs to worry about a device arriving in a completely unusable state. Instead, smart business owners need only select the products that appeal to their particular market and reduce redundancy among their product lineup. This review will compare several current starter kits, giving you all the information necessary to make an informed decision on what product is best for you and your consumer, rather than make suggestions on what to carry as if each market and business were identical.

Joyetech eGo ONE VT

Joyetech deserves praise for not only being the first to bring temperature control functionality to a starter kit, but also for being a pioneer in the industry since the beginning. Joyetech literally invented the eGo battery, so it makes sense that they would be the front-runners when it comes to advancing eGo technology ever further.

It should be noted that this is only one version in Joyetech’s eGo ONE line of starter kits, but it is the most recent and most advanced. Previous versions came in multiple sizes and colors, which are still viable options for somebody in the market for starter kits. However, because of the striking similarity in form and function to other starter kits in this review, it would be wise to replace the older eGo ONE kits with the VT or CT in order to add variety. The CT version of this starter kit still has temperature control, but it cannot be adjusted, hence the initialisms “VT” and “CT,” representing “Variable Temperature” and “Constant Temperature,” respectively. What the CT lacks in functionality, it makes up for in ease of use. Carrying both allows customers to choose the kit that fits them the best, but a store owner runs the risk of one version vastly outselling the other, resulting in overstock.

Apart from temperature control functionality, the eGo ONE falls right in the middle of the pack in terms of just about everything else. It has decent battery life, a moderate resistance range and satisfactory build quality. The eGo ONE Mega tank that’s included is a bottom-fill, so while it is easy to fill, it’s not quite as easy as a top-fill tank. The 4-milliliter tank capacity won’t require constant refilling, and the adjustable airflow allows for relatively airy lung-hits, as well as tight mouth-to-lung drags. Other starter kits that try to utilize adjustable airflow to accommodate both types of draw end up producing a harsh throat-hit and reduced vapor production when mouth-to-lung hitting because the coils are designed for lung-hitting. The lack of airflow combined with increased heat doesn’t suit a mouth-to-lung style very well. The eGo ONE VT corrects this problem with temperature control. The coil can heat up quickly and maintain that temperature regardless of airflow, which allows the vapor to remain smooth while still producing the appropriate amount of vapor needed to satisfy a newcomer who is used to cigarettes.

The 22-millimeter diameter may seem a bit large, but the positives outweigh the negatives. First, it allows beginners to become accustomed to the 22-millimeter size standard, meaning they will be more comfortable with larger devices when it comes time to upgrade. Secondly, that upgrade doesn’t necessarily entail purchasing an entirely new setup; the eGo ONE VT battery can accommodate another 22-millimeter atomizer, or even a RBA (rebuildable atomizer), and still look great. Additionally, while the battery isn’t absolutely stellar, 2,300 milliamps per hour is a bit above average for a starter kit.

Overall, the Joyetech eGo ONE VT is a solid choice and offers the latest technology available in the industry. However, that also means an increase in price. The VT is nearly double the price of any other starter kit on this list, but it’s a price many are willing to pay once they understand the benefits of temperature control and decide they are willing to take a few extra minutes to learn how to operate the device. A Joyetech product is never a bad choice for anyone that prefers quality over frugality.

Innokin Endura T22

The Innokin Endura is a bit of an oddball. The Endura line comes in two varieties: the T22 and the T18. Both are identical from a functional standpoint, but the T22 has a larger, box-style battery and a larger tank. The T18 looks very similar to the Smok eGo Cloud kit, boasting a more traditional eGo-style design with a smaller battery and reduced e-liquid capacity. What makes the Endura unique is the mentality behind the design. Innokin set out to make a kit that could replicate the feel of smoking as closely as possible and reduce the learning curve historically inherent to vaping.

Does Innokin succeed? Partially. Neither the battery nor the tank can be adjusted in terms of power or airflow, and the tank is top-fill, so it is very easy to use. However, it’s not any easier to use than something like the Kanger Subvod, or even Aspire’s most recent kit, and is only marginally easier to use than other kits with bottom-fill tanks. As stated above, starter kits are designed to be simple, so at a certain point, additional simplicity means sacrificing some other feature. In this case, Innokin sacrificed the ability to lung-hit. This is purely a mouth-to-lung starter kit, which may or may not affect an uninitiated new user. For many, however, mouth-to-lung drags just aren’t enough. Coming from smoking, new users must learn to take long, slow drags and only inhale partially if they want satisfying vapor on the exhale. The Endura does nothing to address this. Had Innokin created a starter kit that allowed for sharp, quick drags and full inhales that provided a good amount of heat and vapor production, then the Endura would be a home run. Instead, Innokin hits a squeaker between second base and shortstop for a double.

That’s not to say this is a poor choice for a starter kit. Build quality is top-notch, and it’s obvious that Innokin took time to think about every design decision. For example, the drip tip included with the kit is exactly the same diameter as a cigarette filter in an attempt to further replicate the feel of smoking. In addition, Innokin takes a page out of its own playbook and reverts to a top-coil replacement head (a reworked iClear 30S coil with organic cotton wick in lieu of silica) in an attempt to increase the heat of the vapor by positioning the heating element closer to the user’s mouth. Unfortunately, this brings back some of the problems that necessitated the development of bottom-coil tanks in the first place—namely, spitback. With the coil so close to the drip tip and user’s mouth, liquid jumps off the hot coil and tends to hit the tongue or build up in the drip tip. Because the drip tip is so narrow, surface tension causes the juice to pool in the path of the airflow, causing a bubble to burst into the user’s mouth. This unpleasant occurrence, which many vapers have experienced at some point, is what prompted a change in coil design over three years ago. However, not every vaper will experience this problem; only those who can’t find satisfaction with mouth-to-lung drags will ultimately end up hitting the device often enough for juice to pool up and spit back.

Innokin’s third questionable decision involves yet another throwback to their own product line: the original Cool Fire. Similar to the Cool Fire, the Endura has a fixed wattage instead of a fixed voltage. Innokin has determined that the perfect power output for this particular setup is 14 watts, and they may be correct. Yet again, in the pursuit of simplicity, Innokin has limited the options available for the Endura. First, there is no reason to carry coils of differing resistances. Whether the coil reads out to 1.2 ohms, 1.5 ohms, or 2.5 ohms, 14 watts is going to hit like 14 watts. The Endura user will never be able to achieve more or less heat no matter which replacement coil he or she purchases. Had Innokin fixed the voltage at 3.7 volts, the Endura would have retained all of its simplicity but would’ve been better able to cater to the needs of its users by offering them replacement coils of different resistances. Additionally, fixing the power output to 14 watts means that if the user is ready to upgrade, very few atomizers will work well on the Endura battery. Modern sub-ohm tanks all require at least 20 watts of power, not to mention the fact that very few offer replacement coils with a resistance of 1.2 ohms or higher. The purchase of an entirely new setup is virtually required in order to upgrade.

The Endura is simple and will surely appeal to anyone switching over from analogs and looking for something relatively cheap and simple while still being reliable; Innokin devices are undoubtedly some of the most reliable products on the market. The battery is an adequate 2200mAh, although other starter kits on this list meet or exceed that rating while still retaining a much smaller size as well as a form factor more likely to be appealing to smokers. However, that 2200mAh battery (and the 4.5-milliliter tank, for that matter) will outlast every other kit on this list because of the high resistance of the coil and the mouth-to-lung hit requirement. USB pass-through charging is still a feature here, and the top-fill tank does add convenience. Vapor production is satisfactory and should be adequate for most users once they adapt to the long-pull-short-inhale vape style. All in all, the Endura T22 is a good way to add something a little different to a store’s starter kit lineup, and although it’s just fine for what it is, it could have been a whole lot more. However, it’s still a reliable kit, and the price is competitive.

Smoktech eGo Cloud kit

The eGo Cloud kit from Smok is the “jack of all trades, master of none” starter kit of the bunch. It doesn’t do any single thing particularly well, and it doesn’t offer anything new or revolutionary, but it’s a smart choice for anyone looking for a versatile setup without breaking the bank.

The battery included with the kit is 2200mAh, yet it’s much smaller than the Endura battery while still retaining the traditional eGo cigar-like shape. There are no adjustments to be made on the battery, which outputs a consistent 3.7 volts and fires atomizers down to 0.5 ohms. The 19-millimeter diameter makes for a smaller profile, which is admittedly impressive given the size of other 2200mAh or larger batteries on this list.

The eGo Cloud Tank suffers a bit from the 19-millimeter diameter, able to contain only 2.5 milliliters of e-liquid. It incorporates adjustable airflow, which allows for both lung-hits and mouth-to-lung draws, albeit with a caveat. Wide-open airflow feels slightly restricted while closed-off airflow is a bit airy. Fortunately, Smok has made this tank compatible with all of its Micro Core replacement coils. The eGo Cloud kit includes the Micro Core OCC coils, a vertical coil head with organic cotton wicking, but the slightly older Micro Core and Micro Core Adjustable coils can be purchased separately and are much more conducive to mouth-to-lung drags.

The eGo Cloud kit is very much a smaller, cheaper version of the Joyetech eGo ONE, but performance-wise, it’s the same or better, aside from the lack of temperature control present on the VT and CT. The adjustable airflow range is on the smaller side, but changing to regular Micro Core coils will provide a much better mouth-to-lung experience, if desired. Build quality is lacking, but only slightly. The button feels a bit flimsy, the drip tip wobbles on the tank a little more than it should, and it’s not quite a seamless fit between the battery and the tank. All these are minor flaws that don’t detract much from the overall aesthetic, especially considering the price.

One final point to keep in mind: the eGo Cloud is 19-millimeter, meaning that an upgrade will most likely warrant an entirely new setup. While 22-millimeter tanks will perform well on the battery, they will look top-heavy. In addition, while a minimum resistance of 0.5 ohms isn’t bad by any means, chances are that a customer looking for an upgrade will want to fire down to 0.2 ohms or lower to keep up with modern tanks. Generally, this won’t be an issue due to the 19-millimeter diameter of the battery encouraging a full upgrade to a 22-millimeter device anyway.

All in all, the Smoktech eGo Cloud kit is excellent. While it doesn’t stand out in any particular way, there’s nothing wrong with playing it safe here. It’s smaller than most other kits while still retaining a 2200mAh battery capacity, and it performs well for a wide range of vaping styles. It also allows newcomers to experience both mouth-to-lung hits and lung-hits without necessarily having to change anything except the airflow adjustment dial. Variety and choice are important to new vapers because it allows them to discover what works best to suit their preferences, and the Smoktech eGo Cloud encourages trying out these options in a simple, easy-to-use way at an excellent price.

Kanger Subvod

The Kanger Subvod kit pairs a fantastic tank with a mediocre battery. The tank included is Kanger’s new TopTank Nano, which essentially is a Subtank Nano that features top-filling. The Subtank line has been one of the most popular and successful series of sub-ohm tanks since its release. The TopTank has the best build quality of any tank on the list and has a great aqueous ceramic coating for a matte finish that won’t fade or chip. While the Subvod battery has this same finish and a great feel to it, its specifications just don’t compete with other, similar batteries.

Both the battery and the tank have 18.5-millimeter diameters, almost exactly the same size as the Smok eGo Cloud. However, while the tank holds more e-liquid, 3.2 milliliters, the battery has a measly 1300mAh capacity. Comparing that to the eGo Cloud’s 2200mAh battery, or the iJust 2’s 2600mAh capacity, one has to wonder why Kanger couldn’t have provided more battery life. That, however, is just about the only downside of this starter kit.

The TopTank is just as good as any other Subtank, providing a smooth draw, no spitback, copious clouds and great flavor. Coil replacement is very straightforward, and the user can choose among any of Kanger’s OCC or SSOCC coils. This allows for a variety of choices when it comes to heat, vapor production and draw stiffness. On top of that, overall operation of the device is identical to the Endura, which is to say that it’s extremely simple.

The TopTank’s airflow control range is exceptional. When wide open, the draw is airy and smooth, producing excellent vapor without sacrificing flavor. When closed, airflow is tight, reminiscent of full-flavor cigarettes. However, this also means that the Subvod produces the least amount of vapor when mouth-to-lung hitting. The good news is that the 1.5-ohm OCC, which is available separately from Kanger, features a vertical coil with a smaller internal diameter, much like a cartomizer, that will produce much more formidable clouds while drawing on the device like a cigarette. Conversely, when using the included SSOCC coil with the airflow closed, the Subvod’s throat-hit has a surprising punch, even when using low-nicotine e-liquid, and that’s something that many smokers crave when trying to find their first vapor device.

Like the eGo Cloud kit, the Subvod’s smaller diameter makes upgrading a little more difficult. However, Kanger has mitigated the learning curve substantially by already offering larger Subtanks and devices that will offer a similar experience to the Subvod. Options such as the Kbox with a Subtank Plus or the Subox Mini Kit are natural upgrades from the Subvod starter kit, which means that once a user decides that they are ready to upgrade, they can choose something that is immediately familiar in form, function and feel. All of Kanger’s Subtanks are compatible with OCC and SSOCC coils, with the difference lying in the size and capacity of the tanks, meaning that the vaping experience with a larger Subtank will be virtually identical to the TopTank Nano. While the Kbox and Kbox Mini do require a few minutes of instruction, both are very easy to use and provide features such as variable wattage that allow the customization that makes an upgrade worthwhile.

While the price of the Subvod kit is a bit steeper than some other kits, it doesn’t hurt the wallet as much as the eGo ONE VT. Although the battery capacity is a bit lacking, the top-notch TopTank, exceptional build quality and clear upgrade path throughout Kanger’s line of products more than justify the cost of entry.

Eleaf iJust 2

Right off the bat, be aware that this is a beginner cloud-chasing device. Eleaf is known for producing extremely affordable products without too much of a hit to build quality. The iJust 2 kit is no exception, coming in as the least expensive kit on the list. Although the machining of both the tank and the battery are a bit rough around the edges, the performance of this device rivals that of products that are double, or even triple, the price. However, mouth-to-lung hitting is virtually nonexistent, making this a poor choice for those looking to replicate the smoking experience.

The iJust 2 battery is a standard 22-millimeter, meaning there’s a bit of an adjustment period for new users, yet upgrading is more of a seamless transition. It has a capacity of 2600mAh, making this the longest-lasting battery on this list. However, it’s physically almost identical in size to the eGo ONE VT 2300mAh battery. Eleaf has definitely made the best use out of the space that they had to work with. It also fires atomizers with resistances down to 0.3 ohms, making this battery the lowest-firing compared to many others. There are no adjustments with this battery either, and it fires a consistent 3.7 volts. These specifications and features make upgrading easy, particularly if advancing into rebuildables. The 22-millimeter diameter ensures that the majority of atomizers will look appealing, and the 0.3-ohm minimum resistance accommodates most sub-ohm tanks on the market and is adequate for most rebuildables.

The iJust 2 tank is pretty incredible, and the best choice for those looking to jump straight into cloud chasing. Before going any further, it’s important to note that, by default, the airflow is not adjustable. However, the kit comes with a “vape band” of sorts, which is perforated with airflow holes. By positioning the vape band around the airflow intake on the tank, the user is able to adjust the airflow. Even so, mouth-to-lung hits are not comfortable, although possible, and the vape band gives the entire setup a distinctively obnoxious aesthetic. For all intents and purposes, consider the iJust 2 exclusively a cloud-chasing starter kit without adjustable airflow. Said airflow is substantial, reminiscent of other tanks such as the Triton, VCT Pro or Herakles. On top of that, it retains an impressive 5.5-milliliter e-liquid capacity without increasing the size to ridiculous proportions; it’s on par with many other sub-ohm tanks such as the Atlantis.

The coils are available in 0.3 ohms and 0.5 ohms, and both utilize two parallel wires in a vertical coil design. This increases the surface area for improved flavor and provides a fast ramp-up time. Even those craving a hot vape will be satisfied with the 0.3-ohm coil, and it is downright hot. Hard and fast pulls are necessary with this coil, as anything longer than a 5-second drag may actually cause some burning, especially with older coils that have started to accumulate buildup. For those looking for something a little more mellow, the 0.5-ohm does the job well. These can be dragged until the battery hits its safety cutoff without issue and still produce formidable clouds and excellent flavor. It’s a simple bottom-fill tank with a relatively huge capacity and superb performance.

Overall, the iJust 2 kit is the best kit in its price range for what it is. This is a kit suitable for two types of customers: the newcomers who already know that mouth-to-lung drags aren’t satisfying for them and more advanced vapers who want a cheap, solid backup device. Either way, any shop would do well to carry this kit, even for the sake of price alone. It’s a valuable addition to any product lineup.

Final thoughts

Each one of these starter kits has a potential buyer. The only question is which kit is worth buying for a particular market.

The Joyetech eGo ONE VT kit is the top-of-the-line kit, featuring the latest technology in the vapor industry. The additional temperature control and variable wattage settings are better suited to the technically adept or those willing to spend some time learning. The appeal of eliminating dry hits is tempting, but the price may scare some customers away.

Luckily, the Smoktech eGo Cloud kit offers a staggeringly similar experience in a smaller package at a lower price. When used correctly, dry hits shouldn’t occur with any kit in the first place, and if that extra safety net that is temperature control isn’t absolutely necessary, then the eGo Cloud is a better option. Simplicity can be a welcome reprieve for the beginner who’s just been inundated with temperature-control, variable-wattage, low-resistance vaping jargon that has little meaning to them. The eGo Cloud allows the user to try different vaping styles at their own pace with minimal additional investment.

The Innokin Endura T22 can also appeal to the new vaper, particularly those making an upgrade from a disposable or cigalike. Although other kits can do everything the Endura can, and do it better and with more options, its bold aesthetic, simplicity and rugged reliability are difficult to deny. Customers who aren’t interested in upgrading and are looking to quit smoking, quit vaping, then lay down the mod for good afterward may find the Innokin Endura the ideal solution.

The Kanger Subvod is a great alternative as a device comparable in quality and reputation to Joyetech’s kit, with a cheaper cost of entry and a clearer upgrade path. Those gravitating toward the Subvod will likely be eyeing their first upgrade before walking out the door, already salivating over the bigger and badder version of what they’ve just purchased; they’ll surely be back on payday. While the Subvod’s battery life is lacking, the juxtaposition with the stellar TopTank may actually prompt an upgrade sooner rather than later.

Not to be underestimated, the iJust 2 from Eleaf performs much more admirably than it rightfully should for the price. Every store will undoubtedly receive a patron who wants to blow clouds like their buddies, and this is the solution for them. Upgrading from this kit is simple, and possibly preferable to pushing a mechanical or high-power regulated device onto the undereducated vaper. Don’t forget that cloud chasing isn’t just for enthusiasts. Particularly for those who are full-flavor or filterless smokers, hot billowing clouds may simply be what is required to kick the stinkies for good.

No single kit is perfect for every person looking to take up vaping. Listening to customers’ preferences and concerns regarding what they want is the smart way to direct them to their perfect starter kits. Making the big sale won’t pay off if the experience doesn’t create a regular customer. Genuinely listening to customers and helping them get what they’re looking for out of vaping on the first try is money in the bank. Hopefully, this comparison of starter kits will provide the knowledge needed to build a good foundation of regular—and happy—customers!

What FDA mandates could mean for the future of e-cigarettes

By Barry S. Schaevitz

E-cigarettes have become increasingly popular since they entered the market almost 10 years ago. Product innovation is the norm. Most importantly, there’s growing discussion about the role e-cigarettes may play in a tobacco harm reduction strategy. An uncertain regulatory future, however, could limit consumer choice, stifle product innovation and end a promising discussion on a means of protecting the public health—one of the primary pillars of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) mandate in regulating tobacco.

On June 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law legislation that for the first time gave the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. Until that time, it was settled law—established by the U.S. Supreme Court—that the FDA did not have such authority. Specifically, the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gave the FDA immediate regulatory authority over cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco, and the authority to regulate “any other tobacco products that the Secretary by regulation deems to be subject” to the law.

The law defines “tobacco product” in relevant part as “any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption.” The FDA can therefore regulate e-cigarettes, as the nicotine in e-cigarettes is derived from tobacco plants. Any doubt was removed by a 2011 court decision, holding that the FDA must regulate e-cigarettes as “tobacco products” unless they are offered for therapeutic or smoking-cessation purposes. On April 25, 2014, the FDA proposed a “deeming regulation” to deem all products meeting the statutory definition of “tobacco product”—including e-cigarettes—subject to the law. At the time of writing, the FDA was reviewing the roughly 135,000 comments it received on the proposed deeming regulation and a final rule was expected at any time.

The proposed deeming regulation attempts to address a number of complex issues and raises a number of others. Perhaps most significant for the e-cigarette space and its growing base of adult customers is the date—the “predicate date”—used to determine whether products already on the market will need to go through a lengthy and (by the FDA’s admission) expensive premarket product review process. When Congress was considering the Tobacco Control Act in 2009, it decided that products “commercially marketed” in the U.S. as of Feb. 15, 2007, would not need to go through this review process. While such products would still be subject to the other provisions of the Tobacco Control Act—such as registration, ingredient reporting, harmful constituent levels and good manufacturing practices—they could stay on the market without a costly premarket review process.

While the products Congress determined in 2009 were most in need of immediate regulation—including cigarettes—would need to “look back” only two years to get to the Feb. 15, 2007, predicate date, products regulated under the proposed deeming regulation—including e-cigarettes—will need to “look back” eight years or more (depending on when the final rule is issued). This will put e-cigarettes at a tremendous disadvantage compared to cigarettes and could result in many or most of these products being required to go through the premarket review process. A likely result will be that many e-cigarette products are removed from the market, thereby ignoring if not violating one of the primary pillars of the FDA’s mandate.

A few points about the February 2007 predicate date. First, it’s completely arbitrary. Congress wanted to ensure—rather logically—that products brought to market after manufacturers knew how Congress intended to regulate them would not avoid the premarket review process. The Feb. 15, 2007, date is simply the date on which the Tobacco Control Act was introduced in Congress. There’s nothing more significant about it. Second, a number of e-cigarette and public health stakeholders have urged the FDA to adopt a different predicate date for products like e-cigarettes. This would put immediately regulated products (like cigarettes) on equal footing on this issue with subsequently regulated products (like e-cigarettes). The FDA’s only response has been to say it lacks legal authority to do so. Many of the industry and public health stakeholders have argued that in fact the FDA does possess this authority. More importantly, leading members of Congress—the body that wrote and passed the Tobacco Control Act—have advised the FDA that it does possess such authority. Third, it’s critical to remember that the predicate date does not exempt, as some have claimed, a product from the FDA authority. Any product commercially marketed in the U.S. before the predicate date still has to comply with all provisions regarding the product class.

What does the predicate issue mean in practical terms for e-cigarettes? Since e-cigarettes were not even available—let alone “commercially marketed”—in the U.S. before 2007, it means virtually every single e-cigarette brand will have to go through the premarket review process. The FDA itself estimates that such a review could take up to 5,000 hours and could cost up to $300,000—for each brand. On top of the cost, it’s not clear that any manufacturer willing and able to go through the premarket review process will be successful and therefore be able to keep a product on the market. (To date, no new product application has been approved by the FDA.) The result of defying logic and common sense (not to mention statutory language and congressional guidance) could be the removal of a majority of e-cigarettes currently on the market.

Moreover, a 2007 predicate date will place a huge roadblock in front of the innovation that is so important for the e-cigarette space to reach its potential. Another provision of the Tobacco Control Act allows products on the market before the predicate date to act as “predicates” for products that come to market later. If the two products are found by the FDA to be “substantially equivalent,” the latter product would not have to go through that costly premarket product review process. This substantial equivalence pathway is the means by which new products have been approved by the FDA since 2009. Because most e-cigarettes were not commercially marketed in 2007, a 2007 predicate will effectively close this pathway to the category.

Finally, public health agencies and officials are loudly debating the individual- and population-level health effects of e-cigarettes. Public Health England recently reported that e-cigarettes may be 95 percent less harmful than combustible cigarettes. The FDA has said “e-cigarettes may have the potential to reduce the death and disease toll from overall tobacco product use.” The FDA should not only allow this discussion to continue but also encourage it. Effectively closing the e-cigarette category is bad for public health and contrary to the FDA’s mission.

Barry S. Schaevitz is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP. He can be reached at bschaevitz@foxrothschild.com.

Vape shop owners could take a few cues from retailers in the fashion industry.

By Steve Hong

It’s been a tough few months for some clothing retailers. J. Crew is paying dearly for alienating its core consumers with bizarre styles. Macy’s has announced it will shut down 35 to 40 stores due to cannibalization of brick-and-mortar sales by its online channel. And adding to American Apparel’s legal woes with its CEO is its own operational inefficiency. The company has been cash flow negative since 2013. However, there is one store at the mall that is always in style, keeps its core customers coming back, and is doing it with startling efficiency. As a result, its profits are up 26 percent for the year.

Fashion retailer Zara is unique in the industry because it can take products from concept to store shelves in three weeks. With capabilities like these it can adapt rapidly to the ever-evolving consumers’ needs and tastes. In 2008, the Spanish brand overtook Gap, that other shopping-mall stalwart, as the largest fashion retailer. Whereas Gap focused on wardrobe staples with a preppy, static style, Zara focused on introducing up-to-the-minute imitations of runway fashion to provide customers with high style at low prices.

Much like Zara, vapor manufacturers tend to cycle through product iterations rapidly. For instance, if a tank model sells well then version two and a mini-version won’t be far behind. The upside of this agility is twofold. First, the general quality of vape products has improved steadily through frequent iterations. Many of the initial problems that were common in open-system devices just a couple years ago—leaking tanks, weak vapor, difficulty in changing wicks, etc.—have been addressed if not mostly eliminated.

At the same time, hardware and e-juices have evolved to provide more consumer satisfaction. You want a tank that provides just the right amount of airflow for the way you inhale? You want a 50-watt battery that fits in your shirt pocket? You want e-juice that tastes like it was excreted by a mythical creature? It’s all available at your local vape shop.

However, without appropriate channel coordination, this fast turnover comes at a cost. One of the biggest challenges that distributors and retailers face is contending with the constant flow of new products. In an ideal world, these channel partners would have the right products at the right time in the right amount, selling out just in time for the next wave of new products. But as it is, they often don’t know which products to invest in, have trouble buying them at wholesale and are often left eating the cost on outdated inventory when consumers have moved on to the next new thing. All of these problems lead to economic waste, so the market is not as efficient as it could be.

What can vapor learn from Zara?

One of the criticisms of the vapor industry as an investment is that it is hard to build a brand to take significant market share. There are low barriers to entry and not much enforceable intellectual property, and thus products tend to be copies of each other. Zara faces a similar market environment in fashion but focuses on distinguishing itself though capabilities, not product. By anticipating consumer demand, producing and distributing products rapidly, and adapting as needed, Zara has built an industry-leading brand.

Zara can better deal with distribution challenges because it is vertically integrated, with all production taking place in-house. Near-constant communication from the retail level to headquarters is a key component of its operations. That’s great for the future Andrew Carnegie of vapor, but, as it is, the vape industry is highly fragmented both vertically and horizontally. What are the keys to Zara’s success, and can they be replicated in the vape industry? Here are three issues to consider:

Responsive supply chain

Zara’s supply chain is optimized to get new products on store shelves as quickly as possible for two reasons. First, Zara’s core consumers know that products inspired by the latest styles from major fashion houses will be available at their favorite store. Also, constant rotation of styles keeps customers coming back more frequently to see what’s new. Continually changing product serves as a kind of marketing in itself.

While vapor brands produce new products rapidly and are able to generate buzz online, anecdotal evidence from distributors and retailers suggests that the vapor supply chain often doesn’t link up. Many buyers don’t know where to get the latest products or to source a steady stream of the best brands. This confusion often leads to lost sales.

Forecasting and intelligence gathering

For vape retailers, knowing what to purchase is a major challenge. They can’t buy and stock every new product that hits the market because of their limited budgets. But without reliable demand forecasts, purchasing decisions are a gamble. Sure, it’s got buzz on, say, the E-Cigarette Forum, but will that prosciutto-flavored e-juice be a hit at the local vape shop?

Contrast this uncertainty with Zara’s operation. The retailer does extensive market research and forecasting to make educated guesses about what will sell in upcoming seasons and how many to produce. As well, the company has a communication system that allows retail managers to interact directly with designers to link customer feedback and ordering needs. With this system, designers and producti2on departments can adapt rapidly to the marketplace.

Outsourcing vs. in-house

Part of Zara’s success is due to a strategy that Amancio Ortega, the company’s co-founder, employed early in the Zara story. While most clothing manufacturers around the world were outsourcing production to Asian contractors, he continued to use in-house and contracted production facilities in Spain and Portugal because the advantage of rapid communication between designers at the Spanish headquarters, alongside the production facilities, was more important than saving on labor costs.

It could be said that Chinese device brands like Aspire and Kangertech also have this advantage because managers, designers and manufacturers are geographically close. However, Western brands that white-label China-made products may be more susceptible to delays in new product development because of their distance from the manufacturing facility.

As the industry matures, brands will not just distinguish themselves as innovative products but also for their operational efficiency in getting them to market. As Zara shows, by keeping the flow of information with the channel—and, by proxy, consumers—open, companies can do both.

Steve Hong is the founder of Roebling Research, a boutique market-research firm dedicated to the vapor industry. For details, visit www.roeblingresearch.com.

For Vapor Corp., distribution is key in an ever more competitive market.

By Stefanie Rossel

It’s a success story that we have almost gotten used to: The vapor industry continues to show growth rates that other sectors can only dream of. In the United States, value sales of e-cigarettes have been doubling each year, from $20 million in 2008 to around $1.5 billion in 2014, according to Forbes, and they are anticipated to continue increasing at an annual rate of 20 percent in the future. Bonnie Herzog, managing director of beverages, tobacco and convenience store research at Wells Fargo Securities, expects the U.S. market for vaping devices to grow to $3.5 billion by the end of this year, up from $2.5 billion in 2014. She also forecasts that, by 2018, e-cigarette sales will hit $10 billion.

A poll carried out by Reuters/Ipsos in May and June 2015 found that about 10 percent of U.S. adults currently vape, which is almost four times the share estimated by the U.S. government in 2013 (2.6 percent). According to the poll, nearly 70 percent of new vapers started in the past year alone. By comparison, smoking prevalence among U.S. adults currently stands around 19 percent, according to Reuters. Sales of traditional cigarettes in the U.S. have been declining over the past few years, and, as Euromonitor reports, cigarette value sales growth has slowed considerably, with value sales even declining in 2013, for the first time in more than a decade.

Little wonder then that the leading tobacco companies, after some initial hesitation, embraced the vapor sector to help make up for lost profits in their conventional business. From 2012, they began entering into the e-cigarette market. Today, the top four e-cigarette brands are owned by Big Tobacco manufacturers. According to Nielsen data* from May 2015, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.’s Vuse leads the U.S. market with a share of 35.7 percent, followed by Imperial Tobacco’s Blu (22.7 percent), Japan Tobacco’s Logic (13.8 percent) and Altria’s MarkTen (6.1 percent).

Of the many independent manufacturers that started the e-cigarette industry, only NJoy approaches the leading brands’ sales levels in U.S. mass-market retail, according to Nielsen. Anticipated federal regulation of the vapor business is expected to make business even more challenging for independent players.

Point of sale in the limelight

In this highly competitive environment, critical mass and clever strategies are keys to long-term success. Florida-based vaporizer and e-cigarette manufacturer Vapor Corp.—in its own words the only “pure-play” company in the vapor industry that is listed on a major stock exchange (NASDAQ]—is in the process of creating a national vapor product brand. To this end, the company has optimized distribution right down to the end consumer.

In July 2015, Vapor Corp. raised $41.4 million and embarked on an aggressive retail expansion strategy. “We presently have 15 company-owned stores and anticipate at least doubling that number before the end of the year,” says Jeff Holman, Vapor Corp.’s CEO. “By the end of 2016 we are looking forward to having 75 to 100 company-owned stores. Vapor Corp. is in the process of converting both its previously branded stores, as well as new store acquisitions, into a nationally branded ‘VaporMax’ trademarked retail program. This will allow us to create a comfortable and familiar vaping experience for both novice and experienced customers, no matter which store they visit across the U.S.”

The number of vape stores in the U.S. has risen to at least 15,000, with some estimates being as high as 35,000 stores, according to Wells Fargo Securities’ Herzog. Holman says that $2 billion of the $3.5 billion market is spent on vaporizers and that $1.2 billion of that $2 billion is spent in vape stores.

At Vapor Corp.’s stores, particular emphasis is put on the customer experience. Holman explains: “Our vape stores are more than just places to purchase products; they’re places for vapers to relax, interact and enjoy a quality vaping experience. We offer free Wi-Fi, sell coffee and other beverages, as well as light snacks in some locations. Eventually, we are looking to be the Starbucks of the vape store industry. We also obtained our first beer and wine license and are now hosting our customers for the watching of sporting events, as well as other social gatherings.”

In its stores, the company offers proprietary e-liquid brands, including its The Vape Store line (more than 200 flavors) and its new premium Naked Fish line. In addition, the stores sell accessories such as batteries, tanks and mods, and rechargeable vaporizer kits, all of which can be used with e-liquid solutions, wax, dry herbs or leaf.

With its comprehensive portfolio, the company seeks to cater to the needs of users in a market characterized by change. In September 2014, MarketWatch.com reported that open-system vaporizers had officially overtaken cigalikes, contributing $1.5 billion—$0.5 billion more than cigalikes—to the overall vapor sector in 2014.

Vapor Corp. is developing new flavor profiles that are distinct to its brands, enabling users to develop preferences for a certain product based on taste and flavor, like smokers do with their favorite brands of combustible cigarettes. To allow users of competing e-cigarette products to try and transition to Vapor Corp.’s cartridges, the company offers a universal-fit mouthpiece that can be used in conjunction with the battery section of most other popular e-cigarette brands.

The company also has a patent pending for a dynamo-powered e-cigarette that can be recharged by shaking the product, thus enabling continued use without having to plug the device into an electrical outlet.  Vapor Corp. also has a patent pending for a biometric fingerprint locking system, which would allow only the adult owner to power up the device. This innovation is meant to prevent children from secretly using their parents’ vaporizers.

Going new ways

Just as important as innovation, however, is building brand awareness and getting the product to the consumer. When entering the vape market and taking their brands national, the traditional tobacco companies could draw not only on their considerable financial resources but also on their long-standing experience in distribution and marketing in a heavily regulated product category. As a result, each of the leading four e-cigarette brands is currently available in around 100,000 retail outlets nationwide.

Vapor Corp.’s approach is different, according Holman. “To begin with, the traditional tobacco companies have not entered into the vape-store segment of the industry, which is where we are targeting our major expansion,” he says. “Ownership of retail stores has never been their model, and in our pursuit to become the biggest player in this segment, we have in a sense decided to take our proverbial ball and ‘go play where the big boys ain’t.’ This essentially gives Vapor Corp. several advantages. As compared to our competition, we have superior buying power that comes not only from our 15 stores but also from our wholesale business, which still services over 30,000 retail locations, as well as our online efforts.”

What’s more, says Holman, following the company’s $41.4 million capital injection, Vapor Corp. likely has the biggest war chest in this industry segment from which to grow its store brand. The firm has also set itself apart by connecting at the local level. “We have begun to create a major presence in Florida and will continue to grow throughout the state and into the rest of the U.S. By establishing relationships with key local constituents, we now have an understanding about how to break into existing vaping communities that already include our key demographics.”

To take distribution of its products even further, Vapor Corp. intends to set up a franchise system. “In the coming weeks Vapor Corp. will announce a plan for a franchise program that will allow us to further expand our national vape store concept under the trademarked name ‘VaporMax’ with the tagline ‘The Original Vape Store,’ capitalizing on our existing 15-store footprint. Our strategy is to attract ambitious franchisees who share our vision and look to join forces with the leading retail vape store concept in the U.S. We will also seek to convert existing, successful vape store retailers by showing them how they can increase their profits by being a Vapor Corp. franchisee.”

As the company expands, it is taking into account the anticipated regulation of the vapor segment by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In the absence of federal regulations, many states have adopted their own e-cigarette regulations. Needless to say, the differences in regulation between jurisdictions make launching a new vapor product challenging.

Holman sees FDA regulation as an opportunity for Vapor Corp., which he says consistently adheres to FDA regulations and requires its business partners to do the same. “When the regulations are enacted, the e-liquid bar will be raised for all retailers in the FDA’s efforts to protect the public good,” says Holman. “Smaller stores that had been mixing their own blends in back rooms with cheaper ingredients will see their margins decline when they have to purchase higher-quality products, and will likely have to close. Before that occurs, we invite mom-and-pop stores across the country to engage with us as part of our national retail expansion strategy in light of the difficulties that they will face under the new FDA regulations.”

*Nielsen data focus primarily on convenience store sales; they do not include vaporizers or open-tank systems, which are typically purchased in vape shops or tobacco outlet stores.

Conflicting vapor studies are making global headlines and confusing consumers.

By Timothy S. Donahue

Statistics can be a tricky business. When three new studies on the vapor industry were released in late August and early September, they sent seemingly conflicting messages about whether e-cigarettes could help people quit smoking or would lead them to tobacco. Then, major media outlets ran separate stories on all the studies, which sent the vapor industry into a deeper state of confusion.

First, researchers from the University of Pittsburgh Center for Research on Media, Technology and Health and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics that linked e-cigarette use to higher probabilities of teens turning to tobacco cigarettes. Then, just a few minutes later, Public Health England (PHE) released its report claiming that e-cigarettes were “95 percent” safer than traditional tobacco.

The JAMA study stated that teens who use e-cigarettes are significantly more likely to try combustibles later on, finding that teens who use e-cigarettes are much more likely to start using traditional cigarettes within a year, compared to peers who do not use e-cigarettes. Researchers looked at about 700 people from ages 16 to 26. None had tried cigarette smoking at the study’s start, and 16 had tried e-cigarettes. The study asked participants if they would try a cigarette if a friend offered them one, or whether they thought they would smoke a cigarette within the next year. Those who answered “definitely no” were found to be “non-susceptible” to cigarette smoking.

A year later, 10 percent of the never-triers of e-cigarettes had taken at least one puff on a traditional cigarette. But 38 percent (six of 16) of e-cigarette triers had taken at least one traditional cigarette puff. “What is extremely worrisome is that these findings further indicate that e-cigarette use by our nation’s youth, which is a major concern in itself, may also be a gateway to smoking,” American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said in a statement. “This new study truly underscores just how dangerous of a habit e-cigarette use can be, especially if it is leading to teens taking up additional tobacco products.”

Not everyone agreed. In fact, numerous researchers went on the record as saying the JAMA study was meaningless, citing specifically the criteria of calling someone who had taken “just one puff” a smoker. “This study focused on cigarettes and reports no information on prior hookah, cigar, marijuana, alcohol or smokeless tobacco use,” Lynn Kozlowski, a professor of health behavior at The University at Buffalo, wrote in The Conversation, an academic journal. “If even two of the 16 were discounted because of prior use of other products [and two were], these results would likely be statistically insignificant.” It should be mentioned that several researchers disagreed with Kozlowski’s assertions, stating that they “are not actually legitimate.”

Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, a vapor advocacy group, said it should come as no surprise that teens who are willing to try vaping are also going to likely try a cigarette. “These ‘gateway’ studies aren’t even assessing habitual use of cigarettes; they’re only asking about ever use,” says Conley. “The fact is youth smoking has declined by a record, dramatic 40 percent since experimentation with e-cigarettes began to increase in 2011. The evidence showing e-cigs to be a gateway out of smoking for both teens and adults is far more clear than any assertion that vaping is leading teens to take up cigarettes.”

In contrast to the JAMA study, the PHE report found that regular users of e-cigarettes are almost exclusively adults who are already smokers, that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes are “renormalizing smoking or increasing smoking uptake,” and that they are not acting as a “gateway” for young adults and adolescents. The PHE report nevertheless advised caution and underlined the importance of providing balanced information.

Overseen by Peter Hajek, a professor of clinical psychology at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, and Ann McNeill, a professor of psychiatry, psychology and neuroscience at King’s College London, the PHE report stated, “While vaping may not be 100 percent safe, most of the chemicals causing smoking-related disease are absent and the chemicals which are present pose limited danger.”

“It is not known whether current [e-cigarette] products are more or less effective than licensed stop-smoking medications,” the report continues, “but they are much more popular, thereby providing an opportunity to expand the number of smokers stopping successfully.”

Shortly after the PHE study’s release, The Lancet, a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal, claimed the PHE “95 percent safer” figure came from a 2014 study published in European Addiction Research, an academic journal. The Lancet said that PHE failed to disclose that the previous study used no “hard evidence” to reach its conclusion.

That 2014 study, led by Imperial College London researcher David Nutt, was based on the conclusions of a two-day workshop of “international experts,” during which the members scored a range of nicotine products for harm. They concluded that e-cigarettes had 4 percent of the harm of traditional cigarettes. Nutt and his co-authors conceded in the study that there was a “lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria” and that “there was no formal criterion for the recruitment of the experts.”

However, the PHE authors responded to The Lancet critique, which was based on the one perceived flaw. The “error” was centered on just one of 185 references PHE used, essentially ignoring the rest of the 111-page document. “The Lancet believes that the message [that] smokers can benefit from switching to vaping is an undesirable one,” the authors wrote in their response. “The estimate that e-cigarette use is around 95 percent less harmful than smoking is based on the facts that, first, cigarette smoke constituents that harm health are either absent in e-cigarette vapor or, if present, are mostly at levels much below 5 percent of smoking doses; and second, the main chemicals present in e-cigarettes only have not been associated with any serious risk. Our review highlighted how smokers are currently misinformed about these relative risks.”

Carl V. Phillips, chief scientific director for the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA), a consumer advocacy NGO that supports tobacco harm reduction, agreed with some of The Lancet’s criticisms, adding that the “95 percent” claim came from a made-up number (referring to Nutt’s study) and the study is a “case of working that magic that turns vague junk science claims” into concrete facts. “The ‘95 percent’ claim has led to criticisms and attempts at clarification, every single one of which, as far as I can tell, is wrong,” said Phillips. “Everyone in sight is trafficking in non-science at a minimum, and nonsense quite often.”

Then it happened again. Just a few days after the PHE study, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), a California, USA-based health advocacy group, reported that 97 e-cigarette products purchased from major retailers and online sellers were shown to produce two potentially cancer-causing chemicals, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, after testing by an independent laboratory. This was in complete contradiction to PHE’s second “fact” that it had used to base its conclusions.

Vapor industry experts and anti-smoking advocates alike cried foul of the CEH study almost immediately after its release. Not only did the study not list any methods, they argued, but it also didn’t state what products were tested. It did, however, name a few of the companies whose products it had tested. Oddly, the CEH study also included an apparently staged photo of a seemingly pregnant woman vaping, an issue the study didn’t confront.

“[The CEH report] made junk science claims that would tend to scare smokers away from switching to e-cigarettes,” said Phillips. “In particular, their headline claim in their press release was ‘High Levels of Cancer-Causing Chemicals in the Majority of Nearly 100 E-cigarettes Tested.’ How high? They offer absolutely no context for that word in the press release and nothing clear in the report. We know that the real answer is ‘not high enough to worry about.’ The two chemicals they are talking about are formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, which have been measured in pretty much every study of e-cigarette emissions and found not to be present at levels that pose a concern.”

Numerous vapor industry experts complained that all the mentioned studies had serious flaws. According to Francisco Garcia, a researcher at the University of Arizona, the truth is that “there is not enough evidence to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, or benefits and harms of using e-cigarettes to help people quit smoking.” Anecdotally, however, there are possibly millions of stories and blog posts that can be found online of ex-smokers extolling the virtues of vapor. Just the CASAA website has a testimonials section with more than 5,300 stories of smokers using vapor to quit.

Several studies show that vaping more likely helps smokers quit, rather than push people towards traditional tobacco. In fact, a new online poll out of Scotland by psychologist Christopher Russell and colleagues at the Centre for Drug Misuse in Glasgow (an independent research entity), found that of the 7,300 people surveyed who said they had vaped at least once, 5,000 had been regular smokers when they first started vaping. More than 80 percent of smokers had quit completely since beginning to vape regularly, which, at the time of the survey, was an average of 14 months before they took the survey.

More than 56 percent of respondents who were still smoking at the time of the survey had at least halved their daily smoking since beginning to regularly vape (defined as at least every other day). The average reduction was from 23 cigarettes per day pre-vaping to four per day. In full disclosure, The Centre has received research funding from public bodies, such as the UK Government Department of Health and the United Nations, and from tobacco companies, such as British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International.

Conley quit smoking using watermelon-flavored e-liquid in 2010. He says one of the major issues with vapor studies is that the major medical journals that have the best public relations firms generally publish only research by those ideologically opposed to harm reduction for smokers. “Meanwhile, quality studies often get ignored by the media, in part because good news isn’t sexy,” says Conley. “With each passing year the number of negative and slanted studies just keep piling up. This has undoubtedly impacted smokers’ perceptions of the relative risk of vaping versus smoking, which is why one of the major conclusions of the recent Public Health England report was that health authorities need to combat this rampant misinformation.”

The one thing that can be garnered from most vapor industry studies to date is that e-cigarettes are most likely a reduced risk over smoking cigarettes. “E-cigarettes are not completely risk-free, but when compared to smoking, evidence shows they carry just a fraction of the harm,” said professor Kevin Fenton with PHE, who was not involved in this particular PHE study.

Exactly how much risk is reduced remains an open question—but we can expect the researchers to continue confusing us all.