Tag: 2016

Mounting evidence
It’s getting harder to dispute the contribution of vapor products to smoking cessation.
By Emma Dorey
Evidence that e-cigarettes greatly benefit public health continues to mount. A raft of recent research findings show that e-cigarettes are effective at helping people quit smoking or reduce consumption—and are mostly used for this purpose—crushing the claims widely peddled by the anti-vaping lobby that e-cigarette use encourages smoking and is just as hazardous.
In-depth analysis of smoking and e-cigarette use across all 28 EU member states has revealed that e-cigarettes have helped more than 6 million people quit smoking and more than 9 million reduce how much they smoke—the highest rates seen in a population study. Scientists analyzed responses from some 27,460 people aged over 15 years in the Eurobarometer survey, which provided detailed information about patterns of smoking and e-cigarette use, differentiating between experimentation and regular use, current and past use, and nicotine versus non-nicotine. They found that among the 7.5 million current users of e-cigarettes, 35.1 percent have quit smoking while an additional 32.2 percent have reduced smoking consumption (Addiction, June 2016).
“These are probably the highest rates of smoking cessation and reduction ever observed in such a large population study,” said Konstantinos Farsalinos, the principal investigator of the study and a researcher at the Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center in Athens, Greece.
Thought to be one of the most detailed ever used in analyzing e-cigarette use on a population level, the Eurobarometer data also demonstrated that e-cigarette use is largely confined to current and former smokers; although some nonsmokers experiment with e-cigarettes, regular use is rare. “Just 1.3 percent of nonsmokers reported current use of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and 0.09 percent reported daily use,” said Jacques le Houezec, a neuroscientist at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research who was also involved in the study. “Practically, there is no current or regular use of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes by nonsmokers, so the concern that electronic cigarettes can be a gateway to smoking is largely rejected by our findings.”
“Our study shows that e-cigarettes seem to have a beneficial role for the EU population, mainly because of the substantial proportion of smoking cessation and reduction and because of extremely minimal use by never-smokers,” says Farsalinos. “Moreover, there is no initiation with e-cigarettes; thus the gateway to smoking theory cannot be substantiated.”
These two key findings tally with those from other studies. Researchers at University College London, for example, estimate that the use of e-cigarettes helped 16,000 to 22,000 smokers in England to quit for a year or more (Addiction, March 2016). “E-cigarettes appear to be helping a significant number of smokers to stop who would not have done otherwise—not as many as some e-cigarette enthusiasts claim but a substantial number nonetheless,” said professor Robert West, who led the research team.
To assess the real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation, West and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional population study using 2014 data from monthly national surveys. Previous research has found that using e-cigarettes increases the chances of quitting success by around 50 percent compared with using no support or one of the traditional nicotine products such as gum or skin patches. This amounts to an additional 16,000–22,000 people stopping who would otherwise have continued smoking, say the researchers.
Detractors claim that e-cigarettes undermine quitting if smokers use them just to cut down tobacco consumption, and that they act as a gateway into smoking conventional cigarettes, particularly among young people who would otherwise not have tried smoking. “These claims stem from a misunderstanding of what the evidence can tell us at this stage,” said West.
Indeed, the 2.8 million regular users of e-cigarettes in Britain are almost entirely current and ex-smokers, according to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), a campaigning public health charity that works to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco. The 47 percent who are ex-smokers are mainly using e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking, while the 51 percent who are current smokers are using e-cigarettes to help them cut down on smoking. Additionally, use among adults and young people who have never smoked is negligible and has not changed since 2012, and there is no evidence in Britain that use of e-cigarettes leads to a takeup of smoking.
Furthermore, a team with researchers from the U.S., Canada and Australia has shown that, rather than acting as a gateway to smoking, e-cigarettes and other vaping products could actually cut smoking-related deaths in young people by 21 percent.
The researchers modeled the public-health impact of vapor products in terms of how their availability or absence alters smoking patterns among those who would or would not have otherwise smoked cigarettes. Significantly, the model, which was based on the 1997 birth cohort, focused on young people. It also accounted for possible changes in behavior, such as moving from experimenting to regular use and using both e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes. Based on current usage patterns and conservative assumptions, the researchers project a 21 percent reduction in smoking-attributable deaths when vapor products are available, compared to when they are not (Nicotine & Tobacco Research, July 2016).
“While vaping by youth is a concern, the gateway hypothesis that vapers will become smokers is not as strong a threat as the media has portrayed,” says David Levy, one of the researchers and professor of oncology at Georgetown University.
This view is consistent with that of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), which has also concluded that, in the U.K. at least, e-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking. They are used almost exclusively by smokers who are trying to cut down or quit, and use by nonsmokers is rare. After analyzing the latest available evidence, the RCP concluded that e-cigarette use is likely to lead to attempts to quit smoking that would not otherwise have happened (“Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction,” April 2016).
It is a common misconception that nicotine is the cause of death and disease caused by cigarettes; most of the diseases associated with smoking are actually caused by the smoke formed from the combustion of tobacco. Because e-cigarettes are tobacco-free, they deliver nicotine without the toxicants generated by conventional cigarettes—considerably safer for both smokers and bystanders. If smokers switched from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes, millions of lives could be saved—a no-brainer in terms of public health.
Unfortunately, around 8.7 million people in the U.K. alone still smoke tobacco cigarettes. And even though awareness of e-cigarettes is widespread in Britain, only 15 percent of the public accurately believes that e-cigarettes are a lot less harmful than smoking, according to ASH.
Although the precise long-term health risks associated with e-cigarette use are unknown, Public Health England has concluded that e-cigarettes are around 95 percent less harmful than conventional cigarettes and have the potential to help smokers quit (“E-cigarettes: An evidence update,” August 2015). The RCP has gone further, stating that, despite not being entirely risk-free, the health risks of e-cigarettes are unlikely to exceed 5 percent of those associated with smoked tobacco products and may well be substantially lower.
“[The RCP] report lays to rest almost all of the concerns over these products and concludes that, with sensible regulation, e-cigarettes have the potential to make a major contribution towards preventing the premature death, disease and social inequalities in health that smoking currently causes in the U.K.,” said John Britton, chair of the RCP’s Tobacco Advisory Group.
Yet, because nicotine is derived from tobacco, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has decided to heavily regulate e-cigarettes and other nicotine-containing vaping devices as tobacco products, imposing what many believe to be unjustified and costly demands on producers that are likely to hamper growth of the industry and, with it, efforts to cut smoking-related deaths.
In the EU, e-cigarettes are regulated under the Tobacco Products Directive, “a strange collection of arbitrary restrictions and expensive but pointless burdens devised in secret by politicians and officials with minimal transparency or accountability,” according to Clive Bates, former director of ASH and a public health commentator who blogs at The Counterfactual. Any e-cigarettes claiming to help with smoking cessation in the U.K. are regulated as medicinal products by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
“We’ve seen a series of studies painting a clear picture of the beneficial impact of vapor products,” says Bates. “Given the RCP’s estimate that e-cigarettes are unlikely to exceed 5 percent of the risk of smoking and are likely to be substantially less than that, we are witnessing the early stages of a major public health success. And it is driven by technology, consumers and innovators—no taxpayers are harmed and no health care resources are consumed.
“Governments and regulators just need to allow the process to unfold, without smothering the industry with excessive regulation, bans or misclassifying the products as medicines, most of which has the effect of protecting the cigarette trade and encouraging continued smoking.”
However, there are a huge variety of e-cigarettes, few of which are properly tested. There is no question that, to properly safeguard consumers and reassure those who are concerned about product quality, standards are needed to regulate manufacturing methods, ingredient disclosure and performance.
According to the RCP’s Morgan Evans, “The RCP would like to see a nicotine regulatory system that applies controls on products in proportion to their potential harm, to promote innovation and diversity, ensure reasonable levels of protection for consumers and, above all, discourage tobacco use.”
August 1, 2016
Case closed
Ballantyne Brands’ new closed system simplifies sub-ohm vaping and confidently confronts FDA vapor regulations.
By Timothy S. Donahue
Sub-ohm vaping just became affordable. Ballantyne Brands, the creator of the Mistic and Haus lines of vapor products, has launched Mistic 2.0, the first sub-ohm vaping system for the big-box and convenience store markets. Not impressed? It’s also the first closed-system sub-ohm vaporizer available in any U.S. retail market.
The innovative device uses a 1,700 mAh battery that works with a uniquely designed e-liquid “pod” that provides vapers with a new atomizer (with a coil that fires at 0.3 ohms) and 10 mL of fresh juice every time a pod is replaced. Only 4 inches tall and less than 2 inches wide, Mistic 2.0 weighs just over 4 ounces, which is relatively light for a sub-ohm-capable device.
Mistic 2.0 has been under development for more than a year. Its design was finalized in January, and the company has been working closely with its hardware manufacturer in China. Production began in early May, and Ballantyne received its first production run for retail in early July. The device is expected to be available in as many as five national retailers. “It is going to be in drug, mass and convenience stores,” says John Wiesehan Jr., CEO of Ballantyne Brands, adding that Mistic 2.0 will launch nationally in more than 20,000 different stores throughout 2016.
There were two prevailing reasons behind the creation of Mistic 2.0, according to Wiesehan. Firstly, the company wanted to make the transition from combustible cigarettes to a quality vaping experience as simple as possible. “I wanted everyone to have the same experience as if they walked into a vape shop and purchased a $100 to $200 vaporizer,” he says. Mistic 2.0 will be available as a kit on retail shelves (with battery, charger and two pods) for about $39.99, making it one of the most affordable sub-ohm-capable devices on the market. “The MSRP [manufacturer’s suggested retail price] on the pods is between $17.99 and $19.99,” he says. “If you put two pods in the kit with a battery and charger, you are essentially getting either the battery and charger for free or the two pods for free, depending on how you want to look at it.”
Retailers are excited about the latest product in the Mistic line, according to Wiesehan. Mistic 2.0, he says, is finally going to give the combustible cigarette smoker, as well as the beginner and experienced vaper, a product that provides definitive gratification. “It’s a great vape, and you don’t have to switch or clean tanks,” Wiesehan says. “You don’t have to fill a tank. There are no messy bottles and droppers—just grab your pod, pop it into the device and vape. You’ll always have a brand-new tank and atomizer providing the ultimate satisfaction.” The pod also includes a new mouthpiece for each session.
The second reason for Mistic 2.0’s development is regulation. Ballantyne believes it is exactly the type of vaporizer that can comply with the deeming U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations concerning vapor products and survive the FDA’s premarket approval process.
“We see the closed system as a great form factor for the future based on how the deeming rules have been written,” says Justin Wiesehan, vice president of regulatory affairs for Ballantyne Brands. “Mistic 2.0’s closed system offers greater control. “There is no exposed liquid, and we believe that if we can replicate the experience of an open system into a closed system, that would be a better way for the industry to move forward, based on the ease of use and simplicity of the product.”
Using a closed system would also save the manufacturer the hassle of showing the FDA how a juice behaves in different devices under varying settings. The Mistic 2.0 pod works only in the Mistic 2.0 device at a set wattage (30 watts/3.7 volts) and temperature. “It makes studies a little easier,” says Justin Wiesehan. “We will have the ability to bridge studies because every liquid performs the same in the device no matter the flavor.”
Simple sub-ohming
Sub-ohm vaping—vaping with coil resistances below 1 ohm—is often thought of as being too complicated for the average user looking to quit combustibles. This is what makes Mistic 2.0 stand out, according to John Wiesehan Jr. “When vaping with a sub-ohm atomizer, you’ll be using a bigger wick and coil. Basically you’ll be using much more battery power to spread heat over a larger surface of the cotton wicking absorbing the e-juice. This causes more vapor to be produced with each puff,” he says. “For the same reason that sub-ohming tends to produce larger clouds, it also tends to unlock much more flavor.”
Mindful of regulations, Ballantyne Brands has avoided using any kid-friendly flavor names, instead opting for simplicity with styles such as tobacco, menthol, mixed fruit, strawberry and cherry. The pods are designed so that they can’t be opened or refilled and are extremely difficult to break. They have been put through a scrutinizing quality-control process, according to Justin Wiesehan.
The company is releasing 10 flavors in total, each containing 4 mg of nicotine. The additional flavors will be coconut cream, creamy cantaloupe, java, mango and watermelon. Ballantyne Brands’ liquids are produced at two separate U.S.-based e-liquid manufacturing facilities in ISO certified labs. Liquids produced in these labs never touch human hands.
The liquid used in Mistic 2.0 pods was specially designed for the new device too. At a ratio of 80 percent vegetable glycerin to 20 percent propylene glycol, the new juices are less dense than Ballantyne’s other juice brands. This allows the liquid to move more fluidly through the coil, according to Justin Wiesehan. “It’s the same experience from the first vape of the pod until the final vape,” he says. “That was important to us; we wanted a high level of consistency. The battery, size of coil, the wattage—everything is at the perfect settings to get the best vape from the liquid in the pods.”
Mistic 2.0 has the potential to change the vaping experience for vapers who can’t afford the often high start-up costs of sub-ohm vaping. While nobody knows yet what exactly the FDA will want in a vapor device, Ballantyne Brands sees Mistic 2.0 as the best overall vaping experience for the everyday vaper. The only questions left are, will the market respond to the new device and can it compete with the higher-end vape shop products? John Wiesehan Jr. believes he already has those answers. “The Mistic 2.0 is one of the best vaporizers on the market,” he says. “Case closed.”
August 1, 2016
Monkey business
Seven quick questions—and answers—about retailing vapor products
By Timothy S. Donahue

After smoking combustible cigarettes for more than 18 years, Kris Zarate wanted nothing more than to quit. After discovering e-cigarettes, he realized that they truly did help people stop smoking. If vapor worked for him, he figured, then these new products could work for anybody looking for an alternative to cigarettes.
This is a story told time and time again in the industry. Ask vape shop owners why they opened their businesses and the most common answer will be to help people quit smoking cigarettes. In early 2016, the business ratings website Yelp listed 10,591 U.S. companies that identified as vape shops. That amounts to nearly 2.7 vape shops for every bowling alley in the nation and about four for every comic book store. That’s a lot of ex-smokers helping current smokers find a less risky way to consume nicotine.
Zarate is now the owner of Vape Monkeys, with two locations in Chicago, Illinois, USA. He says that taxation is as much a threat to his business as are the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new regulations. In Pennsylvania, for example, a recently passed revenue package would put a 40 percent wholesale tax on e-cigarettes, liquid cartridges and vapor devices. In Chicago, vape shops must apply not only a 10.25 percent sales tax to vapor products but also an additional $0.80 per “product unit” and $0.55 per milliliter of vape-able liquid. This means a $10 10 mL bottle of e-liquid costs $17.33 after taxes.
“These tax policies are forcing shop owners to sell vapor products for more than it costs for someone to just keep smoking cigarettes,” says Zarate. “We need to incentivize quitting cigarettes; making cigarettes less expensive than e-cigarettes goes against improving overall public health, which is the stated goal of the FDA.”
It is essential that vape shop owners be realistic in a post-FDA regulatory environment, according to Zarate. “Businesses need to focus on continuing their mission and stay true to their goals,” he says. “This will help define your business as the industry moves forward.” Vapor Voice recently sat down with Zarate so he could answer seven quick questions on the possible future of Vape Monkeys and share his outlook on the future of the vapor industry overall.
Vapor Voice: What motivated you to get involved in the vapor industry?
Zarate: Vapor products were the only method that worked for me. I quit after being a cigarette smoker for over 18 years. I was working a trade show with my previous job, and I saw people walking around and coming by my booth vaping. I was very curious, so I visited a company that was selling vapor products to get more information. I instantly realized this was a great industry to be in to help smokers kick the habit.
What is the Vape Monkeys philosophy? How do you approach current smokers looking to switch or the newcomer just learning to vape?
The Vape Monkeys philosophy is simple: Help people quit smoking cigarettes and introduce them to what we see as a better option. How we teach our employees to approach newcomers to the industry is to first explain the benefits of vaping compared to traditional cigarettes by comparing what you’re actually inhaling into your body. With all of our customers we take the time to explain the proper and safe way to use the products they purchase. If they ever have any questions, we are here for them.
Have you noticed any change in business since the deeming regulations deadline, August 8?
Yes, I have. I’ve noticed a huge drop in sales and customers coming into the stores. This can be attributed to the new FDA regulations, false information by writers paid by big tobacco companies and a forced tobacco tax in our county. These changes were only put out to scare current vapers and those looking to quit smoking, and to raise the taxes on nontobacco products and e-liquids. States are losing money as more people quit smoking, and they want to make sure they don’t lose that revenue stream.
What needed to be done to get ready for the FDA’s deadline, and how do you anticipate moving forward?
There were a lot of changes that needed to be done at the stores to get ready for the FDA’s deadline. I had to remodel all of my locations to meet the regulations the FDA is enforcing for shop owners. All I can really hope for moving forward is to keep my business alive and try my very best to give newcomers and experienced vapers quality products, and help them keep vaping. We have to be proactive in helping end the deaths caused by cigarettes and get the word out that vaping saves lives.
How do you seek out products for your shop, where do you source information on the latest hardware and e-liquids?
Every shop owner has their own methods of picking products to bring into their shops. With hundreds and thousands of hardware and e-liquids on the market, it does get overwhelming sometimes. With hardware, I do a lot of research, reading reviews and asking people what they think about the product before I make any purchases. I strongly believe in giving my customers quality products first. As for e-liquids, I am very picky about what I actually sell to my customers. I might use social media to check out the latest products, and customers request some products as well. Once I get samples from e-liquid companies, I personally try them first. Then my employees and customers try them out so we can get some feedback. I also try to not stock flavors that taste similar to what we already have available. This gives everyone a wide variety. Customer input is very important because everyone has a different palate when it comes to taste.
Where do you see the future of the vapor industry?
In my opinion, the future of the vaping industry is all about growth. This year, the vape industry has hit a lot bumps in the road, from the FDA and state regulations, taxation. However, vaping is still much safer than smoking cigarettes. All that vapers, shop owners, e-liquid and hardware manufactures can hope for is improving the industry by educating consumers and continue research that produces hard evidence that vaping is a safer alternative to smoking.
Any advice for fellow vape shop owners stressing over the future of their businesses?
My only advice to fellow shop owners is to just hang in there, be positive and don’t give up too soon. If this is your first and only business, remember that every business faces challenges. The vape industry isn’t going anywhere and will continue to grow. Stay strong in your mission to save lives.
August 1, 2016
Stellar performance
Seven quick questions—and answers—about retailing vapor products.
By Timothy S. Donahue
Carrie Brown and Stephen Clemons are former smokers who quit by using e-cigarettes. According to Mitch Zeller, director for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products, they don’t exist. Zeller recently publicly called successful switchers “hypothetical” individuals.
“I want everyone to know they can feel better and quit smoking successfully using vapor products,” says Brown. “I’ve always wanted to be my own boss but needed something I was passionate about, and helping people quit doing something that is nearly impossible quickly became that passion. I quit my job, drained my 401(k), and here we are.”
Brown and Clemons now own three popular vape shops in Charleston, South Carolina. They are exactly the type of entrepreneurs the FDA’s new regulations for the vapor industry could put out of business. “The Planet Vape stores and the entire vapor industry have been anticipating the new FDA regulations for quite some time now. I don’t think anyone can act too surprised,” claims Clemons. “Where it stands now, brick-and-mortar vape shops will have their choice of contracting out their own brand, and/or selling premium brand e-liquids.”
Exactly how the FDA regulations will impact small businesses is on the minds of every vape shop owner. “Make sure you are truly in compliance at all times,” Clemons says. “Do your homework on manufacturers so you can be reasonably assured you are building lasting business relationships.” Vapor Voice recently sat down with Brown and Clemons so they could answer seven quick questions on the possible future of their stores, as well as their outlook on the future of the vapor industry overall.
Vapor Voice: What motivated you both to get involved in the vapor industry?
Brown: After smoking for more than 20 years, e-cigarettes worked to help me quit smoking. It was difficult to find juices I enjoyed vaping, so I started mixing my own and found I had a knack for putting flavors together. I started selling it to friends, then selling the juice online, and it was loved. I tried turning every smoker I knew into a vaper!
Clemons: By the time I was 15, I was smoking a pack a day. I tried my first e-cigarette in 2011. It was a cigalike style that I purchased from a local tobacco store. I think I gave it an honest effort for about a week but went back to smoking because it just didn’t satisfy the craving. In 2013, I found South Beach Smoke online and haven’t had a cigarette since. That same year I got involved with International Vapor Group [IVG] with a $1,000 investment that I scraped together. My company, SC E-cigarette, began distributing IVG and many other vapor products in the Charleston area and beyond. I partnered up with Carrie Brown, the founder of The Planet Vape, in January of this year. We both feel very strongly that vaping has saved our lives, and we want to help people achieve a smoke-free lifestyle.
How has Charleston responded to the Planet Vape concept since its opening in 2014?
Brown: Charleston was a bit behind the times compared to some other cities. We have continued to bring new ideas and new flavors with our personal touch. We decided to open our shop in Goose Creek [a small city just outside of Charleston] because we had such a large [U.S.] Navy customer base. We knew they would enjoy a place to call home—a place to hang out and socialize while doing something we love.
Clemons: The Planet Vape Ultra Lounge in Goose Creek boasts over 3,000 square feet, including an entertainment area with pool tables and arcade games. We carry a huge selection of products and a constant stream of events like cloud competitions. We now operate three retail locations and maintain a strong wholesale business as well. We have a great team of 15 dedicated vapers on staff who really make this company what it is today. Additionally, SC E-cigarette enjoyed a 40 percent increase in sales in 2015 and is projecting at least the same increase in 2016.
What most concerns you about the FDA’s new regulations?
Clemons: Many brick-and-mortar vape shops are complying with the regulations already, for the most part. No shop that I know of is selling vapor products to persons under the age of 18, for instance. I think most vape shops that are producing their own e-liquid will be forced into making some big decisions. Basically, they will have to determine whether or not they can survive without the generous profit margins that come from manufacturing, keeping in mind the uncertainty of the availability of quality devices after the 24-month compliance period ends.
Brown: I think many in our industry underestimate the resources of the large device manufacturers based in China. I would be surprised if companies like Sigelei, Kanger and Aspire are not prepared to submit hundreds of premarket authorization applications. One of the benefits of regulation will be an increase in the quality of products being imported and sold. I also anticipate a consolidation period, not only in devices but in e-liquid manufacturing here in the U.S.
So, everyone needs to start selling premium e-liquids?
Clemons: Yes. This isn’t a drastic change in the industry, however. If not exclusively premium, wisely, most shops that I visit have a large selection of premium brand e-liquids. However, the perception of being a premium brand does not necessarily mean, for instance, that they will survive the premarket authorization application process. Fortunately, there are several of these premium brand companies who have already completed various stages of the application process, but some are farther along than others.
How do you see the vapor regulations impacting The Planet Vape stores?
Brown: The impacts of the FDA regulations on The Planet Vape will be the same as they are on any other responsible vape shop in the area, and there will be impacts. The Planet Vape, for instance, manufactures its own brand of e-liquid, as well as several other brands. While we have seen and heard estimates of the costs associated with the premarket authorization process, we have yet to do a cost analysis per SKU. We are glad the FDA has included language indicating that it will be helpful to small businesses, but remain skeptical about how this will translate financially. However, we have never been afraid of hard work, and if at all possible we will continue manufacturing our e-liquid.
Clemons: We have also begun the beta phase of our own mechanical mod parts department. The good news is that we have 24 months of business as usual because we are fully compliant as a retailer and are already carrying many premium e-liquid brands that we are confident will gain the FDA’s approval. We are also investigating other revenue streams that will not only increase our sales but will enhance our appeal in the vapor community and the community at large.
What do you see as the future of the vaping industry?
Clemons: Imagine the year is 2021. It’s one year after the vapor wars concluded and the final big tobacco company has gone bankrupt. Studies have not only shown that there are no harmful effects from vaping zero-nicotine e-liquid, but that most people who do use nicotine in their e-liquid do so at 1 mg (or .01 percent by volume). The studies have also shown that the total number of people vaping has not increased overall because of the great number of people who have quit smoking who have also quit vaping. Because of the rise of vapor, the number of smokers has diminished to an unmeasurable figure. The final conclusion of vapor studies is that vaping saves lives. Now, the above is purely my imagination going a little wild, but is it that far off? Maybe the date should be 2026.
Any advice for your fellow vape shop owners stressing out over FDA regulations and the future of their business?
Brown: Vape shop owners need to be pragmatic in a post-FDA regulatory environment. We also have to remember that the truth is on our side, but if we don’t stay in business long enough for all the positive studies and obvious benefits of vaping to be published, then the big tobacco companies will prevail. So, stick to your guns. Be realistic about your own manufacturing and financial capabilities, focus on what you do well and be true to the very nature of your vape identity. This will help define your business in the near future, when customers might find it difficult to differentiate one shop from another.

July 1, 2016
Squonk story
The Kanger Dripbox 160
By Mike Huml

Right on the heels of Kanger’s original Dripbox kit comes the new Dripbox 160. It’s a 160-watt variable device with a squonk design, previously known as a “bottom feeder” design. The premise here is that instead of an RDA being drip-fed from the top, a bottle housed within the mod is squeezed and liquid flows from the bottom through the hollow positive pin. It’s a historically niche design that Kanger has made available to a larger market. It’s a viable alternative to a significantly more expensive squonk mod, but don’t forget the old saying: “You get what you pay for.”
Like other Kanger products, Dripbox is the designation referring to the kit as a whole, which comprises the Dripmod 160 and the Subdrip 160 RDA. Aesthetically, these paired together resemble the Wismec Reuleaux, with Kanger obviously trying to play to that market. In place of a third battery, the Dripmod features a 70 mL soft plastic bottle. As a result, the Dripmod will have a similar ergonomic sensation to the Reuleaux, albeit with shorter battery life and a lower maximum power. In addition, those accustomed to the Reuleaux may need to adjust how they hold the Dripbox due to the fact that the 510 connection is on the opposite side of the fire button. It’s a small inconvenience, but the end result is that many users may not find the Dripbox quite as comfortable to hold as the Reuleaux.
The Subdrip 160 RDA is a fairly standard RDA with one unique feature: The entire deck can be unscrewed and replaced with another pre-made RDA deck. This is a great way to introduce dripping (arguably the most versatile and satisfying way to vape) to the greater market. The option remains to rebuild if so desired, but several different replacement decks are available. While not perfectly built compared to what even an intermediate builder could accomplish, they do the trick and offer an experience far superior to any sub-ohm tank on the market. That aside, the Subdrip 160 RDA has a medium-wide chuff cap that doubles as the airflow control adjustment, which lends itself well to both direct-lung and mouth-to-lung hitting. It’s a surprisingly good RDA with a smaller than usual Velocity-style deck, and while it serves its purpose well, it won’t impress those with an established RDA collection. At its maximum, the airflow is more open than any sub-ohm tank and will provide a satisfying experience for a wide range of vapers.
The menu and screen are bright and easy to read, but there’s nothing of particular note to write home about. It does its job and is easy to use. The Dripbox as a whole is standard Kanger fare when it comes to build quality—it’s good but not great. The buttons are made of plastic but have a nice click to them when pressed. Compared to the original Dripbox, the Dripbox 160 allows you to adjust your wattage easily with the obligatory plus and minus buttons. That alone should persuade any store owner to immediately replace the older Dripbox with the new iteration. It allows for infinitely more customization options and makes it easier to fine-tune the vape experience. In addition, the Dripmod 160 features temperature control for nickel, titanium, nichrome and stainless steel. Overall, these settings work fine but are not 100 percent accurate. All are capable of resisting burning and dry hits, but the temperature setting needs to be experimented with individually for each wire type. With the intended use being RDAs, temperature control generally isn’t as desirable as it would be with a tank, where wicking properties add another dimension that could contribute to dry hits.
So where does the Dripbox 160 fall a bit short? The leaking potential. With so much going on here, there are several points of potential failure, not to mention that many of these points can result in leaking into the mod itself. On paper, there’s no reason why the Dripmod shouldn’t work with other RDAs with a squonk pin, like the Velocity V2. In reality, the size of the hole in which the liquid is fed with these other RDAs can make all the difference. The Subdrip 160 seems to have a much wider hole than other RDAs, and therefore it works the best because there is little resistance when the bottle is squeezed. For RDAs with a tighter hole and more resistance, it can be difficult to feed liquid fast enough, if at all. In some cases, the pressure needed to feed the juice can cause leakage into the internals of the Dripmod, which can result in all sorts of chaos. It can cause the device to auto-fire, or not power on at all. It might simply be annoying to mop up juice on a regular basis, or it could cause complete device failure. This is the worst type of problem to have: an inconsistent one. If multiple units of the same device all have the same problem, it’s easy to identify and fix. With so many points of failure and unpredictable results, the Dripbox is a wild card.
The moral of the story here is that while the Dripmod works fairly well with the included Subdrip 160 RDA, it’s not to be recommended for use with other RDAs. If the user decides to tempt fate, that’s his or her prerogative. For a business owner, it’s an unnecessary risk, and it should be acknowledged that this limits the versatility of the device. There are two possible scenarios that arise when this problem comes to light. First, there is still the option to use a regular RDA and drip from the top. However, there are far better options if a customer isn’t interested in the bottom-feed usability of the Dripmod. There are dual-battery mods that are smaller and more ergonomic, and there’s the Reuleaux, which offers a more comfortable feel and longer battery life for a similar investment. On the other hand, since the use of another squonk-capable RDA is a huge unknown, customers are virtually stuck with this one setup. The Subdrip can be used on another device, but the hollow positive pin means that liquid will constantly leak out of the 510 connection with nowhere for it to go except all over the mod or into the pin, which could cause a short circuit or device failure. All this leads to the fact that the potential buyer must be interested in the Dripbox setup, and that setup only.
One could do far worse than the Dripbox, but also far better. It’s a familiar tale from Kanger: a great idea in theory but only mediocre in practice. The one standout purpose of the Dripbox is to introduce dripping to those unfamiliar with it in an easy and simple way. Kanger is often forgiven for many missteps in their products, but those missteps can’t always be ignored. A device that could have been extremely versatile with a wide appeal instead falls into the niche market trap. While it may pique the curiosity of many a Kanger aficionado, the potential for a sharp decline in interest is present. With regulation on the horizon, versatility is a stronger selling point than ever, and the Dripbox hamstrings itself by inadvertently limiting its usage possibilities.
June 1, 2016
Familiar feel
The H-Priv from Smoktech
By Mike Huml

The H-Priv 220W from Smoktech is a dual-18650, variable-wattage series box mod with a squeezable button on the side. As a store owner, the most pertinent question that needs to be asked is: Did the X Cube II sell well in your shop?
In a nutshell, the H-Priv is a slightly smaller X Cube II that trades gimmicky LEDs for a slicker aesthetic. The board that it uses and the screen are identical to those of the X Cube II, and while the button has undergone an improvement or two, it feels very familiar. The battery door is now a slide-out component that’s objectively a huge improvement over the side-mounted magnetic door of the X Cube II. Overall, the H-Priv is similar enough to the X Cube II that any store owner should have a good idea as to how well it’s going to sell.
The fire button functions in the same exact way as on the X Cube II. It’s a firing bar located on the side, but the H-Priv has done a better job of incorporating its functionality into the design. The angular lines give a geometric aesthetic that obviously had more thought put into it compared with the X Cube.
Ergonomically, the button press is very familiar. While the button itself has been tightened up and doesn’t wobble quite as much, the feel of the button press and the feedback are identical. It’s a mushy feel with a slight bump at the actuation point. However, the button can only be pressed from the top, which adds a little comfort and reduces the chance of it being pressed accidentally. Additionally, the infamous firing delay from the X Cube remains present here, only adding to the sluggish feel of the mod. It’s a shame, because the design of the mod is akin to something of a sports car, something that should be fined-tuned for optimal performance. Unfortunately, there is a stark contrast in how the H-Priv looks and how it feels to use.
In addition to the design, the menu system has also been trimmed down in large part due to the omission of the LEDs and their accompanying settings. Three clicks of the fire bar will bring you into the main menu, of which there are four options. From here, changes can be made to the firing mode, puff counter, settings and power. The H-Priv is capable of quite a bit when it comes to its firing modes. Variable wattage is available, in addition to temperature control with nickel, titanium or stainless steel. Within those options, the user can choose among several options such as “hard,” “soft,” “normal,” etc. These settings add or subtract a certain percentage of the set wattage so that the user can fine-tune his or her experience. In reality, these settings are simply filler, as there is no difference between firing the device in “normal” mode at 85 watts and firing it in “hard” mode at 80 watts. It’s a bit redundant and adds to the clutter of the menu system unnecessarily. Going a level deeper, after selecting the option for temperature control, the user is asked to select the type of wire, then the TCR value, followed by SC or DC, which refers to single coil and dual coil, respectively. It’s admirable that Smoktech attempts to allow customization on this level, but the execution is a bit lacking compared to other mods that offer virtually the same experience with far less clutter. However, once everything is finally set, temperature control works just fine. Like with any other device short of a DNA 200, the accuracy of the temperature is something that the user needs to experiment with to get the desired experience.
On the plus side, the screen is located on the top of the device and is easy to read. Two buttons are located below the screen. They are used to adjust the power or temperature and can optionally be used to navigate the menu. The puff counter option works as it should but isn’t a feature that generally makes or breaks a sale. The menu option for settings allows the user to change several variables, such as screen contrast and orientation, how long the screen remains active after use, the time and date that is shown on the lock screen, the activation of the lock function itself, firmware upgrading, and the resistance of the atomizer. The last option may become necessary due to what appears to be a glitch in the software. Through testing of several devices, it was discovered that the H-Priv has an issue with detecting new atomizers. Like many devices, when a new atomizer outside of the preset range is attached, the user is asked to tell the device if the new atomizer is the same or different as the one stored in the device’s memory. For the H-Priv, the only option is “no.” When the user attempts to select “yes,” the H-Priv returns to the main screen, but the user is prompted with the same question with each button press, rendering the device unvapable until “no” is selected. This is not an isolated issue; it occurred with several devices. Hopefully, this is addressed in a future firmware update. For now, the user must make do with selecting “no” each time a new atomizer is attached and possibly changing the resistance manually via the menu.
Mike Huml is product development manager at Wholesale Vaping Supply. An enthusiast vaper since 2009, he is always trying to get his hands on the newest, shiniest mod. Huml has evaluated countless vaping devices over the years, but you’ll usually find him with a mechanical mod and RDA in-hand, surrounded by an aura of fog. His personal motto: “Happiness is a warm coil.”
Lastly, the H-Priv claims to be a 220-watt device, and it undoubtedly is, provided the attached atomizer has low resistance. With a maximum output voltage of 8 volts, resistances below approximately 0.3 ohms should be able to hit 220 watts. However, as with any regulated device, the wattage is split between the total numbers of batteries, meaning each battery will be effectively providing 110 watts. It shouldn’t be a huge stretch of the imagination to estimate the battery life one will achieve by using the H-Priv at 220 watts, and as such, it isn’t recommended. It’s a huge strain on the batteries, and extreme caution is advised when using the device at high power levels.
The H-Priv improves upon the popular X Cube II dramatically from an aesthetic perspective, with a great, trimmed-down look and tweaked firing bar. However, the performance isn’t as impressive. While it functions, mostly, how it should, many issues present in the X Cube have found their way into the H-Priv. The soupy firing button and relatively long firing delay can be managed but are deal breakers for many consumers. However, that didn’t deter sales of the X Cube II in many markets. Carrying the H-Priv should be a very easy decision because it shares both the strengths and weaknesses of the X Cube II. In short, in a market favorable toward the X Cube II, the H-Priv should do very well with the new design and aesthetic improvements. In a more discerning market, it may be a tough sell. In an industry with such broad diversity, every new device needs to do more than sell itself. It also needs to stand apart from the rest, and while the H-Priv may do exactly that in terms of looks, there are other options with more to offer under the hood at a similar or less expensive price point.
June 1, 2016
Mind the gap
Asian smokers are more enthusiastic about e-cigarettes than their governments.
Contributed
Unlike other consumer product manufacturers, tobacco companies have few, if any, avenues to communicate with their customers, and their customers have little or no access to the manufacturers. Tobacco companies have limited access to policymakers or the media and are therefore hamstrung when it comes to defending the rights of their customers, and, consequently, up until now, consumers have had no one speaking on their behalf.
Regional consumer advocacy group Factasia.org, based in Hong Kong, was established in 2014 as a voice for reason and to support adult Asian consumers’ rights to choose and use reasonably regulated tobacco and nicotine products. Anti-smoking efforts, as mandated by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, including smoking bans, high taxation, graphic health warnings and plain-packaging initiatives, have clearly failed to deliver the results intended. They have instead disadvantaged—even demonized—smokers and deprived them of their rights, while fueling a growing criminal illicit trade globally that currently supplies one in 10 cigarettes smoked on the planet.
The major focus on tobacco control initiatives throughout the Asia Pacific region is centered on e-cigarettes and other alternatives to conventional tobacco products, and it is in this critical segment that Factasia.org is currently concentrating much of its efforts.
To better understand just what adult Asian smokers think they know about e-cigarettes, Factasia.org commissioned Ipsos, one of the world’s most respected polling companies, to conduct a survey of consumers in six Asia Pacific countries. The results, which are being rolled out across the region in a series of media events, “clearly [show] that adult smokers see e-cigarettes as a positive alternative to smoking and want the choice to use them as a less harmful alternative to conventional cigarettes,” said Heneage Mitchell, co-founder of Factasia.org.
Factasia.org’s survey of Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Taiwan smokers found that 71 percent of adult smokers say e-cigarettes that contain nicotine—products that do not burn tobacco and therefore do not produce the potentially dangerous particulates found in cigarettes—are a “positive alternative” to conventional cigarettes.
Smokers hold similar views toward the concept of tobacco harm reduction, and 75 percent of respondents said that it would be wrong for a government “to prevent or delay legalizing less harmful alternatives to cigarettes for adult smokers.” An even higher percentage (82 percent), agreed that, “through tax and regulatory policies, the government should encourage adult smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives to cigarettes and ensure they are not used by youth.”
The Factasia.org study found that, while some 22 percent of smokers were still unaware of e-cigarettes, 46 percent across the region had tried them, and 8 percent now use them regularly. A clear majority (68 percent) said the main reason for using e-cigarettes was “as an alternative to conventional cigarettes.”
“There is obviously consumer demand throughout Asia for the right to choose,” Mitchell pointed out. “There is also a massive body of international scientific research that shows that using e-cigarettes can be consistent with wider public health objectives that benefit all of society. Rather than banning them, governments have a great opportunity to become a clear leader in progressive public health policy and in harm reduction in this vital sector.”
Today, e-cigarettes are regulated differently around the world. In Southeast Asia, the tendency has been to impose blanket bans rather than regulating them—an easier approach for governments to adopt but a crippling blow for regional harm-reduction initiatives and a resounding slap in the faces of consumers. For example, Hong Kong, which has already imposed partial bans, is now debating a total ban, as now exists in Indonesia. Singapore is the only country that has pre-emptively banned all emerging tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and other smokeless tobacco products. Malaysia, which has a thriving vape community and a growing manufacturing sector, is at a pivotal moment, with the government still sending out mixed messages as to whether to ban or regulate e-cigarettes. Macau has announced it will shortly make a decision on its stated intention to ban all vape products. Australian federal and state governments remain obdurate in their anti-vaping stance and rhetoric, disadvantaging citizens and denying them the right to choose e-cigarettes over heavily taxed but nonetheless legal conventional cigarettes.
All this despite a growing and compelling body of scientific evidence that clearly indicates vaping is a gateway away from smoking, a reality one would have thought was in line with government and health community efforts to curb smoking incidence. But clearly this message has not yet penetrated many government and health agencies, many of whom continue to deliver misleading, untruthful, discredited and inaccurate information to consumers to justify their continuing reluctance to embrace this new technology and regulate vaping sensibly and effectively.
“Currently, I can quite legally buy an e-cigarette and vape it in the airport in, say, the U.K., fly to Hong Kong, Singapore or Indonesia with the device, and risk arrest and imprisonment there for possession of a banned product,” said Mitchell. “Clearly this is a ridiculous situation. In an age where harmonized global trade and manufacturing standards are the norm, this is an anomaly that needs to be addressed. Added to which, millions of consumers have already chosen to use these products worldwide, and they deserve and are entitled to the same protection in terms of manufacturing processes and product safety that they enjoy with everything else they buy. Currently, there are essentially no standards in place for e-cigarette and e-liquid manufacturers to follow, governments to enforce, or consumers to understand.”
Since its formal launch in March 2015, Factasia.org has held numerous face-to-face meetings with policymakers and legislators. It has created quite a stir in the media throughout Southeast Asia, presenting the results of the survey, updating key decision-makers on the current research and science supporting the use of e-cigarettes, and reminding politicians that smokers and vapers are also citizens and voters who deserve a voice in the debate, leading to fair and effective regulatory frameworks as opposed to discriminatory and unjustifiable impositions on their rights.
“We will continue to battle on behalf of adult Asian consumers, to protect their right to choose, to encourage rational debate focusing on facts rather than hysteria, rhetoric and uninformed opinion, and we will continue to press for the introduction of sensible regulations that protect consumers and which are in harmony with regulations that are already in place or being developed in the U.S. and the EU,” said Mitchell.
Over the next few months, Factasia.org will organize, in cooperation with various domestic and regional vape groups and consumer organizations, seminars bringing together harm reduction and manufacturing experts with policymakers, health experts and legislators in Malaysia and Hong Kong in continuing efforts to help lawmakers and related agencies understand the facts and to help neutralize the effect of the many false and alarming statements that continue to be disseminated by anti-smoking and anti-vaping communities.
“This effort is important because only by recognizing facts and applying reason and debating the issues rationally can consumers—and manufacturers—hope to end up with sensible, effective regulatory frameworks that serve the best interests of all stakeholders and citizens,” Mitchell said.
Box
Methodology:
The survey polled legal-age smokers in Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Taiwan in May–June 2015 and was conducted by Ipsos. It was conducted across statistically relevant gender and age groups using online interviews. An additional telephone poll has just been completed in Macau, where the key figures correspond with those of the other six areas polled.

January 1, 2015