Every individual has requirements for what they would call the “perfect vape.” For some it’s all about flavor and it just has to taste good. For others it’s juice heated to a precise wattage in a fresh cartomizer and the resulting plume. For some it’s being able to blow massive clouds on a mechanical mod after toiling over sub ohm coils, repetitiously working with wire and cotton until they get the math right. These are the cloud chasers.
Cloud chasing, as the practice has been coined, is the art of using sub ohm coiled atomizers on mechanical mods. The coils can be single, dual or multi configurations. Some cloud chasers are using ribbon wire and others are configuring their setups with nifty micro-coils. They spend their time talking on message boards and subreddits about their .8 ohm coils, showing pictures of his or her builds, coils aglow resembling the color of the sun, gloating about the lack of hot spots. On YouTube you can find the cloud chasers recording themselves expelling clouds so voluminous that if you watch long enough you’ll eventually think you see an animal form. There is no wispiness in the world of the cloud chaser. I am in awe and I am jealous.
What is utterly remarkable about the cloud chasers is how, in each posting or thread, they explain that safety cannot be overemphasized. There is an inherent risk of having a mod blow up in your face and your body covered in scarring battery acid if you are not careful, do not have your math correct, or are not aware of the amp limit or discharge rate of your battery. If you do not understand Ohm’s Law and how that correlates to the drain of your battery, then cloud chasing is likely not for you. It is dangerous if not done correctly and can cause serious bodily harm or burn your house down.
There are a lot of subcultures that make up the vape community. There are folks perfectly content with their streamlined eGo setups, the juice heads that have every flavor imaginable and the mod collectors that can tell you every spec of each device they own. The cloud chasers are the builders or Pecos Bill of vapor, wrangling their equipment to tame the perfect cloud.
E-CIGARETTE NEWS & CULTURE
VAPE News Magazine owes allegiance to no one and will call 'em as we see 'em. We strive for truth, integrity, irreverence and the betterment of vaping.
Chief Executive Officer
Steffanie Atkins, Norm Bour, Cynthia Cabrera, Dave Cross, Jenee Fowler, Steve Hong, Erick Potter, Nathan Shaw, Maria Verven, Paul M. Voigt
Johnny Guerrero, Joseph Babinetz, Van Avanzado
Today, Agent VAPE received this client alert e-mail from Keller and Heckman:
On July 25, 2016, Keller and Heckman LLP, on behalf of the Right to be Smoke Free Coalition and ten national and state e-vapor industry trade associations (the “E-Vapor Coalition”), filed a Motion for Summary Judgement in a lawsuit challenging parts of the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) recently published “Deeming Rule” which, effective August 8, 2016, captures most e-vapor products as regulated tobacco products under the TCA. To review the motion and supporting brief, click here.
The named Plaintiffs in the E-Vapor Coalition lawsuit are the Right to be Smoke Free Coalition, the American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association (AEMSA), the American Vaping Association (AVA), the Electronic Vaping Coalition of America (EVCA), the Georgia Smoke Free Association (GSFA), the Kentucky Smoke Free Association (KFSA), the Louisiana Vaping Association (LAVA), Maryland Vape Professionals (MVP), the Ohio Vapor Trade Association (OHVTA), the New Jersey Vapor Retailers Coalition (NJVRC) and the Tennessee Smoke Free Association (TSFA). Also supporting the lawsuit are the Shenzhen E-Vapor Industry Association-USA (SEVIA-USA), the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) and NOT Blowing Smoke (NBS).
The E-Vapor Coalition lawsuit, which was filed on June 20, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was consolidated with the lawsuit filed earlier in the same court, Nicopure Labs v. FDA, No.1:16-cv-878 (D.D.C. 2016), on June 28, 2016. Following consolidation, the parties agreed to a briefing schedule that allowed Nicopure Labs to file its Motion for Summary Judgment on July 8, 2016, and the E-Vapor Coalition to file a separate summary judgment motion on its unique counts on July 25, 2016 (while incorporating by reference all of Nicopure Labs’ arguments). FDA has until August 16, 2016 - eight days after the Deeming Regulation becomes effective – to respond to both motions. All briefing will be completed by September 8, 2016, and oral arguments have been scheduled for October 19, 2016 at 10:00 AM ET in Washington, D.C.
In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the E-Vapor Coalition argues that FDA’s authority over tobacco products is not unfettered, but circumscribed by the statute’s underlying purposes – which strike a careful balance between various policy issues. Specifically, the statute provides that adults must have continued access to tobacco products (i.e., FDA cannot ban or virtually eliminate such products from the marketplace), while at the same time prohibiting access to such products by underage consumers. Along similar lines, the TCA requires FDA to regulate in a flexible manner so that relatively safer products can be developed and commercialized while more dangerous ones are kept off the market. Any effort by FDA to deem additional tobacco products under the TCA must reflect these compromises.
During the rulemaking, FDA repeatedly acknowledged that using e-vapor products likely presents far less risk than smoking cigarettes, and that individuals switching from combusted tobacco products to e-vapor products may significantly reduce their harm. The agency also recognized that the availability of e-vapor products could potentially lead to increased smoking cessation rates in this country and ultimately reduce tobacco-related disease and death – another one of the primary purposes of the TCA. These conclusions are consistent with scientific research, both in the United States and abroad, finding that e-vapor products are substantially less risky than combustible tobacco products. See, for example, Public Health England’s recent report finding that e-vapor products are 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes, which was followed by the Royal College of Physicians’ ground breaking report lauding the public health benefits of e-vapor products.
Nevertheless, FDA chose to regulate e-vapor products in a manner that is even more stringent than its regulation of cigarettes. Resulting in what will be a virtual ban on many (if not all) vaping product categories is FDA’s decision to force vaping product manufacturers into a Pre-Market Tobacco Application (“PMTA”) process that was actually designed to prevent the introduction of relatively more harmful tobacco products to the market. Accordingly, PMTAs require, inter alia, long-term clinical studies which, as FDA concedes, do not yet exist. These longitudinal studies must focus on population-level effects, such as the impact of each e-liquid or vaping device on overall smoking initiation or cessation rates.
FDA’s approach also effectively writes out of the TCA one of the pre-market authorization pathways – the Substantial Equivalence (“SE”) Report – that Congress intended for FDA to use in a more flexible exercise of enforcement authority so that relatively less risky products, like e-vapor products, remain on the market and are available to adult consumers so long as they do not raise different questions of public health compared to a predicate (grandfathered) product. The SE Report pathway, while also imposing substantial informational requirements on manufacturers, does not necessarily require long-term clinical studies and, as such, is not as burdensome in terms of time and financial resources as PMTAs. However, without any grandfathered products available for use as predicates, all e-vapor products introduced after February 15, 2007 are forced to go through the PMTA process, which the agency admits will eliminate, at a minimum, 97% of the industry.
With no way to avail themselves of the SE Report pathway, for each vaping product on the market onAugust 8, 2016, manufacturers will have to file a PMTA within a two-year compliance period (i.e., by August 2018). Vaping product manufacturers will not have sufficient time over the next two years to conduct such long-term clinical studies or have the financial resources to meet other PMTA informational requirements that, according to the agency, will likely reach into the millions of dollars for each product application. Moreover, any new e-vapor products intended to be introduced after the effective date of the rule will have to first obtain PMTA authorization – essentially freezing the market on August 8, 2016.
Thus, instead of tailoring the pre-market process based on the type of tobacco product involved, the agency unlawfully adopted a “one-size-fits-all” pre-market regime that ignores e-vapor products’ overall lower risk profile. The E-Vapor Coalition’s motion highlights several of the Deeming Rule’s short-comings, specifically:
FDA has applied a statutory February 15, 2007 grandfather date to e-vapor products that was intended for traditional tobacco products, like cigarettes. FDA was required under the statute to set a new grandfather date which would allow e-vapor products to take advantage of the more flexible SE pathway.
FDA did not consider, as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 601, et seq., any significant alternatives that, in the absence of a new grandfather date, would have allowed vaping product manufacturers sufficient time to develop the extensive information, including long-term clinical studies, necessary to successfully navigate the more stringent PMTA process. As it stands now, such data cannot be generated by the PMTA deadline of August 2018.
Even if FDA is correct in that it must apply the February 15, 2007 grandfather date to e-vapor products, this means that the TCA itself violates substantive due process and is unconstitutional. Under this scenario, there would be no rational relationship between the TCA’s underlying purposes and the means chosen by Congress to accomplish such goals. Indeed, as FDA conceded during the rulemaking, virtually all manufacturers will exit the vaping market, thus depriving adults of a relatively safer tobacco product and a chance to reduce or, better yet, quit their smoking habits.
Accordingly, the E-Vapor Coalition has requested the court grant it summary judgment and: (1) declare that the Deeming Rule exceeds FDA’s statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act with respect to FDA’s failure to either establish a new grandfather date for all deemed e-vapor products or exercise its enforcement discretion in this regard; (2) set aside the Deeming Rule to the extent that FDA has applied the February 15, 2007 grandfather date to e-vapor products, and remand the rule to FDA so that the agency can set a new grandfather date for all deemed e-vapor products consistent with the Court’s decision; (3) remand the rule to FDA so that the agency can conduct a proper regulatory impact analysis that addresses the lack of long-term clinical data for e-vapor products; and/or (4) declare the rule unconstitutional to the extent that it applies the February 15, 2007 grandfather date to e-vapor products.
VAPE Magazine, the vapor industry’s original publication, announced this week it will be publishing a regulatory focused issue. The special issue, which will hit newsstands in September, will be focused on the regulatory environment the industry is now facing. A portion of all advertising proceeds from the issue will be donated to the Right to be Smoke Free Coalition lawsuit, which was joined by the industry’s top trade and consumer advocacy organizations.
The edition will feature a wide range of regulatory topics including a story about the market being flooded with new products ahead of the Aug. 8 deadline; a story on the new vapor tax in Pennsylvania and potential repercussions; a story on the potential birth of a vapor black market; and many more stories aimed to educate the public.
“We hope this will be an issue that retailers, manufacturers and distributors will keep at their desk for years to come,” said Managing Editor Corey Noles. “While we don’t usually publish in September, at the rate with which information is being released, we believe it is our job to give the industry a trusted news voice. Sometimes, that means changing our plans.”
“We appreciate our readers and advertisers who have supported us over the years, and we feel a responsibility to them as our industry navigates what will undoubtedly be remembered as it’s fight to stay alive,” Noles said. “Education is the first step to winning the war.”
VAPE Magazine is the industry’s premier publication, with more than 60,000 in readership each bi-monthly edition. The magazine can be found in nearly every vape shop in the United States, UK and other countries around the globe. Visit the magazine online at vapemz.com.
Mistic E-Cigs introduces the Mistic 2.0 POD-MOD, a sleek and powerful closed-ended personal vaporizer that enables consumers to quickly and easily change flavor tanks using the company’s pre-filled pod technology.
Selling for $39.99 at drug, mass and convenience retailers nationwide, Mistic’s new pre-filled vape system starter kit comes in two color options (matte black and matte white), each packaged with two free (a $40 retail value) pre-filled 10 mL flavor pods (matte black: tobacco/strawberry and matte white: menthol/cherry).
“This product simplifies the vaping experience covering the full spectrum of vape consumers,” said John Wiesehan Jr., CEO of Mistic. “It gives the experience, flavor profiles, and vapor production that mod users are accustomed to and also provides ease of use to cig-alike users who haven’t upgraded because they didn’t want to deal with the hassle of bottles and tanks. With a simple pick, click and vape, users can experience different flavors at a moment’s notice.”
Available in a compact, hand form-fitting rechargeable 30-watt unit with an automatic shut-off feature, Mistic 2.0 delivers a robust and satisfying vape from a 1700 mAh battery with the convenience and no-hassle of a cigalike. The battery also has an on-off option as well as stand-by mode to help conserve power.
Offered in 10 mL child-resistant, tamper-proof pre-filled pods, Mistic 2.0 high-end e-liquids (80 VG/20 PG ratio) are made in the USA and available in 4 mg nicotine strengths (4 percent by volume) and 10 flavors: cherry, coconut cream, creamy cantaloupe, fruit mix, java, mango, menthol, strawberry, tobacco and watermelon.
Selling for $17.99-$19.99, each Mistic 2.0 pre-filled pod has its own built-in coil that provides 0.3 Ohms of resistance for maximum sub-ohm vapor production. Each self-contained pod is easily interchangeable for vapers on the go or those wanting to effortlessly experience various flavor profiles.
The company is offering a free Mistic 2.0 POD-MOD starter kit when users spend $30 or more in its online store. Adult consumers can watch a short video about the new product on Mistic’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/MisticElectronicCigarettes) to obtain a special coupon code.
Today’s announcement comes two weeks before the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) final rule on the manufacturing and marketing of newly deemed vapor products go into effect on Aug. 8. Products shipped after this date will not be allowed on the market until the FDA approves a marketing order.
“Innovation is key to our industry’s survival and it was important for us to bring our game-changing vaping technology to adult vapers and smokers before the FDA’s deeming rule goes into effect and stifles future modernization,” added Wiesehan. “While the FDA pathway for vapor products is still relatively unclear and already there are legal challenges to the final regulations, as well as pending legislation to move the February 15, 2007 predicate date, we are taking steps to ensure that our products remain on the market and will proceed with the pathway process for our new Mistic 2.0 line and other company vapor products.”