Vaping Versus Tobacco: The Truth You Need To Know

Should e-cigarettes be banned? No, in fact, smokers should be encouraged to use e-cigarettes.

Before the emergence of the new coronavirus that dominates our lives, American medical institutions and other institutions are relentlessly publicly opposed to the use of e-cigarettes. Although the voice against e-cigarettes is no longer in the news headlines, the opposition has never stopped. They have successfully convinced countless people to believe that e-cigarettes are as dangerous as traditional tobacco products, or even more dangerous.

But what is shocking is that the campaign against e-cigarette smoking is based on a lot of misinformation and outright lies. In fact, by persuading smokers not to switch to e-cigarettes, these institutions are pushing thousands of people into the abyss of premature death, which is completely avoidable. In other words, more Americans will die from the botched anti-e-cigarette campaign than the COVID 19.

Let’s take a look at the actual situation. E-cigarettes do not contain tobacco. Users inhale nicotine, but they will not inhale the deadly substances in tobacco. E-cigarettes are the safest and most effective alternative to cigarettes. Therefore, the British health department has adopted the completely opposite strategy. They encourage smokers to switch to e-cigarettes.

The anti-e-cigarette group in the United States pointed out that the number of young people who use e-cigarettes has increased sharply in recent years, especially young people, implying that e-cigarettes are the gateway to cigarettes, but the fact is the opposite. In the past decade, the smoking rate among young people has dropped from nearly 16% to less than 6%.

Last year, there were a lot of news about vaping e-cigarettes causing lung diseases. There were 450 cases and 5 of them died. The fact is that most of these people use illegal e-cigarettes instead of products sold by regular e-cigarette manufacturers. They inhaled a type of cannabis containing acetate through illegal e-cigarettes, which is a chemical used in topical skin lotions.

Nevertheless, the anti-e-cigarette group still pressures the US FDA to ban manufacturers from adding flavors to e-cigarettes, which is undoubtedly paving the way for a complete ban on e-cigarettes. Therefore, it is not surprising that tobacco companies, nicotine patch manufacturers, chewing gum and other smoking cessation aid manufacturers are not optimistic about the prospects of e-cigarettes.

However, electronic cigarettes are far less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Let us take the UK as an example to stop these deadly anti-e-cigarette campaigns.

Retail Groups Urge FDA to Release List of PMTA Filers

Retailers are struggling to know what vapor products will be able to remain on the market after Sept. 9. That’s the deadline for manufacturers to file premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In a letter to the FDA, several retail associations are asking the regulatory agency to release a list of manufacturers that have PMTAs on file so retailers can know what electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) brands can remain on store shelves.

“As the September deadline approaches, the PMTA List will be critical to support compliance across the tobacco trade channel, helping inform distributors, wholesalers, and retailers which ENDS products are being marketed legally in accordance with FDA’s compliance policy,” the group wrote. “Relatedly, such a list also would facilitate enforcement against those manufacturers that continue to introduce illegally marketed products without premarket authorization or, in the case of deemed, currently marketed products, without a PMTA submitted by the deadline.”

FMI (the Food Industry Association), the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Truckstop Operators, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America state that “unlike the confidentiality provisions that are afforded to applicants” of PMTAs, such restrictions are not applicable when the PMTA filing applies to a currently marketed product.

“While FDA typically does not disclose the existence of a premarket product application (unless the applicant has publicly disclosed or acknowledged the existence of the application), the underlying rationale for non-disclosure does not apply in this situation,” the letter states. “Unlike PMTAs for products that have not yet been marketed, disclosing the existence of PMTAs submitted for ENDS products that have been on the market since at least August 8, 2016, through publication of the PMTA List, would not reveal any trade secret or (confidential commercial information).”

In the 6-page letter to Matthew Holman, director, Office of Science for the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, the retail group also stated that if the FDA would require consent from the manufacturer before disclosure, the retail group could provide “recommendations on a streamlined process for obtaining such consent” quickly.

“For example, FDA could ask for an applicant’s consent at the time of submission. To do so, [the] FDA could add a field in its submission portal notifying the applicant of the option to permit the agency to disclose the existence of its PMTA in a public list,” the group suggests. “Alternatively, in its initial acknowledgement letter, which provides the submission tracking number (STN) to applicants, FDA could ask for such consent. In both cases, the applicant would have the opportunity to provide affirmative consent.”

Source link

Charlie’s Chalk Dust Files First of ‘Multiple’ PMTAs

Charlie’s Holdings, parent to the Charlie’s Chalk Dust e-liquid brand, has submitted its initial premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“Today’s submission marks the first of multiple applications that Charlie’s Chalk Dust (CCD) intends to take through FDA’s approval process as it seeks to create a long-term, robust product portfolio. This is a day we’ve long awaited for in our industry,” stated,Charlie’s Holdings’ Chief Operating Officer Ryan Stump in a press release. “After spending nearly $5 million over the past two years on our PMTA preparation and submission, we are extremely excited about the application we filed with the FDA.”

The release states that Stump believes “that a significant amount of our competitors will not have the resources, desire, and/or expertise to complete the extensive and costly PMTA process.” However, once approved, CCD’s marketing orders would allow the company “to benefit from being one of only a select group of companies responsibly operating in the flavored nicotine product space.”

The company also announced that it was performing human clinical trials on its products to help detect the biomarkers of exposure associated with smoking combustible cigarettes and determine the nicotine delivery efficiency of the CCD products via pharmacokinetic studies.

“A large team of doctors, scientists, biostatisticians, and data analysts are conducting these time intensive clinical trials,” the release states. “We believe that this kind of study will significantly set our application apart from those that are relying solely on the literature-based approach to this critical ‘in human’ assessment of product performance.”

Source link

Rates of E-Cig and Marijuana Use Not Linked to EVALI Occurrence

The study titled, “Association of Vaping‐Related Lung Injuries with Rates of E‐cigarette and Cannabis Use across US States,” looked into the relationship between the total reported EVALI cases in each state per capita as of January 2020, and the corresponding pre-outbreak rates of adult vaping and marijuana use.

The study results indicated that the higher the rates of vaping and marijuana use were per state, the lower were the corresponding rates of EVALI cases per capita.

Interestingly, published in the journal Addiction, the study results indicated that the higher the rates of vaping and marijuana use, the lower were the rates of EVALI cases per capita. “If e-cigarette or marijuana use per se drove this outbreak, areas with more engagement in those behaviors should show a higher EVALI prevalence,” said lead study author Assistant Professor Abigail Friedman.

“This study finds the opposite result. Alongside geographic clusters of high EVALI prevalence states, these findings are more consistent with locally available e-liquids or additives driving the EVALI outbreak than a widely used, nationally-available product.”

Previous studies had confirmed that EVALI was linked to the consumption of illicit products

Last December, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), confirmed that EVALI, the infamous “vape related” lung disease that has sadly spread across the US, was caused by Vitamin E Acetate Oil. This compound was mainly found in illicit THC Vaping Cartridges purchased on the blackmarket.

Despite these findings, many states have used the EVALI outbreak as an excuse to implement senseless bans on e-cigarettes. And once again, the current study shows that these restrictions will be counterproductive, as the negative relationship between the number of EVALI cases and the rates of vaping and marijuana use, suggest that well-established markets may pushed out that the use of the illicit and riskier products that are actually causing the lung injury.

The lung injury occurred less in states where marijuana is legal

Similarly, a study published by JAMA Network Open last April, had indicated that the occurrence of EVALI was less common in US States where marijuana products are legal. “Our results are suggestive that those in recreational marijuana states may be less likely to purchase illegal marijuana products on the black market,” said Dr. Alex Hollingsworth, assistant professor in the O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University and co-author of the JAMA Network Open study.

US: Minnesota Issues Alert Over New EVALI Cases

Source link

FDA to Carry Out “Substantive Scientific Review” on Juul

Last month, Juul Labs submitted a PMTA to the FDA, as part of the required process that would allow it to keep selling its products across the US. The company’s submission includes a “comprehensive scientific evidence for the JUUL Device and JUUL pods in Virginia Tobacco and Menthol flavors at nicotine concentrations of 5%, 3% and information on data-driven measures to address underage use of its products.”

Due to the hardships the industry is facing as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak, the PMTA deadline has been moved to September 9th, 2020.

“We will continue to follow the PMTA process and look forward to this next step as the FDA commences substantive review of the application,” said Juul Labs Chief Regulatory Officer Joe Murillo in a statement. Subsequently, the FDA has now notified the manufacturer that it will be carrying out a “substantive scientific review”, according to an announcement by the company on Tuesday.

Similarly, Fontem US LLC submitted its documents last April, well ahead of the set deadline,. The submissions include data from a comprehensive range of laboratory and clinical scientific studies on the myblue range. These include product analyses, behavioral data, health risk information, and information on the impact to both users and non-users of tobacco products.

PMTA deadline delayed due to Covid-19

As the infamous May 12th PMTA deadline was fast approaching, a number of entities including Altria Group Inc. and tobacco association NATO, had asked the FDA to push the deadline back due to the complications caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

To this effect, on March 30th the agency filed a request for a 120-day extension on the deadline, and on April 3rd, Judge Paul Grimm of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland agreed to the request, moving the deadline to September 9th, 2020.

Read Further: Fox Business

Juul Launches Legal Fight Against Illicit Copycat Cartridges

Source link

CBD and Hemp Industry Threatened by New DEA Rule

A new rule from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) threatens to upend the American hemp industry, and could even result in criminal prosecutions for manufacturers of CBD and delta-8 THC products.

The DEA says the “interim final rule,” issued Aug. 20, is simply a matter of adjusting its own regulations to account for changes to the Controlled Substances Act that were mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill (or Agricultural Improvement Act) that legalized hemp and CBD production. The new rule “merely conforms DEA’s regulations to the statutory amendments to the CSA that have already taken effect,” says the agency. The new rule doesn’t break any ground, according to the DEA.

But many experts on cannabis and hemp law say the DEA rule creates a potential pathway the law enforcement agency could use to prosecute hemp processors and producers of CBD (cannabidiol) and delta-8 THC (or Δ8THC) products. There are two issues: partially processed CBD, and “synthetically derived” delta-8 THC.

Why the DEA rule threatens the CBD industry

North Carolina-based cannabis attorney Rod Kight was among the first to question the purpose of the DEA’s new rule, pointing out that the agency has been the primary force behind the “War on Drugs” that began in earnest during the Nixon administration in the early 1970s. The 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp and all of its constituents from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which means the DEA has no enforcement authority over hemp growers and producers—with one exception.

The exception is hemp that contains delta-9 THC in a concentration greater than 0.3 percent by dry weight. The problem occurs when the heaviest parts of the plant—the woody stems and stalks, which are low in cannabinoids—are removed, and the cannabinoid-rich flowers and leaves are separated for CBD extraction and processing.

Partially processed hemp (called in the industry “work in progress hemp extract” or WIPHE) may temporarily contain a higher percentage of delta-9 THC than the plants it came from. Even though it is not sold in that state, and the percentage of THC falls below the legal limit when the product is mixed and packaged, the new rule threatens CBD producers because the DEA specifies that hemp-derived products must remain below the 0.3 percent limit at all stages of possession.

The DEA rule states that “a cannabis derivative, extract, or product that exceeds the 0.3% D9-THC limit is a schedule I controlled substance, even if the plant from which it was derived contained 0.3% or less D9-THC on a dry weight basis.”

WIPHE, says Rod Kight, is “a necessary component of all consumer hemp/CBD products. By taking the position that it is an illegal controlled substance, the DEA is pulling the proverbial rug out from under the entire industry.”

Theoretically a CBD processor could be arrested and prosecuted, because according to attorney Daniel Shortt, “under the DEA’s interim rule, the processor would be in possession of a schedule I substance, even if the processor dilutes the end product down to the requisite level of 0.3% delta-9 THC or destroys any delta-9 THC by-product.”

“[The DEA] has aggressively and persistently asserted itself into the hemp industry, despite the Farm Bill’s express removal of hemp, a lawful form of cannabis, from the CSA,” Rod Kight writes. “The issuance of today’s IFR…continues the DEA’s pattern of unwanted and aggressive interference with a lawful industry.”

The National Hemp Association, a trade group that promotes the expanding hemp industry, seems to believe that the DEA rule was issued in good faith, without the intention of trying to recapture regulatory authority over hemp and CBD. However, the NHA does recognize that the DEA may have its eye on delta-8 THC as a target for drug enforcement.

The DEA rule spells trouble for delta-8 THC

Naturally occurring cannabinoids in hemp plants are no longer regulated by the DEA. The 2018 Farm Bill gave authority to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over all parts of the hemp plant, including “any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

Delta-8 THC, a close relative of the much more potent psychoactive cannabinoid delta-9 THC, is becoming popular, and because there are very few hemp strains that contain enough delta-8 to bother extracting, most Δ8THC is produced by applying a chemical catalyst to naturally occurring CBD. The delta-8 THC that results could be defined by DEA as “synthetically derived,” according to cannabis attorneys.

The DEA insists that the Farm Bill does not challenge the agency’s continuing authority over any cannabinoid that is “synthetically derived.”

The DEA insists that the Farm Bill does not challenge the agency’s continuing authority over any cannabinoid that is “synthetically derived.” Whether it originates from a marijuana plant (cannabis with delta-9 THC in a concentration greater than 0.3 percent) or a hemp plant (under 0.3 percent delta-9 THC), if it is created using a chemical process, the DEA says it is a Schedule 1 narcotic.

“For synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, the concentration of delta-9 THC is not a determining factor in whether the material is a controlled substance,” says the DEA rule. “All synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances.”

“In light of the DEA’s historical control of cannabis,” writes attorney Nathalie Bougenies, “and its lack of enthusiasm in the legalization of hemp—USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue has repeatedly blamed the DEA for interfering with the development of hemp regulations—it is clear that the Rule is a pretext for the DEA to maintain its authority over cannabis.”

What can CBD consumers and the hemp industry do?

According to the DEA, the rule is in effect already, so it’s possible that CBD and delta-8 producers could be arrested and prosecuted right now, and their property and bank accounts seized. However, there is a 60-day public comment period (which ends Oct. 20), and it’s unlikely that the agency would attempt to initiate enforcement actions until it reviews public comments and publishes a final rule that addresses industry and consumer concerns.

Industry stakeholders and consumers of both CBD and delta-8 THC should comment on the DEA docket, and contact their U.S. House representatives and Senators to complain about the DEA’s pointless attempt to keep the drug war alive.

Smokers created vaping without any help from the tobacco industry or anti-smoking crusaders, and vapers have the right to keep innovating to help themselves. My goal is to provide clear, honest information about the challenges vaping faces from lawmakers, regulators, and brokers of disinformation. I recently joined the CASAA board, but my opinions aren’t necessarily CASAA’s, and vice versa. You can find me on Twitter @whycherrywhy

Source link

Flash Heart disposable vape review – Maximum 1500 puffs one-off pod – DirtyCheck No.81

How could Flash Heart’s new product be missed since Captain’s an old friend of Flash Heart?
Flash Heart’s products are loved by many consumers and it received unanimous praise from the industry,
And today let’s take a look at the magic of the new disposable vape from Flash Heart launched at the vape show.

Flash Heart disposable vape review

Flash Heart disposable vape introduction

Real 1500 puffs,
Compared to the traditional disposable vape battery life, this one is longer.
In turn, it is more environmentally friendly and more scientific.
It not only meets vapers’ daily needs, but also very convenient for travelers.

Flash Heart disposable vape review

A reasonable diameter of 19mm,
It’s OK even if you have a mobile phone in your hand when vaping,
Disposable sanitary packaging,
With reusable dust cover.

Flash Heart disposable vape review

Adjustable air intake,
Suitable for MTL and DTL vaping methods
Metal air intake ring adjustment at the bottom.
Large and small smoke as you like,
Nicotine salt content of 19MG/ML,
Scientific ratio, intuitive taste

Flash Heart disposable vape review

6 flavors in total,
Lychee blackcurrant, ice spring, watermelon, sweet and sour kiwi, white peach oolong, iced cola.

Flash Heart disposable vape review

Flash Heart disposable vape taste

This is a ordinary taste ,
The combination of lychee and blackcurrant is a bit strange
Reasonable coolness,
Relatively sweet.

Ice spring flavor is one of the best,
The coolness is proper,
The sweetness of the spring water is very good,
Sweetness is at a middle level, very good degree.
Simple and uncomplicated

Watermelon with ice, a common flavor among pod vapes,
But the treatment of this vape seems to be more hydrated,
It makes the unique water sweetness of watermelon be in place,
The cool feeling gives you the satisfaction of relieving heat in summer.

Flash Heart disposable vape review

This is the best taste of the whole series,
The fruit acidity and fruit sweetness taste brilliant.
Flash Heart should make a brand a new e-liquid for this flavor itself.
The unique scent of kiwi fruit is shown very well,
I feel a bite of fresh fruit in my mouth,
Everyday essential flavors.

White Peach Oolong
White peach with oolong tea,
It is a classic match.
Not supurised, just good.
Suitable for daily taste change
It would be good if the tea flavor is heavier

This iced Coke is different from other pod vape flavors of “syrups”,
The unique formula will make people feel carbonated,
It’s just what the cola needs, but also the soul of cola,
With proper cooling,
It’s really the top restore of real cola drink,
It makes you urge to drink unlimited.

Flash Heart disposable vape review


Regardless of whether you have a habit of smoking disposable e-cigarettes,
You should try this Flash Heart disposable vape,
It gives me a very good feeling in terms of flavor restoration and taste.
No burnt smell until using it up.
It’s one of the most noteworthy products of the vape show a few days ago.
The dirty team also consulted its manager and asked some small questions
There will be new flavor updates in the later period, and 3 models are currently planned.
Later new flavors will continue to impress vapers.
Are you looking forward to it?
I’m Captain Dirty, see you next time.

Where to buy FLASH HEART disposable vape

Flash Heart disposable vape review Flash Heart disposable vape review Flash Heart disposable vape review

Kiwi Group Argues Against Curtailing Flavors

End Smoking NZ group has urged the government of New Zealand to curtail legislation set to impede vapor product sales.

The government aims to restrict vapor product flavors to three varieties—mint, menthol and tobacco. End Smoking NZ fears the rule will drive people who have used vapor products to quit smoking back to cigarettes.

“This rapid decline in cigarette sales shows vaping products are clearly working,” said Ends Smoking NZ in statement. “However, the government’s over-regulation of flavors will mean cigarette sales are set to get a boost. No wonder tobacco companies are welcoming the flavor restrictions as they will simply help preserve traditional tobacco’s longevity.”

 In 2019, cigarette sales totaled 2.13 billion pieces in New Zealand.

“The success of vaping, and the huge dent it has made on cigarette sales, is due to the accessibility and appeal of vaping to adult smokers,” said Ben Pryor, co-owner of Alt New Zealand and VAPO. “Adults love flavors, and those successfully transitioning from cigarettes to vaping need comparable nicotine. If you tighten the screws on both, you are simply making it harder for Kiwis to quit smoking and that’s a very poor public health outcome.”

Source link

Britton: Better Vapor Access Will Aid Cigarette Decline

Easier access to better smoking alternatives will usher the decline of smoking prevalence, according to a British physician and tobacco control expert.

“Governments should make e-cigarettes easily available, introduce modest regulations to reduce the risk of irresponsible marketing and product safety approaches, and give a medical endorsement,” said Dr. John Britton, the director of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, adding that these are considered the key approaches for countries to adopt if they want to see smoking rates decline, according to an ar

Dr. John Britton / Courtesy UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies

ticle in the Manilla Standard.

A member of the Royal College of Physicians Tobacco Advisory Group and of the board of trustees of Action on Smoking and Health, Britton said, “clinical trials have demonstrated that vaping is probably the most effective way to quit smoking. The long-term harms of e-cigarette use are not known, but they will be substantially less than those of continued smoking or of attempting to quit unaided and then, as is usually the case, failing.

“Electronic cigarettes are a game changer―there is no going back from that. The whole market in nicotine delivery has been revolutionized by these products and I just hope that there are even more exciting products on the way,” he said. “Smoking prevalence in the UK is falling fast, and faster than in the US and Australia where vaping is not endorsed by national authorities. Smoking decline in the UK will have generated savings to the National Health Service,.”

Source link

California Becomes Second State to Ban Flavored Vapor

Finding a flavored vapor product in California is now an illegal act. The Golden State’s governor, Gavin Newsom, signed SB793 into law on Friday. His signed the bill after California’s Senate unanimously approved (34-0) an amended version of the bill returned by the Assembly. The law does not apply to online sales.

The bill prohibits a Vape shop owner or tobacco retailer, or any of those entities retailer’s agents or employees, from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer, subjecting them to a fine of $250 for each violation. It also allows local governments to impose greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products than the bill imposes.

California joins Massachusetts as the two states having flavored vaping bans, though each have unique exemptions to the laws. In Massachusetts, businesses defined as “smoking bars” are still able to sell flavored vaping and tobacco products.

In California, premium cigars and shisha/hookah products are exempt. The law also does not include the possession or use of flavored tobacco products.

The ban goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.

Source link