Christopher

You never know, she could be on here now. Online communities are perfect for the famous because they can have normal conversations without all the stardom.

WARNING: NSFW or Christians (It's pretty bad, you've been warned)

Also... when you're logged in (on any page at all) look at the top right hand part of the page. Your handle should be there with a little down-arrow. Click on that and choose "My Content" saves ya a trip to your profile.

Your counter shows 17 days for me. Try pressing the F5 button to clear our your cache

Ad cartos are awesome. It's all I use, we sell them but we're out of stock. Our buddy Luke sells the same cartomizers I recommend: http://vaporgalaxy.com/Boge-510-Removable-Soft-Tip-Cartomizers-510CARTO.htm

Tell em' Chris sent you (He's a good guy, he'll get you all taken care of)

no wonder im addicted to french frys!!!

First of all no you should not start vaping if you don't already smoking tobacco. It makes no sense.

Second please read our forum rules before posting. We have a zero tolerance policy on drug talk. Electronic cigarette are already a controversial issue with the general public we don't need THC e liquid added to the mix.

(Thread locked)

First of all no you should not start vaping if you don't already smoking tobacco. It makes no sense.

Second please read our forum rules before posting. We have a zero tolerance policy on drug talk. Electronic cigarette are already a controversial issue with the general public we don't need THC e liquid added to the mix.

(Thread locked)

3-4 times a day is a very very light vaper. So I can see why perhaps her higher usage may seem to you as overkill. Unless it's effecting her life, family and overall well being, I don't see an issue with it.

Most cigarette users will smoke 10-11 puffs off of a cigarette in a short period of time. Heavy cigarette users will smoke every 30 minutes. (Given the chance, give or take) That's about 20-25 puffs an hour. Vapers, though I'm not sure why (I do the same thing) tend to take constant puffs over a long period of time rather than short burst cycles. So, if she smoked 2 cigarette an hour, when vaping she'll probably takes a puff every 2 - 2.5 minutes. Essentially she is keeping her nicotine level at a constant level.

Upping her nicotine may cause her to vape less, but essentially, she'll get the same amount of nicotine with half the work. That may make you feel better because she's vaping less, but the nicotine content is the same. It's purely appearance.

If she has just switched to vaping, her body is still dependent on many chemicals that are not in e cigarettes. Her body is probably craving those chemicals. After a short period of time, she'll probably balance out and vape less. From there, she can step down to a lower nicotine strength.


Basically what you're asking is for a caffeine addict to drink from a smaller cup with more shots rather than a larger cup with less shots. It's the same thing. Again, unless it's effecting her life, family and overall well being, she'll balance out and be just fine.

3-4 times a day is a very very light vaper. So I can see why perhaps her higher usage may seem to you as overkill. Unless it's effecting her life, family and overall well being, I don't see an issue with it.

Most cigarette users will smoke 10-11 puffs off of a cigarette in a short period of time. Heavy cigarette users will smoke every 30 minutes. (Given the chance, give or take) That's about 20-25 puffs an hour. Vapers, though I'm not sure why (I do the same thing) tend to take constant puffs over a long period of time rather than short burst cycles. So, if she smoked 2 cigarette an hour, when vaping she'll probably takes a puff every 2 - 2.5 minutes. Essentially she is keeping her nicotine level at a constant level.

Upping her nicotine may cause her to vape less, but essentially, she'll get the same amount of nicotine with half the work. That may make you feel better because she's vaping less, but the nicotine content is the same. It's purely appearance.

If she has just switched to vaping, her body is still dependent on many chemicals that are not in e cigarettes. Her body is probably craving those chemicals. After a short period of time, she'll probably balance out and vape less. From there, she can step down to a lower nicotine strength.


Basically what you're asking is for a caffeine addict to drink from a smaller cup with more shots rather than a larger cup with less shots. It's the same thing. Again, unless it's effecting her life, family and overall well being, she'll balance out and be just fine.

I believe our responsibility lies with not promoting the lesser of two evils. I vape because I am a nic head. I would rather not vape at all, but that isnt an option Im willing to pursue at this point. If someone wants to try out vaping instead of smoking they can go for it. I for one will not promote it to non smokers. Nicotine addiction is hardcore. Im sorry I ever picked up my first cig.

Taken from Voltec over on ECF. She attended court this morning, this is what she witnessed.


Oral Arguments were heard today in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Judges Garland, Kavanaugh and Williams (Links to their profiles below)
U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit - Merrick B. Garland (202) 216-7460
U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh (202) 216-7180
U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit - Stephen F. Williams (202) 216-7210

Case # 10-5032 Sottera, Inc. v. FDA 15 min per side

Appearing for NJOY, Gregory G. Garre, Latham & Watkins, LLP. Latham & Watkins LLP - Attorney Biography

Appearing for FDA, Alisa B. Klein, U.S. Department of Justice Georgetown Law - J.D. Adjunct Faculty

The first person I recognized waiting outside the courtroom was everyone's favorite law professor, John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). I saw him go over to speak the DOJ attorney representing the FDA. He asked her about the content of her argument, but she demurred, telling him that he should read the brief and that she did not want to "mischaracterize" their position. Next I overheard him making a phone call presumably to his office. He sounded a bit concerned. He told the person on the other end that they needed to get ahold of Michelle because he (Banzhaf) had gotten the time wrong. He thought the arguments started at 10:30 but they actually were starting this case at 9:30. He also said something about a press release.

Lucky him, he got to hang on to his cell phone. Mine was conficated at the security station when I entered the building because I am not an attorney. They did return my phone when I left. It's possible they might have let me hang on to it, had it not been for the fact that it has a camera. No recording devices, visual or audio are permitted in the courtroom, and all electronic devices that the attorneys were permitted to take into the courtroom had to be turned off, including IPods and IPads.

The courtroom isn't huge, but there were 4 wooden pews on each side and these were pretty much filled by the time the judges entered the room. There was a lot of meet and greet going on in the audience before the case got started, and I had the impression that I was one of the few people in the room lacking a law degree.

The DOJ attorney Alisa Klein spoke first. She had not been speaking for more than a few moments when the Judges began interrupting and asking questions. She began by stating that the District Court held that the electronic cigarette is exempt from regulation under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) because it is not intended for therapeutic use. The plaintiff's contention that electronic cigarettes should be treated like real cigarettes which, under FDA v. Brown & Williamson, are exempt from regulaton under the FDA is a misunderstanding of that case, she argued.

Judge Kavenaugh then asked whether it had been the FDA's long-held position that the Agency did not have the authority to regulate tobacco products. Klein responded that as the term was used by FDA, these are products that have tobacco in them. She further argued that Brown & Williamson was limited to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. Judge Williams commented that the Favor smokeless cigarette was not discussed in Brown & Williamson and that this is "not a good move for an interpretation of Brown & Williamson."

There was then some back and forth among the judges and Klein regarding the interpretation of "tobacco product." The judges thought it reasonable to use the concept of whether a product is marketed with a theraputic claim to determine which of the two Statutes (FDCA or the "Tobacco Act") gave the FDA regulatory authority over a product. Klein disagreed. She cited the example of the nicotine lollipop that FDA chose to regulate under FDCA and stated that the product would have been totally unregulated otherwise. She said that the Supreme Court relied on the FDA's interpretation.

Judge Kavenaugh asked whether the FDA felt that it could ban electronic cigarettes but not (tobacco) cigarettes. Klein commented, "If it could be shown that electronic cigarettes are a safe method of nicotine maintenance, that could be supported." In the new legislation there was a mandate for the FDA to encourage the development of more and better nicotine replacement products. She mentioned that the FDA had written to the Electronic Cigarette Merchant's (sic) Association, encouraging companies to come to the FDA to work with it.

I found it strange that after discussing a section of the Tobacco Act that FDA claimed to be supporting via its correspondence to the ECA, Klein asserted that since the Tobacco Act had not been passed when the original case was filed, it should not apply to this case.

Judge Williams asked about cigars not being covered in the 1996 rule, but that they are specifically covered in the Tobacco Act. The position of the judges appeared to be that even though Brown & Wiilamson did not specify all current and future tobacco products, that it applied a rule of "tobacco products as customarily marketed." Brown & Williamson left a regulatory gap that Congress came and filled in (by passing the Tobacco Act.) Judge Williams reiterated that the presence of absence of therapeutic claims seemed like a good way to determine whether a product shyould be regulated under FDCA. Klein continued to disagree. She said that "There is no reason to think that you could sell a nicotine lollipop and nobody could regulate it.

Judge Garland pointed out that the FDA's order of detention was the only piece of papaer the court has that explains the FDA's position. The order detained the products based on the idea that they were intended for therapeutic use. He asked whether the FDA has an administrative record documenting that NJOY made therapeutic claims. He said that the lower court ruling left the door open for the FDA to come forward with evidence that the products are marketed with claims of therapeutic use. He asked Klein whether the FDA is asking the court for an advisory opinion on what the FDA is limited to. "No, no, no," said Klein. "We don't regard the Tobacco Control Act as ambiguous."

The Judge asked about a "Chevron deference."

ASIDE: I had to look this up when I got home. This is what I found:



Klein stated that the law provided delegation of authority to the Agency. FDA gets to deem what is or is not a tobacco product. "If all we had were FDCA and the Tobacco Act, FDA would win," she stated. She said that invoking the Brown & Williamson case was the cause of confusion.

Judge Garland noted that the passage of the Tobacco Act has granted the FDA unquestionable authority to regulate tobacco products. He asked whether the FDA's purpose in regulating electronic cigarettes under FDCA was so that it could ban the products.

At this point, Attorney Garre took over the podium, representating the Plaintiff, NJOY. One of the judges asked whether John Banzhaf has, indeed, changed sides and now is one of the plaintiffs against FDA. This brought a chuckle from the courtroom. Garre said that he highly doubted that and that including Banzhaf's name as a co-plaintiff was probably a clerical error.

Garre began by stating that the FDA's position is just wrong, in the same way that FDA sought to regulate all tobacco products in Brown & Williamson. The debate is centered on the interpretation of "tobacco products." He commentd that the FDA gets no deference in interpreting Supreme Court decisions. He said that in passing the Tobacco Act, Congress ratified a line that the FDA advanced in Brown & Williamson. Congress in 2009 saw the need to give the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products, which it defined as anything derived from tobacco.

One of the judges asked whether this law would apply to street drugs, and Garre responded that it is limited to tobacco products.

There was some discussion of modified risk tobacco products, and how they might differ from tobacco dependence products which would be classified as smoking cessation drugs and devices that would still be regulated under FDCA.

DISCLAIMER:
I apologize to attorneys and the judges if I have misquoted or mischaracterized anything they said. I had to rely on my hand-scratched notes to interpret and report on what I heard.

My feelings about the arguments: Given the hard questions the judges were throwing at the DOJ attorney representing the FDA, I got the impression they are leaning toward the plaintiff's side of the case. But they did pin down NJOY's lawyer with some hard questions as well. Anything can happen, but given what I know and what I understood today, I would say the odds are that the Appeals Court will uphold the injunction. No guarantees, you understand.

AFTERWORD: I happened to run into everyone's favorite law professor upstairs in the Clerk of Courts office where I went to request a transcript of the arguments. I told him that I had been glad to see that he was finally supporting the rights of those of us who would rather use an electronic cigarette than smoke, but was disappointed that he had chosen to go back to the "dark side." He looked quizzical, but he did smile.

Welcome to Vapor Talk! The Tank attys come in two types.. A and B. Type A is a little cone shaped and type B is cylindrical. Depending on which one you get, you'll need the matching tanks (carts) for that atty. Type B has a little bigger tank and will hold more eliquid (2ml in the type B vs about 1ml in the type A).

Type A Tank - Cone Shaped

Type B - Cylindrical

The idea of people doing cheers about how much others are earning is odd, and the big wigs standing up there talking about how much money they make is vulgar and distasteful. There is no such thing as just selling the products, they require you to attend meeting, rah-rah rallies, and to bring more people into the fold. Run away. There are quite a few of these so-called companies out there and if it were as easy as they make it sound our economy would be better. Run away fast, cause if you sign up your friends certainly will.

I've never met anyone that made money from amway. If they said they did, or even showed a copy of a check- their lifestyle sure didn't show it. You'll likely spend more getting into it than you'll ever get out of it. Run from MLM goonies.

Thanks guys...I'll just ignore them and stick with what I have that works.

-C

just got my ego tank today. switched from blu, which didnt have anything i was looking for (throat hit, flavor, vapor production). The ego is beating that thing hands down. I wanna get some LR attys to get that vapor production even higher!! The ego is giving me so much more nicotine delivery its amazing!!!

I gave you a plus one just because your username is awesome

Those are indeed incorrect. While most 510 atomizer/items will work on the eGo the 510 tank is the exception. It's not really meant for the eGo. You CAN use it but you'll need to remove the cone. Regardless you purchased the eGo tank cartridges but the 510 Tank atomizer. If your order has not yet shipped I would contact them and ask that they change the atomizer to an eGo tank atomizer instead. It looks like this:




You'll notice it looks like the eGo cone. That's the easiest way to tell if it's correct or not.

http://www.shop.goodprophets.com/product.sc?productId=206&categoryId=46

that's the "510-T tank atomizer for joye 510 or ego" that i ordered

http://www.shop.goodprophets.com/product.sc?productId=184&categoryId=46

and that's the tanks i ordered, "Empty Cartridges for eGo-T TANK"

looks like the atomizer will work, but the cartridge might not work with the atomizer (you'd think they could put a link to the right tanks on the page for the atomizer)

When i'm at home, i like direct dripping, and that's easy enough, i'll just buy 510 lr atomizers and buy one of each of the 12 different types of drip tips, and hope at least one of them works (using the cartridges that came with the ego now, but without the filler).

I'm wanting to try out a tank system for when i'm driving, because cartomizers will be fine once i decide on 2 or 3 liquids i like, but it's a pain to have to clean them over and over again to try new liquids while on the go. It would seem that atomizers would be better for trying different liquids, and out of the 11 liquids i've tried, i've only liked 3, so i've cleaned all 5 of my cartomizers twice, and my atomizers like 4 times each (was tinkering with glycerin to try and calm down the 4 different vaportalk juices i got, turns out there's just something in those that disagrees with my tastebuds)

Thanks for the info

Jon

I love it when I haven't been on for awhile and then get an email update to a link with good news. This is great news but I won't be completely happy until the FDA is out of business.

This is by far the scariest question I've ever encountered. Why on earth, would you want to place high strength liquid nicotine directly on to your skin. That's like asking how much caffeine you can safely inject into your bloodstream for a "buzz." I'm also not sure why having a mortgage and car payment entitles you to anything other than having a home and a car.

You are exactly the reason why bottled liquid will no longer be available when FDA regulation kicks in. Please, for god sakes, don't pour liquid directly on to your skin. It's a one way ticket to nicotine poisoning.

By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM AP Tobacco Writer
RICHMOND, Va. April 25, 2011 (AP)


The Food and Drug Administration said Monday it plans to regulate smokeless electronic cigarettes as tobacco products and won't try to regulate them under stricter rules for drug-delivery devices.

The federal agency said in a letter to stakeholders Monday that it intends to propose rule changes to treat e-cigarettes the same traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products.

The news is considered a victory for makers and distributors of the devices, which continue to gain popularity worldwide.

E-cigarettes are plastic and metal devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales. A tiny light on the tip even glows like a real cigarette.

Users and distributors say e-cigarettes address both the nicotine addiction and the behavioral aspects of smoking — the holding of the cigarette, the puffing, seeing the smoke come out and the hand motion — without the more than 4,000 chemicals found in cigarettes.

First marketed overseas in 2002, e-cigarettes didn't become easily available in the U.S. until late 2006. Now, the industry has grown from the thousands of users in 2006 to several million worldwide, with tens of thousands new e-smokers every week.

No timeline has been set on the proposed rule changes.

The FDA said e-cigarettes could still be regulated as drugs or drug-delivery devices if they are "marketed for therapeutic purposes," — for example, as a stop-smoking aid.

Jason Healy, president of e-cigarette maker Blu Cigs, called the news a good first step, but said the pending rule changes will be more beneficial for "weeding out the shady companies."

Right now, "you can potentially sell snake oil," Healy said.

Nearly 46 million Americans smoke cigarettes. About 40 percent try to quit each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But unlike nicotine patches or gums, e-smokes have operated in a legal gray area.

The FDA lost a court case last year after trying to treat e-cigarettes as drug-delivery devices, rather than tobacco products, because e-cigarettes heat nicotine extracted from tobacco. It had until Monday to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In December, a federal appeals court ruled electronic cigarettes should be regulated as tobacco products by the FDA rather than as drug-delivery devices, which have more stringent requirements such as expensive clinical trials to prove the products are safe and effective as a stop-smoking aid.

Some sellers of e-cigarettes sued the FDA in 2009 after the agency told customs officials to refuse entry of shipments into the U.S. A federal judge ruled that the FDA can't stop those shipments, saying the agency had overstepped its authority.

Last September, the FDA issued warning letters to several makers of electronic cigarettes or its components, saying the companies are violating the law with unsubstantiated health claims and poor manufacturing practices.

The FDA also had said that its tests found the liquid in some electronic cigarettes contained toxic substances — besides nicotine, which is itself toxic in large doses — as well as carcinogens that occur naturally in tobacco. Most e-cigarettes are imported from overseas.

However, some public health experts say the level of those carcinogens was comparable to those found in nicotine replacement therapy, because the nicotine in all of the products is extracted from tobacco.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=13453151


*****

In short, this is great news - for now - essentially the FDA publicly announced that it is conceding to Njoy's victory in the lawsuit, and will NOT be filing a petition for review by the Supreme Court.

I'm sure there are other battles ahead, particularly what type of regulation they will conjure up. My guess is it's going to be very strict and the strong will survive the weak. I have no doubt the FDA will start targeting small operation liquid makers. Doesn't mean they'll be closed down, just mean they may have to setup facilities following strict FDA guidelines. (Which for the consumer is a good thing)

Regardless for now, this is good news.

Thanks to Mark for being the first one to make me aware this was in the press today.

forever vapor has ego kits for 55.00 or 52.00

Sorry to let you all know (mostly vapors in Tampa) although i personally didnt prefer the establishment myself. Regardless, i went to "The Rack" in Tampa Fl 1809 West Platt Street. i was confronted by my waitress after 3 hours of being there and only after the "Crowd" had gone, telling me there is no smoking allowed. I advised her when i first arrived that i wasnt "smoking". That the device i have is only vapor, which she responded was ok. Only to find the owner had told her afterwards that even that was unacceptable and approached me later that night telling me so. I explained to him there was no smoke or smell. He advised me that even so, it would give the impression i was "smoking" and that others would "think" it would be ok to smoke analogs. lol.

Although i see his point, BUT, if your drunk and see me "smoke" and put my "smoke" in my back pocket and decide to "lite up"... you're an idiot. Needless to say, although i've only been there 3 times, "The Rack" has lost my business. I didnt like that place anyways.

In conclusions, everywhere ive been and vaped, has had no problem with me. Not to say i can do it without consideration. Before hand i explain myself to the establishment, including "The Rack". The waitress in question only said anything (which was weird after 3 hours and asked me to not smoke after i already explained myself earlier) when her boss showed up.

sigh, regards, Jflo02

PS The Rack... yeah, dont waste your time.

Yea just to clarify I don't want to knock it, as Brian said, some have found luck with it. You could always give it a try and see how well it works

It's just the Tank atomizer but sold by Janty. You do not direct drip into a tank. Instead the "tank" hold a couple ML of liquid. It auto drips into the atomizer. Though most have found the tank doesn't work very well. Which is to bad because it has some serious potential. (It doesn't drip down into the atomizer fast enough which causes dry hits)