now browsing by category
Thanks to the hard work by UTSFA member Riverwalk Vapors, Salt Lake City will be a host city for A Billion Lives.
The United Nations’ World Health Organization projects that a billion people will die this century from smoking. This award winning and Oscar contending documentary highlights the lies and corruption by top governments and health agencies around the world intent on allowing smokers to die all in the name of money.
Big brother has lied again…They’re trying to force an entire industry out of business that is helping people to stop smoking. ~ Herman Cain
The truth about the corruption will be aired at 9:30pm on Thursday November 3rd at Brewvies Cinema Pub in Salt Lake City. The Utah Smoke Free Association has sent tickets to top Utah government officials, elected representatives, health agencies and media so they may attend and learn about the corruption many of them have unknowingly fallen prey to. Smoking related disease kills Utah smokers at a rate of nearly 5 times that of the opioid epidemic and our state is not doing enough to fix the problem.
“The makers of this film did their due diligence, the narrative of this movie is immaculate.” ~Kevin Crowley
As of this posting, there are less than 60 tickets available for this one night only show. Tickets are $13 each (with an add’l $1 processing fee) and must be purchased online via: https://www.tugg.com/events/a-billion-lives-putz. The ticket fees cover the cost of the theater rental, fees for distribution (Tugg), production company costs and a percentage of the ticket sales are returned to the Utah Smoke Free Association to support statewide advocacy.
We encourage everyone in the community to reach out directly to their elected representatives to alert them to this premier and suggest they make the time to view it. The UTSFA is happy to provide tickets to them at no cost to them or the taxpayers but they will need to request it directly from us.
We have created a Facebook event to help show support and provide a location for people to discuss the event https://www.facebook.com/events/314815875557279/by
“People smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar” ~Michael Russell
Because of comments made by Representative Paul Ray at this week’s Health & Human Services Committee (starts at about 1hr 33min) where he claimed on public record that nicotine was carcinogenic, we felt it necessary to make sure the public was aware of the real truth rather than his desperate rhetoric he pulls from his bag of tricks.
First off, we want to address the comment regarding nicotine being a carcinogen. According to a study ordered by the Division of Lung Diseases of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), nicotine is not a significant risk of causing cancer hence all NRTs on the market today are rated as such by the FDA or other health agencies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725009/
“Nicotine by itself does not cause cancer, but dozens of other chemicals found in tobacco products do“, according to researcher Virginia Reichert, NP; http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonology/LungCancer/2039
Next, we want to address the addictive nature of nicotine. According to numerous studies performed, it is the cocktail of ingredients and MAOIs in commercial tobacco which make it highly addictive. It is the substance giving the subjective pleasure of smoking. Smokers smoke for the nicotine, but die from the tar and toxic smoke.
In another study on the long-term effects of inhaled nicotine, the study could not find any increase in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in the subject rats compared with controls. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291
Since so much credence is given to the FDA and their words of wisdom, the FDA has determined that there are no significant safety concerns with respect to long-term nicotine use. More specifically, the agency published a “Notice of Findings” in the Federal Register indicating that the long-term use of the nicotine-containing products was safe and does not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence. While this study was targeting Nicotine Replacement Therapy products, the nicotine used in ENDS is the same quality and source that the pharmaceutical giants use in their products. Therefore, just because the private market is using the liquid nicotine, does not change the carcinogenic nature of it.
Another study of Alzheimer’s patients showed that those who used nicotine without smoking were better able to remember and pay attention than those who didn’t. Another study showed that nicotine boosted cognitive function in older people who didn’t have Alzheimer’s, but were showing signs of age-related mental decline.
According to Dr. Paul Newhouse, director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Cognitive Medicine; “nicotine by itself isn’t very addictive at all and seems to require assistance from other substances found in tobacco to get people hooked. It seems very safe even in nonsmokers. In our studies we find it actually reduces blood pressure chronically. And there were no addiction or withdrawal problems, and nobody started smoking cigarettes. The risk of addiction to nicotine alone is virtually nil.”
We can’t say this loud enough but ask that he and others in public health making any of these claims to actually review ALL research to avoid making public statements that are dangerous to the public you serve. Just one month of continued smoking is more dangerous than a lifetime of ENDS usage.
Sometimes I’m amazed at people. Oftentimes it’s for the amazing talents or feats of a particular individual. Unfortunately, mostly it’s due to the amazing ability some people have to ignore fact and never move outside their mind filled with lies and prejudice; even at possible great harm to others. Case in point, read this recent post about the recent groundbreaking study out of the UK (go ahead, I’ll wait).
Now, imagine an individual in a position of influence at the state level. Someone who has the power to create and pass laws at will. Got him pictured? Good. *Note* it’s probably not who you are thinking. Now imagine him sitting behind his computer or smart phone and receiving an email with details of the new study. No embellishment. No commentary. Just actual information directly from the report. Not hard to imagine, right? One would think that someone intelligent enough to get himself elected, go through medical school and be a highly respected member of society would mean they actually take the time to educate himself and has an open enough mind to recognize that science can change and, well, facts are facts. Well…..a man much wiser than I once said “People don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed“.
So with that said, allow me to post some of his response to me and his capitol peers (in red italics) regarding this groundbreaking study he was essentially hand delivered but refused to read prior to responding. If you ask me who it was, I won’t tell you. I’m not the type of person to put an elected leader on blast publicly or hit “Reply to All” and make him appear foolish. That behavior in politics is foolish in it’s own right and simply is not productive. I just want to show my readers his foolishness so hopefully, maybe, he or one of his peers will see this and open their eyes to the truth. [edit – I’ve now received two responses so will try and address both at the same time]
- I notice that you choose your terms carefully to avoid using the word Nicotine.
- Actually sir, none of the words are mine nor did I carefully choose anything nor avoid using any term. These are the words of the MOST RESPECTED MEDICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE BLOODY WORLD! Look em up. The Royal College of Physicians has over 35,000 doctors in it’s ranks and has been around longer than any and has influenced more groundbreaking health policy than any other.
- Anyone who uses nicotine for any length of time whether vaping, smoking, chewing, or in patches or gums, will have a prolonged and difficult period of withdrawal if and when they try to break free of it.
- According to the FDA, you know, those guys out East who YOU want to regulate our industry; well, they claim completely the opposite. The actually published a Notice of Findings in the Federal Register indicating that the “long-term use of the nicotine was safe and does not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence.”
- Big Pharma uses study data from smokeless tobacco use in Sweden (Snus) as their basis for Nicotine Replacement Therapy. They claim, and the FDA supports the fact that “long-term nicotine consumption without smoke has no clinical significance.”
- Lastly, according to Dr. Paul Newhouse, the director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Cognitive Medicine (who has done extensive research into beneficial effects of nicotine on the brain); “Nicotine by itself isn’t very addictive at all. Nicotine seems to require assistance from other substances found in tobacco to get people hooked.”
- Nicotine is the second most addicting substance that we know of (second only to heroin and the opioids). And it is addicting in whatever form you take it.
- While I’ll concede that nicotine creates a dependence, not addiction (there is a monumental difference and terminology is important), in those who use it; I bring you back to Dr Newhouse’s research above. His research, and that of virtually every producer of NRT products shows that “It seems very safe even in nonsmokers. In our studies we find it actually reduces blood pressure chronically. And there were no addiction or withdrawal problems, and nobody started smoking cigarettes. The risk of addiction to nicotine alone is virtually nil.”
- Independent of the form it is taken in has been shown to cause cancers in intestines, lung, pancreas and breast. It accelerates macular degeneration which causes blindness, and worsens emphysema and raises blood pressure.
- I’m beginning to see something here now. When you think of vapor products, you must be able to cognitively separate nicotine from smoking. They are two separate subjects here. When nicotine is combine with tobacco smoke, you are 100% correct in that. However, nicotine by itself has never been shown to cause any cancers or the other issues you mention. Never. Ever. In fact, even the FDA, NIH and virtually every cancer center study in the world shows this.
- Your industry continues to be dependent, as it has for many decades now, on getting yet another generation of the young addicted to nicotine
- From second responder: We have a whole new group of people working for the tobacco companies that are simply not going to give up the billions of dollars generated from their addicted clients
- Ahhh even more is clear. For reference, I do not work for nor does this organization receive funding from Big Tobacco. This industry is NOT Big Tobacco. This industry was NOT founded by Big Tobacco. The small business owners have zero financial ties to Big Tobacco. This industry, was founded by a…wait for it…MEDICAL DOCTOR! The over 15,000 small business owners and over 10 million adult consumers in the US are all ex-smokers who have a single goal, to eradicate combustible tobacco and Big Tobacco globally.
- For a great history lesson (if you are even still reading at this point), here is a fantastic timeline of the industry.
I could continue but this post is already very long and frankly, I have more important things to work on than to respond to rhetoric that is spewed forth by someone who is too narrow minded to open their mind to the fact that science changes. Scientific study after study is proving that a prohibitionist approach is killing people. Claiming that we don’t know enough or there are not enough studies is doing nothing but proving ignorance or incompetence and I honestly have done everything possible to educate you. If your public that you represent along with over 300 scientific studies AND the largest, most respected and most prestigious medical organization in the world cannot convince you; then I wish you all the best in your career and I’ll pray for your patients.
I close by reminding you of an oath you took when you started your profession so very many years ago. Primum non nocere, which for those not speaking Latin is a phrase that means “first, do no harm; one of the core principals of the Hippocratic Oath. An oath YOU had to take in order to get through your prestigious university to get that fancy piece of paper on your office wall. This oath requires that you maintain an open mind and treat patients with the latest information available; not shove your head in the sand (or in other dark places) and ignore the facts.
Doing nothing or ignoring the facts is no different than doing actual harm to those you have pledged to care for. Doing nothing is tantamount to medical malpractice and the 1200 lives you allow to die because of your chosen ignorance is nothing short of genocide. But if you don’t believe in scientific advances don’t worry, it’s only A Billion dirty smokers Lives on the line….Nobody loves them, right?
The Society For The Study Of Addiction has released a study titled “A framework for evaluating the public health impact of e-cigarettes and other vaporized nicotine products” which contains the following conclusions:
- In the US, increasing e-cigarette use has been accompanied by an unusually large reduction in adult and youth smoking prevalence.
- These products expose users to substantially lower levels of toxicants than combustible cigarettes.
- A multi-criteria decision analysis estimated that exclusive VNP use is associated with 5% of the mortality risks of smoking. This is comparable to the estimated risks of low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco.
- Studies using major biomarkers of cancer and other chemicals in e-cigarettes indicate substantially lower (e.g. 9–450 times) levels compared to cigarette smoke.
- For dual users, VNP use may translate to a lower quantity and duration of cigarettes smoked. Both may decrease lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) risk.
- The potential to reduce risk is likely to depend upon the age of initial dual use. Although much use now begins at later ages, VNP use is likely to occur at earlier ages in more recent cohorts of smokers, and thereby provide a greater reduction in cigarette use and toxic exposures over longer periods of use.
- Initiating VNP use before cigarette smoking may delay or prevent smoking initiation and thereby reduce smoking risks.
- The population health impact depends critically upon whether the never smoker who tries VNPs would have smoked cigarettes in the absence of VNPs.
- Studies of youth and young adult use from the United States and other countries using different use measures have found current smokers to be at least 15 times more likely to use VNPs than never smokers.
- Adolescents and young adults who use VNPs are most likely to be those at higher risk of initiating cigarette smoking.
- Young VNP experimenters are more likely to engage in other risky behaviors and have executive function deficits like those found in cigarette smokers. These findings suggest that a common liability model is more plausible than a gateway from VNP use to cigarette smoking.
- Because VNPs are more widely available and often more appealing to smokers than conventional NRT, they have the potential for having a larger impact on the rate of smoking cessation in the population.
- Concerns have been raised that cigarette smoking will be re-normalized by VNP use. This issue can be addressed by the media and public health campaigns that encourage norms that are hostile to cigarette smoking and at the same time distinguishing clearly between VNP and cigarette risks, discouraging dual use and encouraging exclusive VNP use.
- The availability of VNPs may provide a justification for stronger policies to discourage cigarette smoking because smokers, particularly those of lower socio-economic status and with mental health issues, are given a less risky and potentially less costly alternative way to service their need for nicotine.
- Cigarette companies that have entered the smokeless tobacco market have encouraged dual rather than exclusive use, and are likely to do the same with VNPs. By contrast, VNP companies that are unaffiliated with cigarette manufacturers want smokers to switch completely from cigarettes to VNPs.
- Product content regulations that create regulatory hurdles that only large firms can surmount are likely to favor the cigarette industry and discourage innovation by firms outside the cigarette industry.
- Cigarette companies do not control VNPs as they do the rest of the tobacco business; many manufacturers of e-cigarettes such as NJOY do not sell cigarettes, and there are thousands of vape shops that are independent of the cigarette industry
- Retailer point-of-sale restrictions, which limit subsidies by cigarette manufacturers to provide shelf space and price promotions, can reduce price discounting and discourage advertisement displays. This could provide greater shelf space for VNP products to be sold by independent firms.
- From a public health perspective, VNP policies should aim to discourage experimental and regular use of VNPs by never smokers who would not have smoked otherwise while encouraging innovations in VNP products that promote smoking cessation. The evidence suggests a strong potential for VNP use to improve population health by reducing or displacing cigarette use in countries where cigarette prevalence is high and smokers are interested in quitting.
- The primary aim of tobacco control policy should therefore be to discourage cigarette use while providing the means for smokers to more easily quit smoking, even if that means switching for some time to VNPs rather than quitting all nicotine use.
The use of vaporized nicotine products (VNPs), especially e-cigarettes and, to a lesser extent, pressurized aerosol nicotine products and heat-not-burn tobacco products, are being adopted increasingly as an alternative to smoking combusted products, primarily cigarettes. Considerable controversy has accompanied their marketing and use. We propose a framework that describes and incorporates patterns of VNP and combustible cigarette use in determining the total amount of toxic exposure effects on population health. We begin by considering toxicity and the outcomes relevant to population health. We then present the framework and define different measures of VNP use; namely, trial and long-term use for exclusive cigarette smokers, exclusive VNP and dual (cigarette and VNP) use. Using a systems thinking framework and decision theory we considered potential pathways for current, former and never users of VNPs. We then consider the evidence to date and the probable impacts of VNP use on public health, the potential effects of different policy approaches and the possible influence of the tobacco industry on VNP and cigarette use.
– Content courtesy of No More Casualties and the Society For The Study Of Addictionby
Today the Royal College of Physicians, the world’s oldest and most respected medical organization, has released a new 200 page report titled “Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco Harm Reduction” which concludes, among other things:
- Smokers can be reassured and ENCOURAGED to use e-cigs, and the public can be reassured that e-cig are MUCH SAFER than smoking.
- E-cigs are NOT a gateway to smoking.
- E-cigs do NOT result in normalization of smoking.
- Regulation should NOT be allowed to significantly inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers.
- E-cigs appear to be EFFECTIVE when used by smokers as an aid to QUITTING SMOKING.
- E-cigs are marketed as consumer products and are proving MUCH MORE POPULAR than NRT as a substitute and COMPETITOR for tobacco cigarettes.
- The hazard to health arising from long-term vapor inhalation is UNLIKELY TO EXCEED 5 PERCENT of the harm from smoking tobacco.
- Evidence indicates that e-cigs are being used almost exclusively as SAFER ALTERNATIVES to smoked tobacco, by confirmed smokers who are trying to REDUCE HARM to themselves OR OTHERS from smoking, or to quit smoking completely.
- In the interests of public health it is important to PROMOTE THE USE of e-cigs, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as WIDELY as possible as a SUBSTITUTE for smoking in the UK.
This report aims to provide a fresh update on the use of harm reduction in tobacco smoking, in relation to all non-tobacco nicotine products but particularly e-cigarettes. It concludes that, for all the potential risks involved, harm reduction has huge potential to prevent death and disability from tobacco use, and to hasten our progress to a tobacco-free society.
A copy of the report can be downloaded here: Nicotine without smoke
Should you wish to discuss the report, the Utah Smoke Free Association is happy to discuss the findings at a time of your choosing. For any questions or concerns about any of the specific findings, we encourage you to reach out directly to the Royal College of Physicians or the UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies which is funded by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration who were the authors of the report.
We encourage all readers of this to forward this information to your legislators, mayors, city councils and health departments for their review and education.
Many times throughout the year, the Utah Smoke Free Association (UTSFA) is asked for specific information relating to the Utah vapor industry. In response to this and to prepare for the upcoming legislative session along with other needs, we need to urgently gather information on all Utah vapor businesses.
This information is being gathered from Utah vapor specialty businesses only so if you are not in Utah, please do not respond. We are asking all industry business owners complete this survey regardless of membership status with the organization. Business specific information collected in this survey will be kept strictly confidential and will only be viewable by the organization Executive Director.
It doesn’t take much to short a Lithium-Ion battery. And it seems with the velocity of information on the internet, we’re seeing more stories about batteries shorting, mods exploding, and someone in our vaping family being injured due to faulty battery or mod handling. We hope that this information can and will help all of our vaping family members have a safe and wonderful vaping experience.
To put things in context, and to understand what happens when a battery shorts out and vents, you should watch this video. We can assure you that even for a very light short, you may feel the heat and the battery acid well before the explosion, but do you really want to take your chances? Odds are the short, the vent, and explosion will happen much faster than you can react.
So what steps can we all take to minimize the risk of a battery short and explosion?
First, never carry loose batteries in your pocket, purse, the console of your car, a drawer, or any other place where the batteries may touch. Indeed, your spare batteries should be in a battery case when they are not being used or charged. The case keeps the batteries aligned such that the ends will never touch and nothing will come in contact with the batteries. Reputable retailers are more than happy to sell you a quality battery case.
You can be sure that one of the most common causes of battery shorts is that the battery (or batteries) were in a person’s pocket and possibly even with a few coins bouncing around. This is a recipe for disaster, and the result is usually at least 2nd degree burns as diagnosed by the emergency room doctor. And you probably had to yank your shorts down in front of all your friends.
When You Are Not Vaping
None of us are constant chain vapers. Perhaps we work inside where we cannot vape. Maybe we’re playing ball and it’s not convenient to carry our mods in our hands. What can we do with our mods when we aren’t vaping? This is a tough one, but also this is why I vigorously recommend using a regulated mod.
It is quite convenient and tempting to tuck your mod into your pants pocket. No problem there…unless something in your pocket activates the mod. Did you lock your mod first? That’s an easy one to forget to do. Does your mod have an actuator limit, such as only five to ten seconds of activation then it automatically shuts off? (This is one reason why I prefer regulated mods!) What happens if you set your mod in the car console and it tips just enough for the actuator to be depressed? This actually happened to me once, and my unregulated mod caught on fire just as I smelled the burnt atty. Now imagine that this happens in your pocket…where nothing should ever burn or explode. (By the way, where are our genius vapers who want to make a belt clip for the various mods we use?!)
Do NOT Leave Your Mod in Your Car
Leaving your mod in your car may seem convenient, but is it safe? Absolutely not. During periods of even moderate temperatures, the inside of your car can turn into an oven. This increases the risk of overheating the batteries and potentially causing an explosion or setting your unattended car on fire. Some experts recommend keeping your batteries where they will stay between 50 and 115 degrees Fahrenheit. To be even safer, avoid triple digit temperatures. And NEVER leave your batteries in your car!
Another cause for shorts, and certainly something that may lend to a mod venting is poor physical battery condition. The “sheath” and negative end of these batteries are typically one single piece, and there is only a small gap between the negative surface and the positive contact. This is the reason we have battery wrap and plastic tabs involved in the design of the battery. Believe me when I say this level of protection is just enough to be safe as long as the integrity of the battery wrap is not violated. Even a small tear like this can pose serious danger!
Dripping, Pulsing, and Dry Atomizers
Another piece of safety advice is if you drip, be very cognizant of how quickly your mod consumes juice. Dry cotton and a current with sub-ohm resistance are poor bedfellows. If you like to pulse while dripping, wait until you have enough juice in the atomizer first. Never pulse or activate your mod while the atty is dry. Here’s one example of how things can go south very fast.
Know What You Need In a Battery
Finally, we all love innovators and geeks when it comes to improving the vaping industry. We love huge clouds. But let’s be realistic. If your mod needs this many batteries, you don’t deserve the teeth that are about to be blown out of your skull. We’re trying to save lives through tobacco harm reduction. We’re not building weapons of mass destruction!
A satisfying vape does not require truckloads of power. It really just needs a proper understanding of watts, voltage, ohms, and amps. Most regulated mods handle the calculation of watts and voltage, relative to your implementation of atomizer, which is where the ohms rating is established. Thus, place focus here on the battery, which is where the amps come in to play.
The following chart (we would love to credit the author, but…..) gives guidance on which type of battery is generally best for your usage. However, lean heavily on your reputable retail specialty vape shop for guidance on your mod and configuration. That is your best source for expertise and assistance!
Talk with a reputable vaping-specialty retailer (not a smoke shop!) about your battery needs. Use retailers who avoid cheap clone mods. Seek out specialty retailers who provide expert guidance on vape safety, your mod, atomizers, builds, etc., and who also stock the materials that provide the best, safest vape experience. These folks are there to help you with your vaping experience and keep you as a lifetime customer. We’re all in this together, so let’s work together to keep each other safe from harm. Tobacco Harm Reduction is not just about eliminating tobacco from our lives.
If anyone has additional suggestions for safety or links to publish in the article, please let us know.
Kevin Carly – UTSFA Vice-Presidentby
The importance of science-informed policy and what the data really tell us about e- cigarettes
David B. Abrams (email@example.com) Raymond Niaura (firstname.lastname@example.org) – 24 April 2015
- David B. Abrams 1,2,* * Corresponding author Email: email@example.com
- Raymond Niaura 1 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org 1
- Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, 624 N. Broadway, Suite 280, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA 2
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
“If properly regulated and responsibly made and marketed, especially by independent manufacturers who have less conflict as Big Tobacco does by also selling lethal cigarettes, ANDS have the potential to improve the public health. Together with traditional tobacco control strategies ANDS can speed the demise of the lethal cigarette by deterring progression to lethal cigarettes among non-users and by providing smokers who do not want to, or have tried and cannot “just quit”, with a substantially safer alternative – without causing the suffering from the devastating health consequences imposed on them by the need to inhale toxic cigarette smoke. As Dr. Russell stated so prophetically 40 years ago and which is still true today, “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the tars” .
ANDS raise legitimate fears of possible risks and these need to be watched and managed, but misinterpreting or selectively presenting negative preliminary data does not serve the public health. The precautionary principle is potentially violated if ANDS are prematurely demonized and are then seen by the public as simply another dangerous tobacco product instead of a way to make lethal cigarettes obsolete. Then we may well have missed the tobacco control opportunity of the century ”
As part of our organizational standards, we perform random testing on liquid purchased in the state both from in-state and out of state e-liquid manufacturers. We primarily test for nicotine concentrations to ensure the liquid falls within the +/- 10% variance as required by our standards and by what is considered to be best practices within the e-liquid and pharmaceutical industries. We also will be performing more detailed tests to ensure there are no unauthorized ingredients being incorporated into any of the liquids.
In early January, the Salt Lake County Health Department issued a press release regarding random sampling they performed on e-liquid throughout the state on liquid purchased during August 2014. They provided us a copy of the test results which we analyzed and validated against the results they provided. We committed at that time both to the health department and the public to performing the same test on the same brands and flavors of liquids but wanted to give it enough time to allow new batches to circulate in to ensure we test a more recent batch.
Also occurring the same week as the SLCO press release, we finalized the agreement between the UT Smoke Free Association and Terponix, a local Utah analytical laboratory specializing in e-liquid testing. Through this new relationship, we procured and sent the same flavors of one of the manufacturers tested by the health department. After speaking with the Pink Spot team, they agreed to allow us to publish the results which are below. You will see below that all liquids tested are within the +/- 10% variance allowed by our organization standards which demonstrates that their mixing process in their laboratory is working as designed. Pink Spot has been a huge supporter of our organization since our formation in 2011 and we’re proud of their accuracy and processes and are not surprised by the results. Based on the tests, we feel you can purchase their liquids with a high level of confidence based on product accuracy, quality and service.
The Utah Smoke Free Association will continue to perform random sample testing on all liquids throughout the year and beyond. The Board and our members all agree this is important enough for us to finance and we are happy to do so. As we find tests that are concerning, we will be working directly with the manufacturer (regardless of source) to ensure they are both aware of the results and we can work with them to resolve any process errors that prevented a successful test.
Update: We also received this week the test results from a Big Tobacco product that we wanted to share. We feel everyone including our health department will find this information interesting and frightening at the same time…by
Sometimes, it takes a scientist to tell us what we already know. It’s sad that population level data is not trusted but certainly are happy that this confirmed the information we have been saying for years!
In this study, 71 adult smokers making their first purchase at local participating vape shops were asked by professional retail staff to complete a form.
Measurements: Their cigarette consumption was followed-up prospectively at 6 and 12 months. Details of products purchase (i.e., e-cig hardware, e-liquid nicotine strengths and flavours) were also noted.
Findings: Retention rate was elevated, with 69% of participants attending their final follow-up visit. At 12 month,
- 40.8% of the subjects could be classified as quitters,
- 25.4% as reducers and 33.8% as failures.
Switching from standard [2nd generation] refillables (initial choice) to more advanced [3rd generation] devices (MODs) was observed in this study (from 8.5% at baseline to 18.4% at 12 month) as well as a trend in decreasing their liquid nicotine strength, with more participants adopting low nicotine strength (from 49.3% at baseline to 57.1% at 12 month).
Conclusions: We have found that smokers purchasing e-cigarettes from vape shops with professional advice and support can achieve high success rates.
For details on the study, click the image above.by