National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Report Recognizes that Vapor Products Are Significantly Less Harmful than Traditional Combustible Cigarettes

By Chris Winfrey
on February 13, 2018

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Report Recognizes that Vapor Products Are Significantly Less Harmful than Traditional Combustible Cigarettes

Today a wonderful article came out identifying studies of various types in the E-Cig/Vaping world.

I cant say it as well as Azim and Adam did. So here's the article quoted directly from the source.


Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Releases Report Documenting Massive Review of Existing Scientific Literature

On January 23, 2018, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (hereinafter referred to as the “National Academies”) Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) released a report entitled, “Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes” (hereinafter referred to as the “Report”).[1] The Report, which was the result of the Committee’s review of over 800 articles identified from a massive literature search of six different databases, noted that the Committee found sufficient literature to suggest that, “while there are risks associated with e-cigarettes, compared with combustible tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes contain fewer toxicants; can deliver nicotine in a manner similar to combustible tobacco cigarettes; show significantly less biological activity in a number of in vitro, animal, and human systems; and might be useful as a cessation aid in smokers who use e-cigarettes exclusively.”[2] In sum, the Report acknowledges that vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking traditional combustible tobacco cigarettes

Background on the Report

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 included language directing the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to “contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct an in-depth evaluation of available evidence of health effects from e-cigarettes and recommendations for future federally funded research.”[3] CTP contracted with the National Academies to convene an ad-hoc committee to conduct this evaluation, which resulted in the creation of the Committee. The Committee’s literature review included an analysis of data on both short-term and long-term health effects in: (1) users of ENDS, including health effects associated with the use of these devices (e.g., cigalikes, tank systems, mods); (2) vulnerable populations of users (e.g., youth, pregnant women, individuals with underlying medical conditions (e.g., heart disease, pulmonary disease); and (3) non-users of ENDS exposed to second-hand and third-hand aerosol generated by use of these devices.[4]

The Report Concludes That Vapor Products Are Less Harmful Than Combustible Tobacco Cigarettes

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the Report is the Committee’s implicit and explicit conclusion that e-cigarettes are safer than combustible tobacco cigarettes. Although the Report is more cautious than the Royal College of Physicians Report,[5] the Committee nevertheless acknowledged that the “current evidence points to e-cigarettes being less harmful than combustible tobacco cigarettes.”[6]

Moreover, several of the Report’s findings bolster the Committee’s conclusion that e-cigarettes are less harmful than combustible tobacco cigarettes. For example, the Committee found “conclusive evidence that completely substituting e-cigarettes for combustible tobacco cigarettes reduces users’ exposure to numerous toxicants and carcinogens present in combustible tobacco cigarettes.”[7] Indeed, all cross-sectional and longitudinal studies comparing exposure to nicotine and toxicants in smokers who substituted e-cigarettes for their combustible cigarettes, showed that smokers who substitute e-cigarettes for their combustible cigarettes had significantly reduced levels of biomarkers of exposure to potentially toxic chemicals.[8] Similarly, the Committee observed that “although some studies found similar harm from e-cigarettes, no studies found that e-cigarettes were more harmful than combustible tobacco cigarettes among combustible tobacco cigarette smokers who switched to exclusive e-cigarette use.”[9]

Further, the Committee concluded that there was “substantial evidence that completely switching from regular use of combustible tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes results in reduced short-term adverse health outcomes in several organ systems.”[10] In addition, studies reviewed by the Committee showed that use of an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose non-users to nicotine and particulates, but such exposure is at lower levels compared with exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from combustible tobacco cigarettes.[11] The Report also noted that, “among dual users, e-cigarettes may help maintain smoking reduction.”[12]

At the same time, the Report notes that “the proportion of U.S. adults who consider [e-cigarettes] to be as harmful as combustible tobacco cigarettes has increased over time,” indicating that the public needs information related to the relative harm of e-cigarette products.[13] However, the “modified risk” provisions of the Tobacco Control Act (the “Act”) prohibit vapor companies from making truthful claims that their products present reduced-risk compared to combustible cigarettes, or even that their products do not contain or produce smoke or tar, without submitting an extensive application and securing FDA’s approval to make such claims.[14] Indeed, the modified risk standard is so stringent that it is highly unlikely any such claim will ever be approved for a vapor product.[15]

Accordingly, an unintended consequence of FDA’s approach to implementing the Act may be the proliferation of misinformation concerning the relative risks of vapor products and combustible tobacco cigarettes.[16]

Youth Use of E-Cigarettes

A frequent area of concern for courts[17], FDA, and public interest groups involves the use of e-cigarettes among youth.  As background, the Committee notes that the “proportion of youth who reported ever using e-cigarettes varies substantially across surveys” from as low as 10.7 percent to as high as 27.1 percent.[18] The Committee indicates that “early results suggest” that e-cigarette use “stabilized or decreased in youth between 2015 and 2016, despite increases between 2011 and 2015 across a range of surveys.”[19] Among those who reported having ever used an e-cigarette, youth most commonly reported using rechargeable/refillable tank-style devices, with more than half (53.4 percent) of middle and high school students reporting using only this kind of device.”[20]

In its consideration of the impact of e-cigarette use on “ever-use” of combustible tobacco products, which critically, is defined as smoking a single cigarette at any point in one’s life, the Report considers two dueling hypotheses (i.e., the diversion hypothesis and the catalyst hypothesis).  The Committee explains that e-cigarettes could have a preventive effect if the diversion hypothesis – the hypothesis that because some youth possess an elevated drive to engage in exploratory or risk-taking behavior, the availability of e-cigarettes allows such young people to satisfy their curiosity and drive for novelty without resorting to combustible tobacco cigarettes – is proven. Similarly, if the catalyst hypothesis – the hypothesis that e-cigarettes attract low risk teens who would not otherwise try combustible tobacco cigarettes and, once these teens have tried e-cigarettes, they are more likely to try combustible tobacco cigarettes – holds, e-cigarette use would increase the risk of ever-smoking.[21]Of course, e-cigarette use may also have no effect on combustible tobacco cigarette ever use in adolescents and young adults.

Keeping in mind the definition of “ever-use” noted above (i.e., smoking a single cigarette at some point) the Committee concluded, among other things, that “there is substantial evidence that e-cigarette use increases the risk of ever using combustible tobacco cigarettes among youth and young adults.”[22] While news headlines across the world ran with this conclusion to claim that e-cigarettes “lure” kids into smoking, the Report also observes that “the population-based data broadly show opposing trends in e-cigarette and cigarette use prevalence across time among U.S. youth in recent years and thus do not provide confirmatory evidence of the epidemiologic person-level positive associations of vaping and smoking.”[23] In this regard, we note that the National Youth Tobacco Survey data shows that youth smoking rates have been falling rapidly.[24] Between 2011 and 2016, current use of cigarettes by high school students fell from 15.8 percent to 8.0 percent, and use of cigars and pipes also fell.

Implications of the Report

Ultimately, the Report is the most complete analysis of existing research on the public health consequences of e-cigarettes in the United States. Further, the Report provides the imprimatur of the National Academies on a conclusion long recognized by the vaping community: e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than combustible tobacco cigarettes.

[1] National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine: Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, The Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes (eds. Kathleen Stratton et al., 2018), available at (hereinafter, referred to as the “Report”).

[2] Report, supra n.1., at S-9.

[3] Id., supra n.1., at 1-1, 1-2 (Box 1-1 Statement of Task).

[4] Id., supra n.1., at S-9.

[5] Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians, Nicotine Without Smoke: Tobacco Harm Reduction (2016), at 87, available at (stating, “although it is not possible to precisely quantify the long-term health risks associated with e-cigarettes, the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure.”).

[6] Report, supra n.1., at 18-23.

[7] Id., supra n.1., at 18-13; See also Id., at 5-32 (“Conclusion 5-3. There is substantial evidence that except for nicotine, under typical conditions of use, exposure to potentially toxic substances from e-cigarettes is significantly lower compared with combustible tobacco cigarettes.”) (emphasis in original).

[8] Id., supra n.1., at 18-13.

[9] Id., supra n.1., at 18-23.

[10] Id., supra n.1, at 18-24.

[11] Id., supra n.1., at 18-28.

[12] Id., supra n.1., at 18-25.

[13] Id., supra n.1., at 18-2.

[14] 21 U.S.C. § 387k.

[15] FDA may issue a modified risk order only after the manufacturer makes numerous showings based on scientific data.  Specifically, the applicant must demonstrate that the product will:

  • significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual users; and

  • benefit the health of the population as a whole taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products.

21 USC § 387k(g)(1) (emphasis added).  As to the “population effects” prong of the standard, FDA must consider:

  • relative health risks of the subject tobacco product;

  • likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using the subject product (e., initiation); and

  • likelihood that users who would otherwise stop using tobacco products will start using the subject product (e., cessation)

21 USC § 387k(g)(4).

[16] See Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776 (2009) (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”); See also 21 U.S.C. § 387k.

[17] See e.g., Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States, 674 F.3d 509(6th Cir. 2012), (finding a “substantial state interest in curbing juvenile tobacco use that can be directly advanced by imposing limitations on the marketing of tobacco products.”).

[18] Report, supra n.1., at 1-3 (compare the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) survey (Wave 1 in 2013-2014) finding only 10.7% of youth ages 12-17 reporting ever using an e-cigarette once or twice with the National Youth Tobacco Survey finding that 27.1% of middle and high school students ever used e-cigarettes.).

[19] Id., supra n.1., at S-1, 2.

[20] Id., supra n.1., at 1-5.

[21] Id., supra n.1., at 16-3.

[22] Id., supra n.1., at 16-30 (emphasis added).

[23] Id., supra n.1, at 16-28; See also Sheila Kaplan, Vaping Can be Addictive and May Lure Teenagers to Smoking, Science Panel Concludes, The N.Y. Times (Jan. 23, 2018).

[24] Jamal A, Gentzke et al. Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2011–2016, 66 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. No. 23, at 597-603 (June 16, 2017)."

The HexOhm Lifetime Warranty

By Chris Winfrey
on February 13, 2018

The HexOhm Lifetime Warranty

We here at Trade N Vape take used mods of all shapes and sizes - but nothing is as exciting as when we get a Used HexOhm in! Why? Because they are backed by a Lifetime Warranty! Made right here in the USA, Craving Vapor started the HexOhm as a DIY box mod; and it quickly became the highest in demand box mod. This was well before there were companies doing boxes on the market like Wismec, Kanger, and Smok. They were around in some way shape and form - but not doing box mods.

When the HexOhm launched it was arguably the most powerful mod on the market - an the Craving Vapor team has continued to innovate and update to continue offering a stellar product at a great price.

We get asked all the time "what does HexOhm's warranty cover". Who better to explain it, then Craving Vapor themselves? Below, you will find their Warranty information, straight from their support center.

"Arguably the best thing about being a HexOhm owner is that every HexOhm comes with a lifetime warranty! We get many questions about what the warranty does and does not cover, so this document will attempt to outline this

Examples of things we cover:

  • Burnt Chips
  • Broken Potentiometer
  • Battery sled replacement
  • Mechanical problems with the 510
Examples of things we don't cover:
  • Scratches
  • Dents
  • Engravings wearing off over time during normal use.
  • Any Alterations to the internals done by the user.
One of the most common issues raised is about the Bullet Button. We do not now, and likely will not ever manufacture any button caps outside of the ones that come with your HexOhm. Don't hesitate to purchase and install one if you like, but we do not currently carry them.  If you break your button housing while installing or uninstalling the bullet buttons, we will not repair/replace the housing for you and it will void your warranty.

Another commonly asked question is "Will getting custom engraving at another vendor void my warranty?" -No, you can get an engraving at the engraver of your choice and this will not void the lifetime warranty. 

If you still have any questions or concerns about warranty related issues - please submit a ticket via our ticketing system, and our support team will answer any questions that you have."

Vote For Trade N Vape: Best Vape Shop in the Triad!

By Chris Winfrey
on February 09, 2018

Vote For Trade N Vape: Best Vape Shop in the Triad!

We here at Trade N Vape are extremely honored to be nominated for "Best Vape Shop of the Triad!"

We've worked extremely hard to up our game! We've completely changed our inventory systems, upgraded out POS system, our Nside Trader Pro system, our cleaning and sanitation process, our Trade In system, and so much more.

AND there is more still to come. By the end of the month we will relocate to another spot inside of Hanes Mall. It's a much better location for size, location, and beauty. It will feel like it did at our old location in Hanes Mall.

You will still be greeted by our friendly staff, you will still be treated as the only customer, and you will still get the fantastic prices and service that Trade N Vape have made their reputation and name on.

So click the image below to cast your vote for us - and we will be forever grateful!

best vape shop winston salem yes weekly vote ecig cheap trade used freeze ejuice eliquid mods

Look to our Facebook page for flash sales during the month of February! 

If you haven't visited us in a while, look at our new Pod Systems and Salt Trade Eliquid; as well as our 100mil lines of Cones, Rounds, Jam Monster, Ice Monster, The One, and coming soon: Squares!

Things are only getting better at Trade N Vape! You can see most of our current used stock at The Orphanage as well!

And thank you again for your vote! 

Triad Softball League: Trade N Vape Team Name and Logo Reveal

By Chris Winfrey
on February 08, 2018

Triad Softball League: Trade N Vape Team Name and Logo Reveal

Hello to the Nside Trader Pros and all of our other amazing customers!

As part of our want to be more part of the local community via events, fundraisers, and other things - we have decided to sponsor the Triad Softball League for the 3rd year in a row ! 

In that past we have done it under different names - but this year we establish our name and logo for the foreseeable future. 

Allow me to introduce The Nsiders!

trade n vape softball nsiders


We chose this name as an homage to our long standing Customer Loyalty Program : The Nside Trader Pro. We think it represents Trade N Vape in a very good light - will also keeping "vape" or "trade" out of the team name. We just don't feel like either of those words make a great name for a team.

The Team colors will be Carolina Blue and White - which is also a favorite color scheme of ours!

Now, the Triad Softball League has been a long standing league here in the area, and their mission statement revolves around LGBT communities and their allies. Their Mission statement reads

Our Mission: The objective of the Organization is to promote a social environment through amateur athletics with special emphasis on the participation of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, as well as the participation of GLBT allies and supporters, in an atmosphere of friendly competition.

The TSL is still open for registration if you're looking to play Spring Softball! You can register right now!

Teams are drafted - so while we appreciate your support and support for the League - we can't guarantee you'll play for the Trade N Vape Nsiders!

Good Luck to the future Trade N Vape Nsiders, and to all in the Triad Softball League!



New Study: Cutting Down Smoking not good Enough. Quit Entirely.

By Chris Winfrey
on January 25, 2018

New Study: Cutting Down Smoking not good Enough. Quit Entirely.

Below you will find an excerpt from a BMJ medical study article showing results of smoking just one or two cigarettes versus smoking 20 a day.

What you will see is that those who smoked just 1 or 2 a day were at equal risk for heart disease, showing that reduction by continuing to use tobacco products is not a valid solution. 

There are many avenues people use to quit smoking, most of the government issues ways (Patch, Gum, Lozenges, Chantrix, ect) have a 5-7% success rate. That's extremely low!

In my personal experience I only meant about 5-7% of vapers who were NOT able to quit completely with vaping - or just haven't done so yet. I talk to tons of people that use E-cig and Vape technology and the vast majority have quit smoking - and they are damn proud of it!

You can try one of the newer pod systems - easy to use vape devices that deliver high amounts of nicotine in small spurts - and see if that helps you quit if you have failed in previous attempts. We have 2 options available here at Trade N Vape. Our Pod Systems are meant to be used with Salt Based Nicotine to deliver a stronger nicotine hit. 

Check out the excerpt and study below!


"Smoking few cigarettes is generally believed to be relatively safe, as has been incorrectly assumed for light/low nicotine cigarettes.

Among 24 658 US adolescents, 10% thought that light smoking was not harmful, and only 35% of light smokers considered their habits to be associated with “a lot of harm.”Reducing consumption might be expected to reduce harm in a proportionate way—that is, that smoking one instead of 20 cigarettes per day has about one twentieth (5%) of the risk. This seems to be the case for lung cancer, for which the large American Cancer Society Prevention Study II showed an approximately linear relation between risk of lung cancer and number of cigarettes smoked per day, but the dose-response for cardiovascular disease is steep at low consumption and then levels off, consistent with the shape reported previously.

In a seminal systematic review of second-hand smoke and coronary heart disease among never smokers published in the BMJ 20 years ago, Law and colleagues drew attention to the 1.30 risk ratio being relatively large compared with the 2-3 typically seen in studies of active smokers. Their conclusions on second-hand smoke were supported by a meta-analysis of active cigarette smoking and risk of coronary heart disease from five cohort studies, in which the modeled relative risk for smoking one cigarette per day (1.39) was consistent with that for exposure to second-hand smoke.

Although the non-linear relation between coronary heart disease and low cigarette consumption has been reported before (individual studies, as well as official reports from the US Surgeon General), it still is still not commonly known by the general public or health professionals, particularly those not involved in tobacco and health. We thus aimed to extend the previous work on coronary heart disease, by using a systematic review to provide a major body of evidence. We also aimed to show that a similar non-linear relation exists between stroke and low cigarette consumption."



Study: (Source: The BMJ)

Objective To use the relation between cigarette consumption and cardiovascular disease to quantify the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke for light smoking (one to five cigarettes/day).

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources Medline 1946 to May 2015, with manual searches of references.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Prospective cohort studies with at least 50 events, reporting hazard ratios or relative risks (both hereafter referred to as relative risk) compared with never smokers or age specific incidence in relation to risk of coronary heart disease or stroke.

Data extraction/synthesis MOOSE guidelines were followed. For each study, the relative risk was estimated for smoking one, five, or 20 cigarettes per day by using regression modelling between risk and cigarette consumption. Relative risks were adjusted for at least age and often additional confounders. The main measure was the excess relative risk for smoking one cigarette per day (RR1_per_day−1) expressed as a proportion of that for smoking 20 cigarettes per day (RR20_per_day−1), expected to be about 5% assuming a linear relation between risk and consumption (as seen with lung cancer). The relative risks for one, five, and 20 cigarettes per day were also pooled across all studies in a random effects meta-analysis. Separate analyses were done for each combination of sex and disorder.

Results The meta-analysis included 55 publications containing 141 cohort studies. Among men, the pooled relative risk for coronary heart disease was 1.48 for smoking one cigarette per day and 2.04 for 20 cigarettes per day, using all studies, but 1.74 and 2.27 among studies in which the relative risk had been adjusted for multiple confounders. Among women, the pooled relative risks were 1.57 and 2.84 for one and 20 cigarettes per day (or 2.19 and 3.95 using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). Men who smoked one cigarette per day had 46% of the excess relative risk for smoking 20 cigarettes per day (53% using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors), and women had 31% of the excess risk (38% using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). For stroke, the pooled relative risks for men were 1.25 and 1.64 for smoking one or 20 cigarettes per day (1.30 and 1.56 using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). In women, the pooled relative risks were 1.31 and 2.16 for smoking one or 20 cigarettes per day (1.46 and 2.42 using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). The excess risk for stroke associated with one cigarette per day (in relation to 20 cigarettes per day) was 41% for men and 34% for women (or 64% and 36% using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). Relative risks were generally higher among women than men.

Conclusions Smoking only about one cigarette per day carries a risk of developing coronary heart disease and stroke much greater than expected: around half that for people who smoke 20 per day. No safe level of smoking exists for cardiovascular disease. Smokers should aim to quit instead of cutting down to significantly reduce their risk of these two common major disorders.

AvaIl Vapor Now Owned in Part by Big Tobacco

By Chris Winfrey
on November 13, 2017
1 comment

AvaIl Vapor Now Owned in Part by Big Tobacco

Source/Original Article: Daily Vaper, Steve Birr


It's happening all over the country right now. Big Tobacco is investing in and buying out vape companies. 

I must be one of the only ones who finds this disgusting. 

I don't want to give money to Big Tobacco - they are the ones who pushed the cancer causing cigarettes on people for decades and decades. I want them to burn up in flames and go away.

But now, if you shop at Avail, you are giving your money to the same people who make cigarettes that have killed 400,000 people per year.

FDA Pushes Back Regulations 4 Years!

By Chris Winfrey
on July 28, 2017

FDA Pushes Back Regulations 4 Years!

In a somewhat extraordinary and unexpected development Scott Gottlieb, the newly appointed head of FDA, has announced that the submission deadline for PMTAs is to be delayed until 2022 up from Nov 2018

This is a de-facto endorsement of the vaping industry and heads off the cataclysmic demise that was set in motion by the previous administration. 

The grandfathering date from last year is not changed, so new products may not be introduced to the market, although it’s unclear what enforcement there is likely to be on that front. 

This delay comes as part of a comprehensive anti-smoking plan which also involves the (controversial) denicotinisation of tobacco cigarettes which will start in 2021. In reality, this could be transformative for the vape industry, as smokers move to vape products to get their nicotine which is no longer available from smoking. 

My intel suggests that the FDA’s interim focus will be on underage sales and “kid-centric” flavors, although it’s not clear in practice how the latter will manifest. The rulemaking process for setting standards for characterizing flavors will take at least three years. 

In any case, this is huge news for vapers and for the vaping industry. Thousands will rest much easier tonight knowing that this life-saving movement can continue to grow and help fulfill the mission of the coercion-free end of smoking. 

The full press release is available here the full speech is available here

SFATA Advocacy Update

By Chris Winfrey
on April 05, 2017

SFATA Advocacy Update

Five Weeks from Now

We in the vapor industry are in a tough spot.  The hard truth is that if nothing changes in federal law, a single FDA regulation will put us out of business in just over 16 months

I would suggest we take action NOW, rather than accept that truth.

There are some glimmers of hope:

1. Several of the lawsuits are due for a decision any day now.  One of those could miraculously overturn the regulation! (though an appeal by the FDA would be likely). 

2. The new Administration could begin a new rulemaking process to change parts of the rule, or

3. The new Administration could decide to delay enforcement (even indefinitely), as SFATA has asked, on all of the current rule’s looming deadlines.  

Click HERE to quickly send a letter asking for this relief through the Administration.

But my father always told me, “Hope is NOT a strategy.” 

If you’re like me, you are more likely the type of person to take action yourself and create the future you desire.  Just waiting for life to happen is not within my DNA.

So, then, changing the law is clearly the best strategy.  And, Congress is the part of our government set up to listen to you, their constituent!  Are they hearing from you? Or, are you still using hope as your own strategy?

Now is the time to BE LOUDTurn it Up!

Here is what we are currently dealing with in Washington…

Five weeks from now, Congress will decide whether we are spared.  Congress can change the “predicate date” to allow all of our pre-August 8, 2016 products to remain on the market without PMTA’s required. 

This would be HUGE!  If Congress changes the predicate date in time, tens of thousands of products would be allowed to continue to be sold that would otherwise become illegal in 2018.

And, it is not often mentioned.  But, this also means those pre-August 8, 2016 products would then INSTANTLY become “predicate products.” The current wonderful kaleidoscope of vapor products offerings would become the key that allows this industry to then also continue to innovate! You could tweak future products through an easier FDA approval process, which is currently closed to us called through the “Substantially Equivalent” pathway.

So, just by moving the predicate date, it saves the industry as we know it AND provides for a future where we can at least make minor improvements to our products to better serve our customers.  Moving the predicate date is a TWO-FER! 

Will you roll up your sleeves once again and get to work making your voice heard today?

By April 28th, Congress must approve the spending bills for 2017.  Included in the House version of the bill (but not in the Senate version) is the Cole-Bishop Amendment language to change the this “predicate date” from February 2007 to August 2016.  

If the Senate does not “recede” to the House provision, the other options which remain available to us simply may not work in time to beat the clock on the Deeming Rule deadlines.  The best, wisest, most well-informed strategists in DC all agree that the best option is to call, write, and email your Senators(Particularly Democrats!).

Congressional discussions are going on already about this budget.  Urge your Congressmen to save your business and help reduce smoking NOW!

Here’s the specifics of what you need to do:

  1. Please ask your Senators to “Include the House Agriculture bill language, changing the predicate date for vapor products, in this FY 2017 spending bill.” 
  1. Please urge your House Representative to “Cosponsor the Cole Bishop bill (H.R. 1136)”  to show support for this language.

Let’s make these five weeks count!



Vaping isn't Smoking, It's a Disease Prevention Method

By Chris Winfrey
on April 04, 2017
1 comment

Vaping isn't Smoking, It's a Disease Prevention Method

The Surgeon General recently joined tobacco control groups to condemn vaping, claiming this was another attack on public enemy number one.

This time, however, public health advocates need to assess and reject the mission-creep by these federal and nonprofit agencies.

And, as the new Administration pledges to slash many harmful regulations, it should include the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recent vapor product regulation, which was touted as another important measure to protect children from Big Tobacco and nicotine.


Over the years, clinicians, behavioral scientists, and researchers have offered a sundry of ways to help addicted smokers to cut down on or, ideally, to quit smoking. Other than promoting price hikes and indoor smoking bans, those approaches have had humbling levels of success.

While not an elixir, a smoking reduction and abatement kit has come along — in the form of vaping — that satisfies the addiction by delivering nicotine, but sharply reduces the harm caused by inhaling cigarette smoke dozens or hundreds of times every day.

Because smoking is physically and psychologically addictive, some researchers think e-cigarettes satisfy both needs by mirroring the ritual of handling a nicotine-delivery device. Studies have found vaping to be more effective than other cessation techniques (drugs, counseling, psychotherapy, hypnosis, etc.) because of its capacity to yield sustained remissions.

Since 2009, adult cigarette smoking has declined by 25 percent and, since 2011, youth smoking has plummeted by 50 percent, due in part to vaping. But 27.6 million daily adult-smokers remain addicted to cigarettes.

Meanwhile there is no evidence that all other tobacco products combined cause more than minuscule levels of morbidity, disability, mortality and healthcare costs relaed to tobacco-related illnesses.

This is pivotal, for these other tobacco products are used by a total of 51 million adults in America (as of 2013-2014): E-Cigarettes (16.7 million), Cigars (13.2 million), Hookah (10.5 million), Smokeless Tobacco (8.6 million) and Pipes (2.0 million).

The 2015 National Health Information Survey found that 2.5 million adult vapers had quit smoking, and 5 million vapers were still smoking. In addition to helping many smokers quit, vaping has also emerged as the best strategy for sharply reducing cigarette consumption by smokers who continue to smoke.

Concomitantly, the risk associated with vaping e-cigs is negligible, save for a few reports of battery fires, largely due to consumer ignorance or negligence that can be reduced by better consumer education and repeal of the FDA’s regulation that has banned sales of all new safer vapor products in the U.S. since August.

Since cigarette smoking causes virtually all tobacco-linked diseases and deaths, it was counterintuitive that health groups lobbied President Obama’s FDA to extend cigarette regulations to vapor products. Vaping advocates rightly suspect that these nonprofits have exhibited mission-creep, as they abandoned their public health goals by lobbying to ban vaping and vapor products.

These rules protect deadly cigarettes and smoking cessation drugs from future market competition from e-cigs.

As a result, this double-edged empowerment sword emboldened the FDA to issue a Deeming Regulation that will ban the sale of virtually if not all vapor products to U.S. adults on Aug. 8, 2018, unless overturned by the Courts, repealed by Congress, and/or rescinded by the new Administration.

Even the Surgeon General’s report acknowledged “among adults, e-cigarettes are considered a far less harmful alternative because, unlike traditional cigarettes, they do not rely on combustion, which leads to inhalation of deadly carcinogenic particles, and 480,000 deaths each year.”

In explaining the potential harm of vaping, government entities cite animal experiments that claim nicotine can alter development of the cerebral cortex and the hippocampus in adolescents, and they suggest the flavoring-additives and combustion-products could also prove harmful. 

But there are no human studies supporting either assertion. 

Flavorings vary widely among e-cigs and are ubiquitous in retail products, and the basic science literature does not corroborate worriment about nicotine, which is available over-the-counter (as are gum, patch and lozenges) and by-prescription (as nasal-sprays and inhalers).

Just published by the American College of Physicians is a report concluding that e-cigarette users may be exposed to fewer carcinogens and toxins than smokers.

Seemingly forgotten in the war on vaping and tobacco is the fact that nicotine is recognized by the human body as a neurotransmitter, for the two main cholinergic receptors are nicotinic and muscarinic; these nerves are firing — constantly, automatically, physiologically — regardless of how much nicotine is absorbed from the environment.

Simply put, vaping delivers nicotine, but neither cancer-causing tar nor artery-clogging carbon-monoxide. Instead, it creates flavored water-vapor and can become the focus of consumer-protection oversight just as may other consumable products.

Furthermore, the Surgeon General found no proof that e-cigs serve as a gateway to smoking cigarettes.

To the contrary, government statistics find teens have largely replaced cigarette smoking with vaping.

We should be reminded that public health measures remain well-grounded in the biomedical and behavioral sciences, with cigarette smoking remaining public health enemy number one, the major cause of preventable disease, disability and death in America.

Rather than pursue reflex-action to demonize, ban, regulate and/or tax, vaping should be recognized as a disease prevention public health intervention.

There are many serious health problems the FDA and Surgeon General can guard Americans against. Lifesaving vapor products are not one of them.

Robert Sklaroff, M.D., medical oncologist; Bill Godshall, M.P.H., executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania; and Stephen F. Gambescia, Ph.D., professor at Drexel University have been active tobacco control advocates at the local, state, and national levels for 35 years.

Meet The Staff: Tyler Carter; Hanes Mall Manager

By Chris Winfrey
on March 31, 2017

Meet The Staff: Tyler Carter; Hanes Mall Manager

Tyler is a Southern born and bred, gun toting, rootin tootin, Korn loving, Redskin's worshiping Trade N Vape Hustla. He's also the New Manager of our Hanes Mall Location.

When he's headbanging to "metal" music he also likes to imagine his name on a sign, welcoming all in his path.

Tyler Texas Tyler Trade N Vape

Tyler holds a few sales records for Trade N Vape, including Most Sales in a Day, Most Sales in a Month, Most Nside Traders in a day and Most Nside Traders in a Month. He has consistently lead leader boards, and his customer feedback is outstanding. We value Tyler as part of our team and can't see what records he breaks next.


Cart Summary

Your cart is empty

Staff Picks

  • The Copper + The Dripper 30mm Combo Scottua *Used*
    The Copper + The Dripper 30mm Combo Scottua *Used* The Copper + The Dripper 30mm Combo Scottua *Used*
  • Jam Monster - BlackBerry Limited Edition
    Jam Monster - BlackBerry Limited Edition Jam Monster - BlackBerry Limited Edition
  • Flash Sale!
    Flash Sale!
  • VooPoo Drag
    VooPoo Drag
  • Limitless Pulse Pod System
    Limitless Pulse Pod System Limitless Pulse Pod System
  • Suorin Drop
    Suorin Drop Suorin Drop

From the Blog

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Report Recognizes that Vapor Products Are Significantly Less Harmful than Traditional Combustible Cigarettes

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Report Recognizes that Vapor Products Are Significantly Less Harmful than Traditional Combustible Cigarettes

February 13, 2018

Today a wonderful article came out identifying studies of various types in the E-Cig/Vaping world. I cant say it as...

Read more →

The HexOhm Lifetime Warranty

The HexOhm Lifetime Warranty

February 13, 2018

We here at Trade N Vape take used mods of all shapes and sizes - but nothing is as exciting...

Read more →