Vaping & COVID-19 – Information for Vapers

CASAA

Written by Roberto Sussman1 and Carmen Escrig2
1Institute for Nuclear Sciences, National University of México UNAM. Physics PhD. Director of Pro-Vapeo México AC
2Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. Biology PhD specialized in Virology. Coordinator of the Medical Platform for Tobacco Harm Reduction in Spain.

Summary

PURPOSE The spread of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic provides fertile ground for spreading misinformation on vaping. Vapers must be equipped with solid information and data to counterargue.

ON SMOKING. The relation between smoking and the progression to severe conditions of COVID-19 is still uncertain, though identified vulnerability conditions for this progression (cardiovascular and respiratory disease, diabetes) in mostly senior patients are strongly correlated with long term harms from smoking.

ON VAPING. There is no evidence that vaping (intrinsically) increases the risk of infection or progression to severe condition of COVID-19. When evaluating risks on vapers it is necessary to consider that most are ex-smokers or still smokers. Vapers with a long previous smoking history could exhibit conditions seen in vulnerable patients. However, this would not be an effect of vaping but of previous smoking. Since completely switching from smoking to vaping improves cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, smokers who switch to vaping are expected to have a better prognosis if infected by SARS-CoV-2

ON PROPYLENE GLYCOL (PG) AS DISINFECTANT. Because of its hygroscopic nature PG vapor (not droplets) can act as environmental disinfectant wiping out pathogens under specific physical conditions. However, there is no evidence on whether this effect will work on SARS-CoV-2 and in the context of vaping.

ON ENVIRONMENTAL VAPOR. While there are no reported and verified cases of contagion, the saliva droplets carrying SARS-CoV-2 virus are much heavier than the rapidly moving volatile droplets of exhaled vapor. Therefore, vapor exhaled by an infected vaper is likely to spread as much viruses as in normal respiration in the personal breathing zone, far less and far closer than spreading by sneezing or coughing.

RECOMMENDATIONS. The precautions to prevent contagion from virus carried by e-cigarette vapor are the same “social distancing” measures recommended to all the population including non-vapers: avoid physical contact and proximity to others. For vapers specifically: vape with low powered devices, avoid vaping in public indoor spaces and in outdoor spaces vape at least 2 mts away from others.

The misinformation pandemic

Unfortunately, the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic follows the years long ongoing pandemic of serious misinformation on vaping. One of the main spearheads of this misinformation is undoubtedly Professor Stanton Glantz from the University of California at San Francisco. In his professional blog1 Professor Glantz squarely puts vaping and smoking on equal footing as serious risk factors for progression to COVID-19. Specifically, Glantz justifies this assessment by stating that:

The recent excellent summary of the evidence on the pulmonary effects of e-cigarettes reported multiple ways that e-cigarettes impair lungs’ ability to fight off infections:

a statement followed by listing a litany of adverse effects of vaping on respiratory infections, all taken from studies examined in the review by Gotts et al2 (the “excellent summary”). While recognizing that Vapers’ risk of viral infections has not been studied much, the popular journal Scientific American3 has cited Glantz and has also recycled some of the results reported by Gotts et al.

The review by Gotts et al, which Glantz and Scientific American take as source, is extremely superficial, biased and selective, it cited uncritically only studies reporting adverse effects, all of which are either acute effects without clinical relevance or cross sectional studies based on small samples of vapers in which the huge confounding effect of previous smoking history was not properly handled (see a critique of such studies in a much more balanced and extensive review of respiratory effects4 of vaping). Moreover, Gotts et al (and Glantz quoting them) interpret the results in a very selective manner. A representative example of their modus operandi is furnished by their assessment of the results obtained by one of the revised studies by Saudt et al5. From Glantz’s exact quote of Gotts et al we have

Healthy non-smokers were exposed to e-cigarette aerosol, and bronchoalveolar lavage was obtained to study alveolar macrophages. The expression of more than 60 genes was altered in e-cigarette users’ alveolar macrophages two hours after just 20 puffs, including genes involved in inflammation.

Curiously, Gotts et al and Glantz omit mentioning that the effects examined in5 were acute and that the same study reports that “No significant changes in clinical parameters were observed”. Gotts et al and Glantz quoting them also omit mentioning evidence pointing in the opposite direction: as reported by several studies reviewed in3 the usage of e-cigarettes actually reduces the presence of pathogens and respiratory infections. A significant decrease of respiratory infections in e-cigarette users has also been reported in a large scope randomized controlled trial researching smoking cessation6, a result based on a 12 months long clinical observation on a large sample of subjects. This result (and similar results in other randomized trials reviewed in7) are real life observational results that are more relevant to assess the immune response of vapers in the context of COVID-19 than the adverse acute effects in idealized lab studies reported uncritically by Gotts et al in2 and recycled by Glantz and Scientific American.

Professor Glantz is perhaps the most vocal spearhead, but he is far from being the only academic in the vast USA sourced anti-vaping activism, which is now presenting the relation of vaping and the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through the grossly biased assessments from reviews like that of Gotts et al, conflating carelessly the risks of vaping and smoking and ignoring all contrary or critical evidence. It is very unfortunate that mainstream academia, politicians and the media in the USA is predominantly fed by this constant flow of misinformation, as can be seen in statements by the Major of New York City, Bill de Blasio8, and by various media outlets9.

COVID-19 and smokers

A good reference reviewing the available evidence on the relation between smoking, vaping and COVID-19 is the article written by Farsalinos, Barbouni and Nyaura10 (see also the professional blog entry of Farsalinos11). The authors conclude after reviewing the data from five studies on patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 that the relation between smoking cigarettes and the severity of COVID-19 in infected Chinese patients is uncertain and even protective (bearing in mind that 52.1% of Chinese men smoke whereas only 2.7% of women do). In his blog entry Farsalinos examines in more detail the data from the study with the largest sample12: 1096 patients, of whom only 12.5% were current smokers (1.9% ex-smokers), which (as in the other studies) is a much lesser proportion than that found among the population bearing in mind that 58.1% of the sample were men and practically 100% older than 15 years (to be representative of the population we would expect the proportion of smokers in the sample to be 29%). Of the 1096 patients:

  • 926 were reported without severe affectation (11.8% smokers)
  • 173 were reported with severe affectation (11.8% smokers)
  • 67 were reported in critical situation with intensive care, mechanical ventilation or dead (25.8% smokers)

These numbers indicate a higher proportion of smokers among those with severe outcomes, but still lower than in the general Chinese population given the high smoking prevalence among Chinese men. Evidently, smoking contributes to identified vulnerability conditions, such as cardiovascular ailments, diabetes or chronic lung disease, moreover, there seems to be no evidence that smoking in itself is the dominant or determinant factor.

The effect of COVID-19 on vapers

Contrary to statements by misinformation sources, there is simply no evidence suggesting that vaping has the capacity to affect negatively the immune body response in order to produce the development and progression of the diseases caused by SARS-CoV-2 on e-cigarette users.

To better understand the possibility of a progression of infection leading to COVID-19 in vapers it is necessary to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority are smokers or ex-smokers, some of them dragging long histories of previous smoking. This smoking history is very likely an important factor that could easily render as vulnerable a vaper who (say) smoked 20 or 30 years, even if he/she has been (typically) 2-3 years vaping without smoking. Such vaper would be more susceptible to the complicated etiology of COVID-19. However, this is not an intrinsic effect of vaping, but of smoking, and thus it does not justify casting vaping as a risk factor on equal footing as smoking (as inferred from misleading statements by Glantz that have been recycled by the media).

In fact, bearing in mind that smokers improve their biomarkers and their respiratory and cardiovascular conditions when they switch completely to vaping, it is highly plausible (as Farsalinos argues11) that they would have a better prognosis under possible progression of COVID-19 if they no longer smoke, even if they have smoked before. This effect would be even more pronounced if it turns out that smoking is a determinant factor in the evolution to severe complications from COVID-19.

It is also important to stress that there cannot be contagion of SARS-CoV-2 virus through e-liquids containing the virus. Pathogens have been detected on e-liquids, however it would be practically impossible to become infected by vaping e-liquids containing the SARS-CoV-2 virus or any other pathogen. The e-liquid becomes heated at 180-220 degrees Celsius. No pathogen can survive these temperatures (they stop functioning as the macromolecules making them up fragment).

Propylene glycol as a disinfectant

There has been mention in social networks that vaping might be protective in comparison with smoking on infection risks from COVID-1913, pointing out to experiments conducted in the 1940’s in which propylene glycol (PG) vapor was used as environmental disinfectant that removes pathogens in hospitals, military barracks and other places. The experimental procedure was as follows14,15: pathogens (bacteria) were delivered in aqueous droplets from aerosolized cultures into the test chamber (the control being a chamber with pathogens without the PG aerosol). PG aerosol or PG vapor is then continuously supplied into the test chamber with a ventilator evenly dispersing it. Tests for various ranges of ambient temperatures and relative humidity levels were conducted with various procedures to collect the bacteria. As the PG droplets in the aerosol rapidly evaporate they release PG vapor at concentrations between 0.05 and 0.66 ppm (200 to 3000 mg/m3). The cleansing effect was most efficient at lower temperatures (in the range 15-37 degrees C) and under intermediate relative humidity levels (between 27% and 91%, peaking at around 42%), though the cleansing effect was still possible (though slower) at low relative humidity (10%) with sufficiently high PG vapor concentration.

The physical property explaining this effect16 is the hygroscopic nature of PG vapor (not the aerosol droplets). As the PG droplets evaporate below air saturation they release PG vapor molecules dispersing at high velocities and (because hygroscopicity) these molecules condense (are rapidly accreted) into the aqueous droplets containing the pathogens. The latter are eliminated by numerous fast collisions with the accreted PG molecules once the latter accumulate to form 70-80% of the droplets mass. This effect is no longer effective in both extremes of humidity: at 0% relative humidity the droplets evaporate very fast and at close to 100% relative humidity they condense, leading to a steady state which limits the available PG vapor (see 16 for details).

It is difficult to relate these highly controlled and idealized experiments to the erratic and highly variable conditions in vaping. For starters, pure PG (as aerosol or as vapor) in these experiments was supplied continuously and spread evenly, whereas in vaping the aerosol is a mixture of PG and other compounds (glycerol, VG, nicotine, with residual concentrations of mostly aldehydes), it is supplied into the surrounding air (when inhaled or exhaled) intermittently during puffs and spreads unevenly. Second, PG concentrations in vaping are very variable, rapidly changing with time and position. While PG concentrations in the experiments might match those of inhaled vapor, this disinfectant effect is unlikely to occur inside the respiratory tracts in which relative humidity is close to 100%. The exhaled environmental vaping aerosol might approach better the experimental conditions: PG/VG droplets evaporates rapidly, thus releasing PG vapor molecules, while relative humidity levels of 40-70% are not unrealistic, but PG vapor concentrations might be too low (chamber studies measure about 200 mg/m317,18 the lower limit concentrations in the experiments in14,15).

Moreover, given the observed reduction of respiratory infections in users of e-cigarettes, it is possible to speculate that at least in some occasions environmental conditions allowing for this effect could have occurred when vaping. The air cleansing experiments conducted in the 1940’s only involved bacteria and the influenza virus, there is no way without experimental evidence to infer if this could happen with SARS-CoV-2 and in the conditions of environmental e-cigarette aerosol. Many viruses (and there is ample variation on this) cannot survive long time outside the protective envelope of a humid medium (the saliva droplets) or outside their host cell in the body tissues. However, it is not known if this is the case also with SARS-CoV-2.

Exhaled vapor as a possible path to spread SARS-Co-V2

A worrying theoretically possible path of infection of the SARS-Co-V2 virus is by breathing environmental aerosol (i.e. “vapor”) exhaled by vapers, a diluted and volatile aerosol composed almost entirely of droplets made of PG, glycerol (VG) and humectants (the visible “cloud”) suspended in a gaseous medium made of the same compounds (nicotine and aldehydes and metals are present at trace levels).

Can this exhaled vapor spread SARS-CoV-2? As stated by Rosanna O’Connor, director of the Tobacco Alcohol and Drugs of Public Health England19, and Professor Neil Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco20, currently there is no evidence of contagion through vapor exhaled by users of e-cigarettes. As a contrast, the Scottish microbiologist Tom McLean, chief scientific advisor of the Nanotera Group, claims21 that exhaled vapor can spread the virus, even comparing exposure to exhaled vapor as “being spit in your face”. As we show below, McLean’s statements are completely mistaken and contradict basic principles of aerosol physics.

It is known that SARS-CoV-2 contagion occurs by exposure to the virus in airborne saliva droplets exhaled in the breath of an infected person (at short distances) and, in a more efficient form (at larger distances) when the infected person sneezes or coughs22. When using an e-cigarette the exhaled vapor is a tidal flow that is bound to carry into the environment any buoyant material (possibly including pathogens) contained in the respiratory system of the vaper, just as it happens when breathing, but vaping in itself would be a distinct unique mechanism (it is impossible vape and sneeze or cough at the same time).

As opposed to normal breathing, coughing or sneezing, the airborne saliva droplets carried by exhaled vapor would be suspended on a different chemical medium of PG/VG droplets and vapor (other compounds like nicotine and aldehydes are found at trace levels). While it is impossible to rule out the action of a disinfectant effect as reported in14,15,16 through the condensation of PG vapor on the saliva droplets carrying the SARS-CoV-2 virus, this remains a highly unlikely and merely speculative and theoretical possibility without any empirical support. The most important criterion to examine the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission though the exhaled vapor is the dynamics of possible saliva droplets dragged by this flow.

The exhaled vapor is a diluted aerosol made almost exclusively of very light and rapidly moving PG/VG droplets (the “particles”) with mean diameters of about 100-300 nm23,24 (one nanometer nm is 1 billionth of a meter). These droplets evaporate very rapidly (20 seconds per puff) and the whole gaseous system is supersaturated and disperses completely in less than 2-3 minutes. Some of these droplets will impact walls or fall to the ground before evaporating. Chamber and laboratory experiments reveal that most droplets are not transported large distances: at 1.5 meters from the exhalation source they are barely detectable, with their particle number density almost indistinguishable from background values for all particle sizes (submicron, PM2.5 and PM10). For low powered devices this distance is likely to be less than 1 mts.

The spreading of the virus can be understood in terms of the dynamics of an airborne biological aerosol made by an ensemble of “viral particles” of about 100 nm typically contained in saliva droplets that are large particles of 5-10 microns (one micron is 1000 nm) of diameter22,25. The exhalation of normal breath under sedentary conditions is a low velocity nearly laminar air flow, so it will spread few droplets at short distances, whereas sneezing is a high speed explosive turbulent flow that can spread up to millions of droplets at larger distances (coughing can spread thousands of droplets). The saliva droplets transporting the virus can (in principle) remain buoyant for long time, though in real life conditions they are very susceptible to environmental conditions: temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, evaporation, fall by gravity and impactation in surfaces22,25. Although such droplets have been reported traveling up to 2.5 meters away (probably from somebody sneezing), this distance is a maximal value so that under normal environmental conditions the average distance traveled before evaporation or impactation should be much less, probably around 1.5 meters (even less in dry and hot environments) and even less (the breathing zone of about 30 cm) when exhaled by normal breathing.

The exhalation flow associated with vaping is in terms of velocities an intermediate flow between the two extremes given by the near laminar flow of normal breathing and the fast turbulent flow of sneezing or coughing22. However, the saliva droplets carrying up to thousands of viral particles behave dynamically different from the rapidly evaporating PG/VG droplets in the e-cigarette aerosol: they stay buoyant for much longer times and are also much heavier and thus present a lot of inertial dragging to the exhaled flow.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the heavy saliva droplets dragged by the exhaled flow of an infected vaper would be transported as far as distances of 1.5 meters where the much lighter PG/VG droplets are barely detectable (their particle number density almost blends with environmental control values23,24). For low powered devices the exhaled vapor flow is slower and closer to being laminar, not much different from that of the normal respiratory flow, hence the distance reached by saliva droplets dragged by the exhalation should be even less, likely comparable to the personal breathing zone (30 cm).

Thus, Rosanna O’Connor from PHE and Professor Benowitz are right: there is no special risk of contagion of SARS-CoV-2 from exhaled vapor that would require more strict measures with respect to non-vapers. The contagion risk from exhaled vapor cannot be compared to that from spreading the virus through sneezing or coughing, as claimed by Tom Mclean. It is reasonable to expect that, depending on the power of the vaping device, exhaled vapor from an infected vaper would spread roughly the same amount of saliva droplets containing SARS-CoV-2 virus as the normal respiration of a non-vaper in his/her breathing zone. Keeping the same 1.5 to 2 meters distance recommended for non-vapers should prevent any contagion from a vaper.

Contagion of COVID-19 on surfaces

One of the mechanisms of contagion of viruses is physical contact with surfaces where they lie and then to touch the mouth, nose or eyes. It is known that viruses can survive on surfaces and that typically they lie inside thin liquid films that form when the saliva droplets impact the surfaces when transported by sneezing, coughing or sneezing22,25. This type contagion is thus theoretically possible from saliva droplets containing SARS-CoV-2 dragged by exhaled vapor and impacting the surface, but the risk should be comparable to that from droplets impacting a sufficiently close surface from normal breath.

How long can the virus they survive? It depends on the virus: it was reported that SARS-CoV-2 remains stable, viable and functional for several hours and (in some materials) up to 3 days25, but this comes from extremely idealized laboratory experiments that bear no relation with the realistic deposition of a virus on a surface: the researchers inoculate the virus in a host liquid protective solution on the surface and afterwards verify its viability. In the case of that SARS-CoV-2 it is not known how much time the virus can survive on surfaces under realistic conditions and if they can survive without their protective envelope.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO VAPERS

On the basis of the information provided, we recommend

  • If you vape do not revert to smoking (if you are a dual user try to become an exclusive vaper)
  • If you enjoy vaping and do not smoke quitting vaping must be a personal choice, not an obligation
  • Be discreet and do not call unwanted attention (bear in mind that these are difficult times and that a lot of non-vapers have been exposed to a lot of misinformation)
  • Avoid big clouds in public at all costs (even outdoors)
  • Use low powered devices whenever possible and when others are around. The risk of spreading the virus with discrete vaping in low powered devices is roughly equivalent to the risk of spreading it through normal sedentary breathing
  • Avoid vaping in enclosed public spaces and try to keep at least 2 meters distance from others when vaping outdoors

MAR2020 Vapor CTA Page

Advocate Tee

All CTA posted by date below intro

We hope you find this page helpful. Please let us know. We welcome feedback on CTA and/or VapeSling® products. Reach us anytime on the contact page or custinput@vapesling.com, or vapersarmy@vapesling.com

Click on links below to reach out to your state or local area Reps asking their support for HR1136 and opposition to S.3319. Unite to fight for our right to VAPE!

Here are some materials you can share on social media and/or as flyers around town.

VSLLC /VapersArmy Daily Updates

VSLLC conducts daily research for new CTA’s (Calls to Action) to publish and alert the community.

On occasion, one of the esteemed #2019VapeFight .org’s may publish a CTA later in the day. It may pass us till the next day. Please Help this page—> Such as ON IG, we have received several CTA Alerts from concerned Vapers (#VapeWarriors). We appreciate this and please continue to share. We will publish your handle when you tag us for the alert. Thank you VapersArmy!

The Vape Community is family…being part of a family means doing your part. Please advocate for Vapor as Harm reduction for you and future vapers.

Latest CTA listings

IL – Stop A Flavor Ban Before It Gets Started!

FL – (Updated) Stop a Flavor Ban!

CT – Stop a Flavor Ban (HB 5020)!

CO – Stop a Flavor Ban (HB 20-1319)!

AK – Stop a Vapor Tax (SB 182)!

VA – Remove a Vapor Tax From the Budget!

  • 3/2/20

VT – Stop Flavors Prohibition (S.288)!

Posted 2/27/20 NY – Suffolk County – (Hearing) Stop Government Overreach into Private Homes!

MN – Stop a Flavor Ban (HF 3032)!

GA – Stop a Vapor Tax (HB 864)!

FL – (Updated) Take Action to Stop an Online Sales Ban and Vape Tax!

WV – Stop a Tax Hike on Vapor Products (Three Bills)!

MD – Stop Several Flavor Ban Bills!

  • Posted 2/18/20

MN – Stop a Flavor Ban (HF 3032)!

GA – Stop a Vapor Tax (HB 864)!

WV – Stop a Tax Hike on Vapor Products (Three Bills)!

MD – Stop Several Flavor Ban Bills!

SD – Stop a Flavor Ban (HB 1064)!

VA – Stop a Flavor Ban (Concluded) (SB 966)!

HI – Stop a Flavor Ban (SB 2903)!

RI – Get a Flavor Ban, Vape Tax, and Nicotine Cap Out of the Budget (HB 7171, Art. 21)

VA – Stop a Flavor Ban (SB 966)!

NE – Stop an Indoor Vaping Ban! (LB 840)

VA – Oppose Arbitrary Nicotine Limits and Online Sales Bans!

SD – Stop a Flavor Ban (HB 1064)!

WA – Stop a Vapor Tax and Unreasonable Product Standards! (SB 6254)

FL – (Updated) Take Action to Stop an Online Sales Ban and Vape Tax!

ME – Stop and All-Out Ban on Vapor Products! (SP 725)

VA -Stand Up to Vapor taxes!

IN – Stop an Unscientific Nicotine Cap on Vaping!

  • Posted 1/28/20

RI – Speak Up Against the Flavor Ban (Rally – 01.29.20)

KS – Stop a Public Vaping Ban!

VT – Stop Flavors Prohibition (S.288)!

DC – Stop the Flavor Ban – Send in your comments!

NJ – Stop the Flavor Ban! (A3178 and S3265) UPDATED!

NJ – Spotlight Event – Vaping in NJ-Managing the Risk to Public Health (12.06.19)

CA – Los Angeles – Stop a Flavor Ban!

New York, NY – Stop a total ban on flavors

MA – Stop the Legislature Making Flavor Ban Permanent and 75% Tax!

CA – El Cajon – Stop a Flavor Ban!

WA – Emergency Alert! – Flavor Ban and Board of Health Meeting! (10-09-19)

OR – Call Gov. Brown – 503-378-4582 – Stop a Flavor Ban!

  • Posted 9/25/19

CT – Stop a Ban and Extreme Regulation on Vaping!

RI – Emergency Call to Action! Contact the Governor – Oppose the Vape Ban!

MA -Emergency Alert! – End the War on Vaping!

NY – Hempstead Twp. PUBLIC HEARING – Flavor Ban – 09.24.19, 7:00 PM

CA – Burbank Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING (09.24.19)

CA – Los Angeles County – Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING

IL – Public Meeting 09.23.19 – Mental Health Committee to Discuss a Response to “The Vaping Crisis”

Albany County – NY – Stop a Flavor Ban!

OH – Protect Access to Safer Alternatives to Smoking!

CT – Fight Back Against Vapor Taxes!

NV 30%Tax has passed.
Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.

SB 263, which would impose a 30% wholesale tax on vapor products, has passed the legislature and is being sent to Governor Sisolak for his signature.

Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.
Take Action – Share this Phone Number!
Call Governor Sisolak: (775) 684-5670

Make a Call – Talking Points

  1. Please VETO SB 263, which would impose an unjustifiable 30% wholesale tax on vapor products that are helping people like me quit smoking.
  2. Briefly, share your story about switching to vapor products.
  3. Please note any health changes that you have experienced as a result of switching to vaping or substantially reducing your smoking.

FEB2020 Vapor CTA Page

All CTA posted by date below

We hope you find this page helpful. Please let us know. We welcome feedback on CTA and/or VapeSling® products. Reach us anytime on the contact page or custinput@vapesling.com, or vapersarmy@vapesling.com

Click on links below to reach out to your state or local area Reps asking their support for HR1136 and opposition to S.3319. Unite to fight for our right to VAPE!

Here are some materials you can share on social media and/or as flyers around town.

VSLLC /VapersArmy Daily Updates

VSLLC conducts daily research for new CTA’s (Calls to Action) to publish and alert the community.

On occasion, one of the esteemed #2019VapeFight .org’s may publish a CTA later in the day. It may pass us till the next day. Please Help this page—> Such as ON IG, we have received several CTA Alerts from concerned Vapers (#VapeWarriors). We appreciate this and please continue to share. We will publish your handle when you tag us for the alert. Thank you VapersArmy!

The Vape Community is family…being part of a family means doing your part. Please advocate for Vapor as Harm reduction for you and future vapers.

Latest CTA listings

  • 3/2/20

VT – Stop Flavors Prohibition (S.288)!

Posted 2/27/20 NY – Suffolk County – (Hearing) Stop Government Overreach into Private Homes!

MN – Stop a Flavor Ban (HF 3032)!

GA – Stop a Vapor Tax (HB 864)!

FL – (Updated) Take Action to Stop an Online Sales Ban and Vape Tax!

WV – Stop a Tax Hike on Vapor Products (Three Bills)!

MD – Stop Several Flavor Ban Bills!

  • Posted 2/18/20

MN – Stop a Flavor Ban (HF 3032)!

GA – Stop a Vapor Tax (HB 864)!

WV – Stop a Tax Hike on Vapor Products (Three Bills)!

MD – Stop Several Flavor Ban Bills!

SD – Stop a Flavor Ban (HB 1064)!

VA – Stop a Flavor Ban (Concluded) (SB 966)!

HI – Stop a Flavor Ban (SB 2903)!

RI – Get a Flavor Ban, Vape Tax, and Nicotine Cap Out of the Budget (HB 7171, Art. 21)

VA – Stop a Flavor Ban (SB 966)!

NE – Stop an Indoor Vaping Ban! (LB 840)

VA – Oppose Arbitrary Nicotine Limits and Online Sales Bans!

SD – Stop a Flavor Ban (HB 1064)!

WA – Stop a Vapor Tax and Unreasonable Product Standards! (SB 6254)

FL – (Updated) Take Action to Stop an Online Sales Ban and Vape Tax!

ME – Stop and All-Out Ban on Vapor Products! (SP 725)

VA -Stand Up to Vapor taxes!

IN – Stop an Unscientific Nicotine Cap on Vaping!

  • Posted 1/28/20

RI – Speak Up Against the Flavor Ban (Rally – 01.29.20)

KS – Stop a Public Vaping Ban!

VT – Stop Flavors Prohibition (S.288)!

DC – Stop the Flavor Ban – Send in your comments!

NJ – Stop the Flavor Ban! (A3178 and S3265) UPDATED!

NJ – Spotlight Event – Vaping in NJ-Managing the Risk to Public Health (12.06.19)

CA – Los Angeles – Stop a Flavor Ban!

New York, NY – Stop a total ban on flavors

MA – Stop the Legislature Making Flavor Ban Permanent and 75% Tax!

CA – El Cajon – Stop a Flavor Ban!

WA – Emergency Alert! – Flavor Ban and Board of Health Meeting! (10-09-19)

OR – Call Gov. Brown – 503-378-4582 – Stop a Flavor Ban!

  • Posted 9/25/19

CT – Stop a Ban and Extreme Regulation on Vaping!

RI – Emergency Call to Action! Contact the Governor – Oppose the Vape Ban!

MA -Emergency Alert! – End the War on Vaping!

NY – Hempstead Twp. PUBLIC HEARING – Flavor Ban – 09.24.19, 7:00 PM

CA – Burbank Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING (09.24.19)

CA – Los Angeles County – Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING

IL – Public Meeting 09.23.19 – Mental Health Committee to Discuss a Response to “The Vaping Crisis”

Albany County – NY – Stop a Flavor Ban!

OH – Protect Access to Safer Alternatives to Smoking!

CT – Fight Back Against Vapor Taxes!

NV 30%Tax has passed.
Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.

SB 263, which would impose a 30% wholesale tax on vapor products, has passed the legislature and is being sent to Governor Sisolak for his signature.

Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.
Take Action – Share this Phone Number!
Call Governor Sisolak: (775) 684-5670

Make a Call – Talking Points

  1. Please VETO SB 263, which would impose an unjustifiable 30% wholesale tax on vapor products that are helping people like me quit smoking.
  2. Briefly, share your story about switching to vapor products.
  3. Please note any health changes that you have experienced as a result of switching to vaping or substantially reducing your smoking.

Trump plan to curb teen vaping exempts some flavors

JUUL

By MATTHEW PERRONE from Associated Press January 2, 2020 GMT

In this April 11, 2018, file photo, a high school student uses a vaping device near a school campus in Cambridge, Mass. The Trump administration announced Thursday that it will prohibit fruit, candy, mint and dessert flavors from small, cartridge-based e-cigarettes that are popular with high school students. But menthol and tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes will be allowed to remain on the market. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. health officials will ban most flavored e-cigarettes popular with underage teenagers, but with major exceptions that benefit vaping manufacturers, retailers and adults who use the nicotine-emitting devices.

The Trump administration announced Thursday that it will prohibit fruit, candy, mint and dessert flavors from small, cartridge-based e-cigarettes that are popular with high school students. But menthol and tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes will be allowed to remain on the market.

The flavor ban will also entirely exempt large, tank-based vaping devices, which are primarily sold in vape shops that cater to adult smokers.

Together, the two exemptions represent a significant retreat from President Donald Trump’s original plan announced four months ago, which would have banned all vaping flavors — including menthol — from all types of e-cigarettes. The new policy will preserve a significant portion of the multibillion-dollar vaping market. And the changes are likely to please both the largest e-cigarette manufacturer, Juul Labs, and thousands of vape shop owners who sell the tank-based systems, which allow users to mix customized flavors.

E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that typically heat a flavored nicotine solution into an inhalable aerosol. They have been pitched to adults as a less-harmful alternative to traditional cigarettes, but there is limited data on their ability to help smokers quit.

The Food and Drug Administration has struggled for years to find the appropriate approach to regulating vaping. Under current law, all e-cigarettes are supposed to undergo an FDA review beginning in May. Only those that can demonstrate a benefit for U.S. public health will be permitted to stay on the market.

“We have to protect our families,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday, ahead of the announcement. “At the same time, it’s a big industry. We want to protect the industry.”

The flavor ban applies to e-cigarettes that use pre-filled nicotine cartridges mainly sold at gas stations and convenience stores. Juul is the biggest player in that market, but it previously pulled all of its flavors except menthol and tobacco after coming under intense political scrutiny. Many smaller manufacturers continue to sell sweet, fruity flavors like “grape slushie,” “strawberry cotton candy” and “sea salt blueberry.”

The flavor restrictions won’t affect the larger specialty devices sold at vape shops, which typically don’t admit customers under 21. These tank-based systems allow users to fill the device with the flavor of their choice. Sales of these devices represent an estimated 40% of the U.S. vaping business, with sales across some 15,000 to 19,000 shops.

Still, the new policy represents the federal government’s biggest step yet to combat a surge in teen vaping that officials fear is hooking a generation of young people on nicotine. In the latest government survey, more than 1 in 4 high school students reported using e-cigarettes in the previous month, despite federal law banning sales to those under 18. Late last month Trump signed a law raising the minimum age to purchase all tobacco and vaping products from 18 to 21 nationwide.

“We will not stand idly by as this crisis among America’s youth grows and evolves, and we will continue monitoring the situation and take further actions as necessary,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement. Companies that don’t stop making and distributing the restricted products within 30 days risk penalties by the FDA, including fines and seizures.

Incoming FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said the government’s approach attempts to balance the problem of underage vaping with “the potential role that e-cigarettes may play in helping adult smokers transition completely away” from regular cigarettes.

But the decision to permit menthol and exempt tank-based vapes was immediately condemned by anti-tobacco advocates who have lobbied the Trump administration to follow through on its initial pledge to ban all flavors except tobacco.

“Only the elimination of all flavored e-cigarettes can end the worsening youth e-cigarette epidemic and stop e-cigarette companies from luring and addicting kids with flavored products,” said Matthew Myers, of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a statement.

Myers’ group and others have long opposed all flavors in tobacco products, including menthol in traditional cigarettes. They argue that teenagers who vape will simply shift to using menthol if it remains on the market.

When Trump officials first sketched out their plans at a White House event in September they specifically said menthol would be banned. But that effort stalled after vaping proponents and lobbyists pushed back and White House advisers told Trump that a total flavor ban could cost him votes.

Industry groups including the Vapor Technology Association launched an aggressive social media campaign — #IVapeIVote — contending that the plan would force the closure of vaping shops, eliminating jobs and sending users of electronic cigarettes back to traditional smokes.

Trump’s initial announcement came amid an outbreak of unexplained lung illnesses tied to vaping. But since then health officials have tied the vast majority of the cases to a contaminating filler added to illicit THC vaping liquids. THC is the chemical in marijuana that makes users feel high. Makers of legal nicotine-based vaping products have tried to distance themselves from the problem.

Trump suggested ahead of the announcement that the flavor restrictions might be temporary.

“Hopefully, if everything’s safe, they’re going to be going very quickly back onto the market,” he told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

JAN2020 Vapor CTA Page

All CTA posted by date below

We hope you find this page helpful. Please let us know. We welcome feedback on CTA and/or VapeSling® products. Reach us anytime on the contact page or custinput@vapesling.com, or vapersarmy@vapesling.com

Click on links below to reach out to your state or local area Reps asking their support for HR1136 and opposition to S.3319. Unite to fight for our right to VAPE!

Here are some materials you can share on social media and/or as flyers around town.

VSLLC /VapersArmy Daily Updates

VSLLC conducts daily research for new CTA’s (Calls to Action) to publish and alert the community.

On occasion, one of the esteemed #2019VapeFight .org’s may publish a CTA later in the day. It may pass us till the next day. Please Help this page—> Such as ON IG, we have received several CTA Alerts from concerned Vapers (#VapeWarriors). We appreciate this and please continue to share. We will publish your handle when you tag us for the alert. Thank you VapersArmy!

The Vape Community is family…being part of a family means doing your part. Please advocate for Vapor as Harm reduction for you and future vapers.

Latest CTA listings

FL – (Updated) Take Action to Stop an Online Sales Ban and Vape Tax!

ME – Stop and All-Out Ban on Vapor Products! (SP 725)

VA -Stand Up to Vapor taxes!

IN – Stop an Unscientific Nicotine Cap on Vaping!

  • Posted 1/28/20

RI – Speak Up Against the Flavor Ban (Rally – 01.29.20)

KS – Stop a Public Vaping Ban!

VT – Stop Flavors Prohibition (S.288)!

DC – Stop the Flavor Ban – Send in your comments!

NJ – Stop the Flavor Ban! (A3178 and S3265) UPDATED!

NJ – Spotlight Event – Vaping in NJ-Managing the Risk to Public Health (12.06.19)

CA – Los Angeles – Stop a Flavor Ban!

New York, NY – Stop a total ban on flavors

MA – Stop the Legislature Making Flavor Ban Permanent and 75% Tax!

CA – El Cajon – Stop a Flavor Ban!

WA – Emergency Alert! – Flavor Ban and Board of Health Meeting! (10-09-19)

OR – Call Gov. Brown – 503-378-4582 – Stop a Flavor Ban!

  • Posted 9/25/19

CT – Stop a Ban and Extreme Regulation on Vaping!

RI – Emergency Call to Action! Contact the Governor – Oppose the Vape Ban!

MA -Emergency Alert! – End the War on Vaping!

NY – Hempstead Twp. PUBLIC HEARING – Flavor Ban – 09.24.19, 7:00 PM

CA – Burbank Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING (09.24.19)

CA – Los Angeles County – Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING

IL – Public Meeting 09.23.19 – Mental Health Committee to Discuss a Response to “The Vaping Crisis”

Albany County – NY – Stop a Flavor Ban!

OH – Protect Access to Safer Alternatives to Smoking!

CT – Fight Back Against Vapor Taxes!

NV 30%Tax has passed.
Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.

SB 263, which would impose a 30% wholesale tax on vapor products, has passed the legislature and is being sent to Governor Sisolak for his signature.

Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.
Take Action – Share this Phone Number!
Call Governor Sisolak: (775) 684-5670

Make a Call – Talking Points

  1. Please VETO SB 263, which would impose an unjustifiable 30% wholesale tax on vapor products that are helping people like me quit smoking.
  2. Briefly, share your story about switching to vapor products.
  3. Please note any health changes that you have experienced as a result of switching to vaping or substantially reducing your smoking.

DEC2019 Vapor CTA Page

VapersArmy

All CTA posted by date below

We hope you find this page helpful. Please let us know. We welcome feedback on CTA and/or VapeSling® products. Reach us anytime on the contact page or custinput@vapesling.com, or vapersarmy@vapesling.com

Click on links below to reach out to your state or local area Reps asking their support for HR1136 and opposition to S.3319. Unite to fight for our right to VAPE!

Here are some materials you can share on social media and/or as flyers around town.

VSLLC /VapersArmy Daily Updates

VSLLC conducts daily research for new CTA’s (Calls to Action) to publish and alert the community.

On occasion, one of the esteemed #2019VapeFight .org’s may publish a CTA later in the day. It may pass us till the next day. Please Help this page—> Such as ON IG, we have received several CTA Alerts from concerned Vapers (#VapeWarriors). We appreciate this and please continue to share. We will publish your handle when you tag us for the alert. Thank you VapersArmy!

The Vape Community is family…being part of a family means doing your part. Please advocate for Vapor as Harm reduction for you and future vapers.

Latest CTA listings

NJ – Spotlight Event – Vaping in NJ-Managing the Risk to Public Health (12.06.19)

CA – Los Angeles – Stop a Flavor Ban!

New York, NY – Stop a total ban on flavors

MA – Stop the Legislature Making Flavor Ban Permanent and 75% Tax!

CA – El Cajon – Stop a Flavor Ban!

WA – Emergency Alert! – Flavor Ban and Board of Health Meeting! (10-09-19)

OR – Call Gov. Brown – 503-378-4582 – Stop a Flavor Ban!

  • Posted 9/25/19

CT – Stop a Ban and Extreme Regulation on Vaping!

RI – Emergency Call to Action! Contact the Governor – Oppose the Vape Ban!

MA -Emergency Alert! – End the War on Vaping!

NY – Hempstead Twp. PUBLIC HEARING – Flavor Ban – 09.24.19, 7:00 PM

CA – Burbank Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING (09.24.19)

CA – Los Angeles County – Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING

IL – Public Meeting 09.23.19 – Mental Health Committee to Discuss a Response to “The Vaping Crisis”

Albany County – NY – Stop a Flavor Ban!

OH – Protect Access to Safer Alternatives to Smoking!

CT – Fight Back Against Vapor Taxes!

NV 30%Tax has passed.
Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.

SB 263, which would impose a 30% wholesale tax on vapor products, has passed the legislature and is being sent to Governor Sisolak for his signature.

Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.
Take Action – Share this Phone Number!
Call Governor Sisolak: (775) 684-5670

Make a Call – Talking Points

  1. Please VETO SB 263, which would impose an unjustifiable 30% wholesale tax on vapor products that are helping people like me quit smoking.
  2. Briefly, share your story about switching to vapor products.
  3. Please note any health changes that you have experienced as a result of switching to vaping or substantially reducing your smoking.

Trump Video: Vapor Flavors Listening Session

VapeSling E-Cig Mod Holder Slings, American Made

November 22, 2019 Session Notes:

President Trump listened intently to groups on both sides.

  • Vapor 21, the law to restrict sales to 21 and older, was agreed on by all present at the meeting. This includes Vapor Industry and Anti Vapor/Flavor groups attending the meeting.
  • Vapor Opposition groups made their case on flavors, based on youth appeal and use. Weak cases were expressed without scientific basis, rather teen hear-say.
  • Pro Vapor groups used facts and scientific research for harm reduction. However, the opposition reminded and seeks to only ban flavors, not the devices, nor the industry. Unwittingly stated by anti flavor groups, and countered with “a flavor ban that removes every flavor excluding only tobacco flavor would indeed deal the Vape Shop industry a serious blow”. A statement was made that Vape shops would not survive selling Tobacco flavor only. This was met with little to no concerns by the meetings opposition, especially and surprisingly by Mitt Romney.
  • Mitt Romney was on hand for the Flavor Ban to be strictly tobacco. Menthol as well as Mint would fall into the banned flavors category. Mostly, Mitt was there to muddy the waters on any facts presented by Pro Vapor industry and .ORGs. The fact reversals blasted by Romney were so aggressive, that rebuttals was barely heard or expressed.
  • JUUL and Reynolds were there, of course. The BIG T dogs went along with every anti flavor suggestion, knowing that their billion$ can survive any product sales hit.

2019 Vaper CTA: Ecig Intelligence Vapor Survey

CASAA
11/15/19
Dear #VapeWarriors,
Click here to take the survey

Once again, CASAA is pleased to share the annual ECig Intelligence consumer survey with VapeWarriors.
As you may remember from previous years, CASAA works cooperatively with ECI to develop survey questions that aid us in our advocacy efforts and help take the pulse of the vaping community. Your participation in this survey will help inform regulators, advocates, and commentators as we all work to build policies that benefit consumers.

  Please take 10 – 15 minutes to complete
this year’s Ecig Intelligence Consumer Survey!


  Click here to take the survey



Thank you! 
Alex Clark
CEO, CASAA

Trump, FDA and Flavors: Take Action Now!

VapeSling E-Cig Mod Holder Slings, American Made
CASAA

On Monday, November 4, or early in the week, we are anticipating an announcement from the Trump Administration regarding FDA guidance about sales of flavored vapor products. According to recent reports, this guidance is expected to go as far as banning every flavor other than tobacco and menthol. In spite of years of communications from consumers and meetings with industry stakeholders, it is clear that officials remain unknowledgeable about how the vapor industry functions and what customers need.

Two flavors will not sustain independent vapor retailers and
will unnecessarily make vaping less attractive
to people who want to switch away from smoking.


The White House needs to hear from adult vapers and anyone who loves a vaper! A flavor ban won’t protect our children, but it will kill their parents.

We need to Light Up The SwitchboardAt The White House!
Ph: 202-456-1111
(Comment Line)
or
202-456-1414
(Switchboard)


On your call:

  • The operator will likely ask where they can direct your call
  • Simply tell them that flavored vapor products saved your life,
  • Tobacco and Menthol aren’t enough to save small businesses or help people quit smoking; and,
  • tell them “We Vape, We Vote.

Be polite, be brief, and say thank you.

NOV2019 Vapor CTA Page

Bella_Advocates

All CTA posted by date below

We hope you find this page helpful. Please let us know. We welcome feedback on CTA and/or VapeSling® products. Reach us anytime on the contact page or custinput@vapesling.com, or vapersarmy@vapesling.com

Click on links below to reach out to your state or local area Reps asking their support for HR1136 and opposition to S.3319. Unite to fight for our right to VAPE!

Here are some materials you can share on social media and/or as flyers around town.

VSLLC /VapersArmy Daily Updates

VSLLC conducts daily research for new CTA’s (Calls to Action) to publish and alert the community.

On occasion, one of the esteemed #2019VapeFight .org’s may publish a CTA later in the day. It may pass us till the next day. Please Help this page—> Such as ON IG, we have received several CTA Alerts from concerned Vapers (#VapeWarriors). We appreciate this and please continue to share. We will publish your handle when you tag us for the alert. Thank you VapersArmy!

The Vape Community is family…being part of a family means doing your part. Please advocate for Vapor as Harm reduction for you and future vapers.

Latest CTA listings

New York, NY – Stop a total ban on flavors

MA – Stop the Legislature Making Flavor Ban Permanent and 75% Tax!

CA – El Cajon – Stop a Flavor Ban!

WA – Emergency Alert! – Flavor Ban and Board of Health Meeting! (10-09-19)

OR – Call Gov. Brown – 503-378-4582 – Stop a Flavor Ban!

  • Posted 9/25/19

CT – Stop a Ban and Extreme Regulation on Vaping!

RI – Emergency Call to Action! Contact the Governor – Oppose the Vape Ban!

MA -Emergency Alert! – End the War on Vaping!

NY – Hempstead Twp. PUBLIC HEARING – Flavor Ban – 09.24.19, 7:00 PM

CA – Burbank Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING (09.24.19)

CA – Los Angeles County – Flavor Ban PUBLIC HEARING

IL – Public Meeting 09.23.19 – Mental Health Committee to Discuss a Response to “The Vaping Crisis”

Albany County – NY – Stop a Flavor Ban!

OH – Protect Access to Safer Alternatives to Smoking!

CT – Fight Back Against Vapor Taxes!

NV 30%Tax has passed.
Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.

SB 263, which would impose a 30% wholesale tax on vapor products, has passed the legislature and is being sent to Governor Sisolak for his signature.

Please take action NOW and urge Governor Sisolak to VETO SB 263.
Take Action – Share this Phone Number!
Call Governor Sisolak: (775) 684-5670

Make a Call – Talking Points

  1. Please VETO SB 263, which would impose an unjustifiable 30% wholesale tax on vapor products that are helping people like me quit smoking.
  2. Briefly, share your story about switching to vapor products.
  3. Please note any health changes that you have experienced as a result of switching to vaping or substantially reducing your smoking.