Christopher

Forever Vapor has higher shipping costs because it comes direct mostly from China. It actually costs more to ship than what's shown (500g = 12.75 on the site but we pay 19.25) FV is better for larger stock up orders. You save a lot more but pay a bit more in shipping. (though we're still cheaper than any large site such as Amazon, Ebay etc) The VT store has higher prices but longer warranties and much faster shipping. It's all domestic, sort of a trade off We've tried to negotiate lower shipping costs but EMS is just like the US postal service, they have their prices and you can't really negotiate. We could offer first class direct shipping which is about 70% cheaper, but it would take 30 days delivery time as apposed to 5-6 days. I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty impatient

http://www.casaa.org/CTA/article.asp?articleID=156&l=a&p Support S2926/A6667 and Oppose S695-2011/A1468 While Linda Rosenthal's bill that would ban all sales of electronic cigarettes in New York State is still pending in the Assembly Codes Committee, and Senator Klein's identical bill is still pending in the Senate Health Committee, competing bills that would simply ban sales to minors have been introduced in both the Senate and Assembly. These vastly improved proposals, S2926 and A6667, are currently pending in the Senate and Assembly Health Committees. Here are both sets of bills on the NYS legislative website, so you can see their sponsors, compare their contents, and track their progress: See S2926/A6667 at http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2926-2011 and S695-2011/A1468 at http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S695-2011. The introduction of these competing bills is very good news for New York State, and we call on all CASAA members and other concerned persons to begin a new round of campaigning in New York, and to join us in calling, writing, faxing, emailing, and meeting in person with legislators in support of S2926/A6667, while at the same time denouncing S695-2011/A1468. Residents of New York State should definitely meet face-to-face with their own Senator and Assemblyperson to express their support for S2926/A6667's ban on sales to minors, and their strong oppostion to Rosenthal and Klein's misguided attempt to ban sales to adults with S695-2011/A1468. However, the biggest push right now for anyone who is willing to help, while these bills are all still in committee, should be to contact all the Senate and Assembly Health Committee members with that same message. Additionally, the Assembly Codes Committee members need to be made aware of the newer A6667, and our support for it, as it supplies a cogent reason for them to reject Rosenthal's A1468, even though they themselves do not as of yet have A6667 before them. Here is the contact list for the Senate Health Committee: http://www.casaa.org/CTA/article.asp?articleID=153&l=a&p= Here is the contact list for the Assembly Health committee: http://www.casaa.org/news/article.asp?articleID=154&l=a&p= And here is the contact list for the Assembly Codes committee: http://www.casaa.org/news/article.asp?articleID=155&l=a&p= What to say: (Feel free to copy & paste.) 1. When addressing: Assembly members: Support A6667 that would ban sales to minors, and oppose A1468 that would ban all sales. Senators: Support S2926 that would ban sales to minors, and oppose S695-2011 that would ban all sales. 2. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette has changed your life. 3. Research shows that over 99% of the diseases and deaths associated with tobacco use are caused by hazardous levels of carcinogens and toxins carried in the smoke itself. Because e-cigarettes do not expose the user to smoke, experts believe they carry little to no significant health risks. 4. Smokers who cannot or will not quit using tobacco should be encouraged to switch to a smokeless alternative such as e-cigarettes, which would greatly decrease their health risks. 5. To encourage adult smokers to use reduced-harm products such as e-cigarettes, these products should be made as accessible and affordable as cigarettes. A1468 (S685-2011 if addressing a senator) would ban a smokeless, low-risk product, leaving the most dangerous product—tobacco cigarettes—readily available. 6. All evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with electronic cigarettes is comparable to medicinal nicotine products and experts believe that there should be no significant risk to users or bystanders. This is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth University and Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand. FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor. 7. Since 2003, there have been no reports of serious adverse reactions or deaths associated with e-cigarette use. It makes no sense to ban a product which has resulted in no consumer complaints and by all accounts is actually improving public health. 8. I strongly support A6667 (S2926 if speaking to a Senatory) that would ban sales to minors, even though there is absolutely no evidence that e-cigarettes are particularly attractive to minors. Because e-cigarettes are largely used by middle-aged smokers, the product has no allure to youth. The products are also expensive to start up and require extensive maintenance. 9. Claims made that e-cigarette flavors target youth are unsubstantiated. Nicotine gums and lozenges, both of which are adult products, come in Fruit Chill, Cinnamon Surge, Fresh Mint, Cappuccino, Cherry and Orange. The solution is not to take health choices away from adults, but to protect children by prohibiting sales to minors and enforce those laws. 10. Direct them to the CASAA.org web site for more information Finally, here is a pre-written template letter suitable for faxing or mailing. Please consider adding to or modifying its content to personalize the letter. Be sure to insert the Senator or Assembly person's name at the beginning, and sign your name at the end. And if you are a New York resident, be sure to include your address: http://www.casaa.org/files/New_York_CTA_Template_Letter(5).doc

eh...I've started many businesses. Amway, if you can even call it a business, just isn't worth it. They where selling themselves as Quick Star for a while but must have gone back to Amway again. The bottom line, they're a pyramid scheme. More politically correct "Multi Level Marketing." It was one of my first "ventures." The only thing it showed me was how not to get screwed. Though, the sellers are very good at what they do. Can you make money? No not really. You end up having to purchase sample supplies up front and honestly that's not what Amyway wants you to sell. They want you to sell the videos and tapes further along the line to bring in more people. They'll tell you the more people you get the more money you make. It's all BS. Just go onto Youtube, Google, Yahoo etc and Type Amyway scam. You'll find all kinds of information. By all means try it if you want to, but in the end your not going to bring in that extra revenue you want. Trust me. You'd make more money opening an Ebay account and selling your unused miscellaneous items online. (which I also did) Now that pays some good money. When you run out of things to sell, hit up a garage sale, look for good deals, flip it online for a profit Just remember, quite a few people remember "someone who used to sell Amyway." There is a reason they're no longer doing it....

Ripple is correct they are separate stores with different purposes Forever Vapor is just a sister company. I'd never replace the VT store, to much history

Glad your ok, good to say ya

They could be getting old. But before you move on, have you tried clearing the threads with rubbing alcohol and a Q Tip?

The power does drop from the 510 quickly on an LR but it will not drop the flavor much. The hotter the atomizer (LR) the more Vapor you'll get but the less flavor. The reason for this is because the flavor burns up fast than the PG/VG.

Well so you don't have to purchase a whole new kit, I'd suggest picking up a cartomizer or even an atomizer. I use cartomizer personally (boge) and you'll get some great flavor out of it. The Tank system is easy an convenient, but flavor can be lacking.

Unless I'm missing something. You could always check with the supplier you purchased them from and ask if they have extra. Worth a shot

Start kits only come with 2. But the piece you are talking about is meant to be thrown away. They are not usually sold separately.

Brian is correct most starter kits come with them but they don't work well. Almost nobody uses them anymore. We all use cartomizers or drip directly onto the atomizer.

You'll need to be quick. Most suppliers are done shipping for the day. If they're quick (fast processing) they can ship tomorrow and it will arrive by Monday at the latest.

+1 The eGo really is an awesome device

I gave you a plus one just because your username is awesome Those are indeed incorrect. While most 510 atomizer/items will work on the eGo the 510 tank is the exception. It's not really meant for the eGo. You CAN use it but you'll need to remove the cone. Regardless you purchased the eGo tank cartridges but the 510 Tank atomizer. If your order has not yet shipped I would contact them and ask that they change the atomizer to an eGo tank atomizer instead. It looks like this: You'll notice it looks like the eGo cone. That's the easiest way to tell if it's correct or not.

Yes, please do keep us updated. Perhaps even shoot me a PM. It may be due to the PACT act that was just put into law last year.

I see what smoke stick is saying though. The FDA did state products marketed before 2007 do not require new regulation. Which leaves us pretty much with the RN4081. I would be to concerned yet as we won't know until the regulation is released. Anything after that would need to be approved by the FDA...

Yup charge them whenever you want. These are lithium ion batteries so they can be charged anytime

No matter where it comes from fast shipping is important You are very welcome and thanks for the great feedback!

It's likely these fees will be charged to the suppliers. Though I'm not 100% sure yet what exactly for. And aspartame....*shudders* that's some nasty stuff right there.

I think online sales will probably stay. I mean they allow only cigar sales and I believe e cigarettes will be placed in the same category. Nothing is 100% though. As for Taxes remember the FDA doesn't impose them. That's usually at a state level. Let's just be sure we keep an eye on our states. The moment they propose a tax we all have to band together and protest the HELL out of it.

I love this part right here..back tracking are we?

Nanny state no doubt. It will be interesting to see this roller coaster ride unfold. The states should reverse the bans as the FDA now has regulations set in place but the laws would still need to be appealed.

I can't say publicly one way or another. We just sent it over to our lawyer. I'm confused on whether or not it considers a model a new product or the overall processes itself.

Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products This is directly from the FDA. April 25, 2011 Dear Stakeholder: The purpose of this letter is to provide stakeholders and the public with information, in light of a recent court decision, regarding the regulation of products made or derived from tobacco. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (Tobacco Control Act), which amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), was enacted on June 22, 2009, and it provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with authority to regulate “tobacco products.” The FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, defines the term “tobacco product,” in part, as any product “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or combination product under the FD&C Act. Under the FD&C Act, the definition of “drug” includes articles intended: (1) for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or (2) to affect the structure or any function of the body. Similarly, “device” is defined to include articles intended: (1) for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or (2) to affect the structure or any function of the body. Between 2008 and 2010, the FDA determined that certain electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were unapproved drug/device combination products and detained and/or refused admission to those offered for import by Sottera, Inc. and other manufacturers. Sottera, Inc. challenged that determination in court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010), recently issued a decision with regard to e-cigarettes and other products “made or derived from tobacco” and the jurisdictional line that should be drawn between “tobacco products” and “drugs,” “devices,” and combination products, as those terms are defined in the FD&C Act. The court held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as “tobacco products” under the Act and are not drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes. The government has decided not to seek further review of this decision, and FDA will comply with the jurisdictional lines established by Sottera. Under the Tobacco Control Act, “tobacco products” are subject to a number of controls. Section 201(rr)(4), for example, prohibits the marketing of a “tobacco product” in combination with any other article or product regulated under the FD&C Act (including a drug, biologic, food, cosmetic, medical device, or a dietary supplement). FDA has already issued a draft guidance that addresses the status of such products. Moreover, Chapter IX of the FD&C Act subjects “tobacco products” to general controls, such as registration, product listing, ingredient listing, good manufacturing practice requirements, user fees for certain products, and adulteration and misbranding provisions. Chapter IX also subjects “new tobacco products” (i.e., products that are first marketed or modified after February 15, 2007) and “modified risk tobacco products” (i.e., products that are “sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products”) to premarket review. Although the statute places certain “tobacco products” immediately under the general controls and premarket review requirements in Chapter IX (i.e., cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco), it also permits FDA, by regulation, to extend those controls to other categories of “tobacco products.” FDA plans to take the following steps to ensure that appropriate regulatory mechanisms govern all “tobacco products” and all other products made or derived from tobacco after the Sottera decision: The Agency intends to propose a regulation that would extend the Agency’s “tobacco product” authorities in Chapter IX of the FD&C Act, which currently only apply to certain specifically enumerated “tobacco products,” to other categories of tobacco products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in Section 201(rr) of the Act. The additional tobacco product categories would be subject to general controls, such as registration, product listing, ingredient listing, good manufacturing practice requirements, user fees for certain products, and the adulteration and misbranding provisions, as well as to the premarket review requirements for “new tobacco products” and “modified risk tobacco products.” The Sottera decision states that products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated under the Tobacco Control Act unless they are “marketed for therapeutic purposes,” in which case they are regulated as drugs and/or devices. The Agency is considering whether to issue a guidance and/or a regulation on “therapeutic” claims. Section 201(rr)(4) of the Tobacco Control Act prohibits the marketing of “tobacco products” in combination with other FDA-regulated products. As mentioned, FDA has already issued a draft guidance on this provision, which it intends to finalize. “Tobacco products” marketed as of February 15, 2007, which have not been modified since then are considered “grandfathered” and are not subject to premarket review as “new tobacco products.” A “tobacco product” that is not “grandfathered” is considered a “new” tobacco product, and it is adulterated and misbranded under the FD&C Act, and therefore, subject to enforcement action, unless it has received premarket authorization or been found substantially equivalent. FDA has already developed draft guidance explaining how manufacturers can request a determination from FDA that a “tobacco product” is “grandfathered.” We look forward to working with all stakeholders to ensure that the existing authorities granted the Agency are harnessed to best protect and promote the public health. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Deyton, M.S.P.H., M.D. Director Center for Tobacco Products Janet Woodcock, M.D. Director Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

This indeed very possible and something we're looking into. Though the FDA will regulate ecigs as tobacco they will not have the same laws. Most of those requirments are not set in place by the FDA. We will have to fight state and federal regulation and that account. I have no doubt Big Tobacco may lobby for this. Unless of course they jump on the ecig bandwagon themselves.