quality products - fair prices - friendly service - candid information
Questions, Call Us:
317-291-1087
Have A Great 2012!
Sign up for "1 Day Only" Sale Notifications!

Visit Our Blog
Located at 34th. Street
And Georgetown Road
4710 W. 34th. Street
Indianapolis, IN 46222
317-291-1087
317-291-1930
Hours:
Monday - Thursday
11AM to 6PM
Friday And Saturday
11AM to 5PM
Badge of Honor

ecommerce provided by Yahoo! Small Business
Welcome To Indy Vapor Shop Blog
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Positive news feature:




by: Indy Vapor Shop 1 Comments

Monday, June 10, 2013
The Time of Israel reported the following:

"Police on Tuesday launched an investigation into possible negligence after doctors were unable to save the life of a young girl who died from drinking liquid nicotine on Tuesday. 

Naomi Elbaz, just two and a half, collapsed at her parents home in the ultra-Orthodox Beit Yisrael neighborhood of Jerusalem.  

A Magen David Adom ambulance crew tried to resuscitate the girl who was found in a dazed state. After stabilizing her pulse, they evacuated her to the nearby Hadassah Hospital Mount Scopus. However, the youngster’s condition rapidly deteriorated and she was transferred to the Hadassah Hospital in Ein Kerem for further treatment. Despite desperate efforts by doctors, she eventually died.

Initial reports said that Elbaz’s parents were not with her when she drank the liquid and she was being watched over by her grandparents. At some point the toddler, an only child, went to her grandfather’s room and drank from a small bottle of liquid nicotine that he used to refill his electronic cigarette. The bottle was sent to a police laboratory for tests to determine exactly what was in the liquid."

Please keep your e-liquid carefully stored where it cannot be accessed by children (or pets).



by: Indy Vapor Shop 1 Comments

Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Can Propylene Glycol commonly found in Electronic Cigarettes help fight pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases?

Please note: liquid in an electronic cigarette primary ingredient is Propylene Glycol

Medicine: Air Germicide 
 Original link, Time,CNN http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,932876,00.html
 Monday Nov. 16, 1942

 A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases may be promised by a brilliant series of experiments conducted during the last three years at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital. Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson last week was making final tests with a new germicidal vapor—propylene glycol—to sterilize air.

If the results so far obtained are confirmed, one of the age-old searches of man will finally achieve its goal.

This venture gave promising results, but all such research lapsed for another decade. Within the last few years, several research groups (notably the University of Pennsylvania’s new Air-Borne Disease Laboratories) again began testing various sprays. Many chemicals were found to kill airborne micro-organisms quickly, even in concentrations as low as one gram of chemical per 500 cu. ft. of air.

Trouble was that all these air germicides smelled bad, or were toxic, or irritated the respiratory tract. Dr. Robertson’s propylene glycol vapor is odorless, tasteless, nontoxic, non-irritating, cheap, highly bactericidal.

Its discovery was accidental. Dr. Robertson and his colleagues were trying out another possible germicide—a detergent or “soapless soap” (similar to Dreft, Aerosol and other products widely sold for household and industrial use). Water solutions of the detergent were only mildly effective, so the researchers tried solutions of detergents in propylene glycol, which is a sort of thin glycerin.

Results were much better. Then the researchers found that the propylene glycol itself was a potent germicide. One part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air would—within a few seconds—kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic foot.

How did it work? Respiratory disease bacteria float about in tiny droplets of water breathed, sneezed and coughed from human beings. The germicidal glycol also floats in infinitesimally small particles.

Calculations showed that if droplet had to hit droplet, it would take two to 200 hours for sterilization of sprayed air to take place. Since sterilization took place in seconds, Dr. Robertson concluded that the glycol droplets must give off gas molecules which dissolve in the water droplets and kill the germs within them.

Dr. Robertson placed groups of mice in a chamber and sprayed its air first with propylene glycol, then with influenza virus. All the mice lived. Then he sprayed the chamber with virus alone. All the mice died.

Propylene glycol is harmless to man when swallowed or injected into the veins. It is also harmless to mice who have breathed it for long periods. But medical science is cautious—there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves.

So last June Dr. Robertson began studying the effect of glycol vapor on monkeys imported from the University of Puerto Rico’s School of Tropical Medicine. So far, after many months’ exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever. Dr. Robertson does not expect mankind to live, like his monkeys, continuously in an atmosphere of glycol vapor; but it should be most valuable in such crowded places as schools and theaters, where most respiratory diseases are picked up.

Can Propylene Glycol commonly found in Electronic Cigarette’s help fight pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases?

Please note: liquid in an electronic cigarette primary ingredient is Propylene Glycol



TIME
in partnership with CNN
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,932876,00.html

Medicine: Air Germicide 
 Monday Nov. 16, 1942


A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases may be promised by a brilliant series of experiments conducted during the last three years at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital. Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson last week was making final tests with a new germicidal vapor—propylene glycol—to sterilize air.

If the results so far obtained are confirmed, one of the age-old searches of man will finally achieve its goal.

This venture gave promising results, but all such research lapsed for another decade. Within the last few years, several research groups (notably the University of Pennsylvania’s new Air-Borne Disease Laboratories) again began testing various sprays. Many chemicals were found to kill airborne micro-organisms quickly, even in concentrations as low as one gram of chemical per 500 cu. ft. of air.

Trouble was that all these air germicides smelled bad, or were toxic, or irritated the respiratory tract. Dr. Robertson’s propylene glycol vapor is odorless, tasteless, nontoxic, non-irritating, cheap, highly bactericidal.

Its discovery was accidental. Dr. Robertson and his colleagues were trying out another possible germicide—a detergent or “soapless soap” (similar to Dreft, Aerosol and other products widely sold for household and industrial use). Water solutions of the detergent were only mildly effective, so the researchers tried solutions of detergents in propylene glycol, which is a sort of thin glycerine.

Results were much better. Then the researchers found that the propylene glycol itself was a potent germicide. One part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air would—within a few seconds—kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic foot.

How did it work? Respiratory disease bacteria float about in tiny droplets of water breathed, sneezed and coughed from human beings. The germicidal glycol also floats in infinitesimally small particles.

Calculations showed that if droplet had to hit droplet, it would take two to 200 hours for sterilization of sprayed air to take place. Since sterilization took place in seconds, Dr. Robertson concluded that the glycol droplets must give off gas molecules which dissolve in the water droplets and kill the germs within them.

Dr. Robertson placed groups of mice in a chamber and sprayed its air first with propylene glycol, then with influenza virus. All the mice lived. Then he sprayed the chamber with virus alone. All the mice died.

Propylene glycol is harmless to man when swallowed or injected into the veins. It is also harmless to mice who have breathed it for long periods. But medical science is cautious—there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves.

So last June Dr. Robertson began studying the effect of glycol vapor on monkeys imported from the University of Puerto Rico’s School of Tropical Medicine. So far, after many months’ exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever. Dr. Robertson does not expect mankind to live, like his monkeys, continuously in an atmosphere of glycol vapor; but it should be most valuable in such crowded places as schools and theaters, where most respiratory diseases are picked up.

 


by: Indy Vapor Shop 0 Comments

Wednesday, May 1, 2013
13 WTHR Indianapolis


  
INDIANAPOLIS

Electronic cigarettes seem to be growing in popularity in Indiana. 

A west Indianapolis store reports explosive growth and many Hoosiers say they are using "e-cigs" to help them stop smoking cigarettes. But not everyone is sold on the products or the practice of "vaping."

As a popular DJ In nightclubs, Justin Drake no longer smokes a pack of cigarettes a day. Instead, he is "vaping" on electronic cigarettes and has not touched a cigarette in four months. Drake uses a $35 vapor pen that includes liquid and chargers. He purchases additional bottles of liquids for $15. Drake says switching to the "e-cig" has no withdrawal effects. 

"I've tried to stop (smoking) before and it's very difficult habit to break. With this, I've switched. It helps me stop. The only way you're going to stop is if you want to. But there's levels to this. You start off at a higher level and you wean yourself down," said Drake. "It works the same way as the patch, but it gives you the physical feeling of still smoking. So it's easier for me to quit that way. There's no smoke smell. It's not smoke. It's a vapor. Thirty percent of the people I see in nightclubs are using them now."

It is the same new habit for a busy mom on the south side of Indianapolis. Instead of smoking cigarettes every day, Rachel McComas is now using an "e-cig."

"It's basically taking the place of smoking. Cigarettes are terrible for you," said McComas. "They have all these chemicals in there. The only thing this is nicotine. It's just the vapor that you're inhaling and it's coming out. It's not smoke or anything like that."

McComas says she is saving $12 a day on cigarettes and contends the "e-cig" gives her the similar feeling in her chest that she experienced when smoking cigarettes.

"When you get the patch, you're getting the nicotine but you don't have that inhalation or something in your hand that a lot of people want. So, this was perfect," said McComas.

By now, Hoosiers have seen the signs around town and the ads on television. The marketing seems be working, particularly since Indiana's smoking ban went into effect. Many of the products are exploding in popularity. Business is booming at the Indy Vapor Shop.

"Revenue is probably up 200% in the last 17 months or so," said Mike Cline, who is the owner and a customer. He used to smoke two packs a day and survived two heart attacks. But now he is "vaping" and reducing his nicotine intake.

"Since this doesn't have the chemicals and the tar that is in tobacco in a cigarette, I'm not getting those bad things in my body. I'm basically getting nicotine flavoring and food coloring. It's not doing the harm. I, like most smokers, like the act of vaping. The act of quote and quote smoking," said Cline.

But not everyone is sold on "e-cigs."

"We know very little about them, so that's why we're hesitant to really promote these products or anything like that," said Lindsay Grace with the American Lung Association. "There's been very little testing done by the FDA on these products. When they did test them, they did find some carcinogens in the actual cartridges themselves. A lot of times they're manufactured in China, not here in the United States. They have very lax rules on manufacturing. Every product can contain a different level of nicotine even in products that are labeled non-nicotine. We've actually found nicotine in those devices. We need a lot more regulation and a lot more study on these products before we move forward."

Grace says people cannot use the "e-cigs" to get around the city's smoking ban.

"In Indianapolis, the ordinance went into effect of June of last year (2012) which prohibits smoking in most indoor workplaces in Indianapolis. Restaurants, bars, taverns. In that, along with smoking cigarettes being prohibited, you cannot use e-cigarettes as well," said Grace. "Local laws across Indiana also prohibit the use of these products, including Columbus, Terre Haute, Evansville, Zionsville."

Beginning July 1, minors under the age of 18 will not be able to purchase the electronic cigarette products in Indiana.

"We worked this year at the General Assembly that e-cigarettes are off-limits to minors. There's no federal regulation on these products yet. Right now, you could walk into a store and be a minor, under the age of 18 could purchase these products," said Grace. 

Drake says the "e-cig" he uses is better than cigarettes.

"If you're already smoking, you're putting 5,000 different chemicals into your body anyway," said Drake. "I know the products that I use with the liquid are all food-grade stuff. It comes labeled and says what's in it. Using this versus smoking regular cigarettes - I feel a million times better. I notice a big change in being able to breathe better. Having more energy. I haven't had as many headaches."

McComas says her health has also improved since she began "vaping" and she no longer worries about lighting up with her young daughter Leighella around.

"She's not going to inhale any smoke. It's just vapors that are going to go in the air," said McComas. "I feel like if I actually go outside and do something, walk around or play with her, I don't get out of breath as easy. I don't feel like my breath stinks all the time. I don't have to worry if I'm in people's face."

Opponents of "e-cigs" contend there have not been any long-term studies on the people who use the products.

"We don't know someone quitting these products ten years from now, what those health effects are going to be due to these products," said Grace. "They're not an FDA approved device for cessation. So, we really like to warn the public about these products and the potential dangers.

"Until we know more, we are saying this is not an effective or safer method to quit smoking and only use the FDA approved methods which are proven safe and proven the most effective."


by: Indy Vapor Shop 0 Comments

Thursday, March 21, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013




05 Mar 2013. Top five reasons why an FDA Deeming Regulation for Electronic Cigarettes could be a public health disaster; a commentary by Boston University Prof. Michael Siegel. 
 



Dr. Michael Siegel is a professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health at Boston University. Siegel’s 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control include two years in the Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control, where he conducted research on second-hand smoke. He testified against US tobacco companies in the landmark Engle lawsuit. Siegel is the author of the popular ‘Rest of the Story’ blog that analyzes and comments on issues relating to the tobacco industry. This commentary is from the blog, and used with permission of the author. 

 


Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to issue a regulation deeming „other“ tobacco products (beyond cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) to be subject to FDA jurisdiction. The FDA has announced that it is preparing such deeming regulations for electronic cigarettes. 

 


As I see it, the FDA has two options. First, it can issue a deeming regulation that simply makes electronic cigarettes subject to all the provisions of chapter IX of the Tobacco Control Act, including the new product provisions, modified risk provisions, etc. 

 


Second, the FDA could carve out a special regulatory framework for electronic cigarettes, different from that mandated by Congress for cigarettes and traditional smokeless tobacco products. 

 


I have argued that the FDA should choose the second option and regulate electronic cigarettes under a separate and specific framework that is different from that used for products that contain tobacco. It is essential that products which do not contain tobacco be regulated differently than products which actually contain tobacco, even if the former products meet the definition of „tobacco products“ under the Act. 

 


Here, I outline the top 5 reasons why a deeming regulation that makes electronic cigarettes – which contain no tobacco – subject to the same rules that govern cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products would be a public health disaster. 

 


The rest of the story 

 


1. Requiring approval of new products under the act would prevent safer and more effective products from entering the market 

 


Electronic cigarettes are relatively new products and even within the past year or two, substantial advances have been made that have improved the safety and effectiveness of these products. For example, most of the electronic cigarette juice used to be manufactured overseas; now, there are U.S. companies which manufacture the juice under very tightly controlled conditions. Advances have also been made in terms of making electronic cigarettes more similar to active smoking, and therefore more effective for smoking cessation. 

 


If electronic cigarettes are made subject to the new products provision of the Tobacco Act, there will no longer be an opportunity for further advancement. Such a move by the FDA would freeze the current market and would ensure that the least effective products remain the only ones on the market. It would preclude the development of better and more effective electronic cigarettes and e-liquids, thus hindering the ability of these products to play an increasingly important role in getting people off of cigarettes. 

 


In my view, this would be a public health disaster because these products are the single most promising intervention that could potentially save millions of lives by successfully capturing a substantial portion of the existing and future tobacco cigarette market. 

 

2. Adopting the substantial equivalent requirements for electronic cigarettes could result in the removal of many products from the market 

 


Strictly speaking, a deeming regulation could potentially make electronic cigarettes introduced into the market after 2007 subject to a requirement that they apply for a substantial equivalence determination, something that might be impossible under the current framework that the FDA has established for such determinations as they apply to tobacco cigarettes. 

 


This would be a disaster because it would remove many brands of electronic cigarettes from the market and could result in a large number of vapers returning to cigarette smoking. 

 


3. Adopting the substantial equivalent requirements for electronic cigarettes would cause massive confusion and could create a black market 

 


A deeming regulation that made electronic cigarettes introduced into the market after a certain date subject to a requirement that they apply for a substantial equivalence determination would create massive confusion. It is not clear, for example, what constitutes the „product.“ Is it the tube? Is it the battery? Is it the charger? Is it the e-liquid? Is it the cartridge? Is it all of the above? What if a cartridge contains no nicotine? Would such a deeming regulation mean that all e-liquid introduced in the U.S. after a certain date would have to be taken off the market? Would the e-cigarette device itself have to be taken off the market? This is an incredibly complex set of issues and could cause massive confusion. 

 


In addition, as explained in #1 above, there have been many advancements in electronic cigarette devices and liquids. Taking off the market many of the newer products and juices would force vapers to revert back to the less effective products. This would almost certainly result in many vapers deciding to return to cigarette smoking. 

 


Furthermore, if FDA chooses this approach, it could result in a black market for certain products, especially the e-liquid cartridges. Already, many vapers are stocking up on e-liquids so that they will be able to continue vaping should this occur. I can easily see the development of a black market for these products. 

 


4. Adopting the modified risk product provisions for electronic cigarettes would force companies to hide the truth from consumers 

 


Although there is abundant scientific evidence that using electronic cigarettes is much safer than smoking, companies could not inform their customers of the truth. Doing so would make their products a modified risk product, and therefore they cannot make such claims without approval (a process that may be impossible, given the way the modified risk rules have been written). Even telling consumers that electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco and therefore eliminate most of the thousands of chemicals present in tobacco cigarettes would constitute a modified risk claim, and could not be made if they suggest to consumers that vaping is safer than smoking (which of course is exactly what this fact would and should suggest). 

 


Ironically, the modified risk provisions of the Tobacco Act – if applied to electronic cigarettes – would accomplish exactly the opposite of their intended purpose. They are intended to prevent companies from deceiving consumers about the risks of tobacco products. If applied to electronic cigarettes, they would ensure that consumers are deceived about those risks. 

 


5. A deeming regulation that makes electronic cigarettes subject to Chapter IX would force Ccompanies to hide from consumers the truth about the potential usefulness of these products in smoking cessation and reduction 

 


A regulation that simply deems electronic cigarettes subject to chapter IX provisions could potentially preclude electronic cigarette marketers from mentioning that these products may be useful for smoking cessation, because such a claim might be interpreted as a drug claim and therefore put the product under the realm of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

 


What is needed is a guidance from the agency which makes it clear that a simple statement of the truth – that these products may be helpful to smokers in quitting or cutting down on the amount they smoke – will not be interpreted as a drug claim. 

 


Summary 

 

The bottom line is that a deeming regulation that makes electronic cigarettes subject to chapter IX of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, rather than carving out a specific and separate regulatory framework for this product that contains no tobacco, would constitute a public health disaster. It would hinder the development of safer and more effective products, force many vapers to return to cigarette smoking, cause massive confusion, create a black market, and force companies to deceive their customers about the health risks and usefulness of these products. 

 


There is no justification for regulating a product that contains no tobacco in a way that is identical to products that actually contain tobacco. If the FDA has any ability to see the big picture with regards to the public's health, it will avoid this disastrous pitfall.
 
  




 

 



 



by: Indy Vapor Shop 0 Comments

Sunday, March 17, 2013
Courtesy: CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

The passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (FSPTCA) gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution and marketing of tobacco products to "protect public health." The FSPTCA defines the term “tobacco product,” in part, as any product “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or combination product.1


 Between 2008 and 2010, the FDA tried to regulate electronic cigarettes as unapproved drug/device combination products and detained and/or refused admission to those offered for import by Sottera, Inc. and other manufacturers.  The companies sued the FDA to stop it from detaining their products. 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) 
, 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,” “drugs,” “devices” and combination products,  as defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).2  The court held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as  “tobacco products” under the FDCA and are not drugs/devices 

 unless they are marketed for "therapeutic purposes." 3

 


Rather than appeal the court's ruling again, the FDA sent a letter to stakeholders regarding its intent to "propose a regulation that would extend the Agency’s “tobacco product” authorities in Chapter IX of the FDCA, 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." 4 In the letter, the FDA specified electronic cigarettes and "other tobacco products" as products it intends to regulate. This is what is meant by "deeming regulations." The FDA will "deem" (ie. consider)  e-cigarettes and other new products not already specified in the FSPTCA to also be "tobacco products" which, unless the FDA choose to do otherwise, could subject e-cigarettes to the same regulations as other tobacco products that are already covered.

http://casaa.org/images/b105db41664738acdfc173aadaf7e501_c7b5.png

In January 2013, the FDA released its annual Regulatory Agenda, which states that the FDA should issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) no later than April of 2013. Upon issuing the rule making proposal, the public will have a period of time to comment on the proposed regulations.5

 

At this time we do not know which regulations the FDA intends to apply to e-cigarettes, but statements made by the FDA in its letter to stakeholders raises some concerns for electronic cigarette consumers and tobacco harm reduction advocates: 

 

"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 pre-market review."

 

In theory, anything that wasn't on the market prior to 2007 could be banned until it was approved for sale by the FDA, unless it could prove that it is “substantially equivalent” to a “grandfathered” product that was being sold.6  Because electronic cigarette designs have changed and improved so dramatically since 2007 and many weren't even on the market in the U.S. prior to 2007, this regulation could deny consumers access to hundreds of existing products (leaving them access only to products on the market prior to February 2007) and put many electronic cigarette companies out of business - unless and until they can demonstrate their product does not raise different questions of public health compared to the approved products. The criteria to gain this approval is highly subjective and required documentation could be time consuming and extremely expensive. However, there is speculation that this provision could be altered to allow the technologies that exist as of the deeming in 2013 (or perhaps some date in between). This would obviously be better than limiting consumers to outdated, pre-2007 products, but the current environment of fast-paced development and release of new e-cigarette technology would be stopped in its tracks.

 




"Moreover, Chapter IX of the [FDCA] 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." 

 

This statement is open to a lot of speculation. The FDA could choose to subject e-cigarette manufacturers and retailers to prohibitive registration paperwork, manufacturing requirements and user fees that could be unattainable for all but the largest companies. Manufacturing requirements and adulteration provisions could be reasonable or could severely limit the effectiveness of the products for consumers, such as prohibiting flavors other than tobacco and menthol, limiting nicotine content to extremely low levels and/or only allowing pre-filled, sealed cartridges to be sold. We simply won't know for certain until the FDA releases the actual proposed regulations. 

 


Once the FDA has released its proposed regulations for e-cigarettes and other tobacco products to the public for comment, CASAA will review the legal and scientific implications of the proposal and identify points of concern and agreement.  We will then issue a Call to Action (CTA) asking members to submit comments to the FDA. The CTA will include recommended talking points and a link to the FDA comment form. It's extremely important that as many members as possible of CASAA and the e-cigarette community submit comments to the FDA when the time comes. This page will be updated as more information becomes known.

 

Protect Your Right To Vape!  

Join CASAA Now!


by: Indy Vapor Shop 16 Comments

Previous Posts
Archives

Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]