Blue Amphora

Hello all, old-timers mostly.
I am currious if anyone remembers this very specific pipe tobacco from the sixties.
We, as teenagers, were puffing this aromatic and very distinguished tobacco.
Nothing like today’s black or whatever Dutch Amphora.
Would anyone have some leads to something similar in this liquid mix?

Rocket Sheep Enterprise – Any other similar flavors out there?

So I’m big on tobacco based flavours. I usually tend to use S&S mods Black on Black and Hooch Gone Bananas as my ADV. Then I decided to take the plunge and got myself a Rocket Sheep Enterprise. First few vapes and I wasn’t feeling it. But when it seasoned into my tank, it BLEW. ME. AWAY. It’s somewhat following the RY4 concept but without the vanilla and caramel. So it’s like a sweet, creamy tabacco flavour that I just can’t get enough. I’m almost finishing my 30 ml bottle after 2 weeks (ok, I’ve got a crappy clone Kayfun 3.1 es which vapes soooo smooth but leaks like a …… Would appreciate advise on a tank too!) and I would like to know if there’s any other similar flavours out there? Is the Full Virginia Flake RY4 similar? of course, asking those who’ve tried the Rocket Sheep Enterprise and see what’s the comparison like.

:D:D:D:):):):confused::confused::confused::confuse d:

Anyone try Three Dukes lately?

My first order back in ~August was awesome … especially the Gypsy. My second order … seems like completely different mixes. I let them steep about 4-5 weeks, still not that great; a lot thicker (like more VG) and flavors were quite muted. Anyone else with similar experiences? I’ve tried e-mailing them… no response. Hoping this isn’t a one and done vendor because I *really* enjoyed my first batch of "The Gypsy" … a mild but tasty green peach tea flavor.

Best addy like a kayfun v2 with GLASS tank?

I really like the kayfun and was set on buying it until I found out it has a plastic tank.

I’ll be using this atty on a daily basis and using the tank to it’s max capacity (not dripping), and will be trying a lot of different types of juices in it so a glass tank would really suit me a lot better, I don’t want to risk it cracking but like to see how much juice is left in it, and personally like the looks of a clear tank a lot more too.

Any recommendations?
I WAS thinking of the fogger v4 but I read that’s more complicated for a newbie than a kayfun. Maybe a single coil would best suit me, adjustable airflow would be nice too. Thanks. 🙂

Thought I’d Try Again

This is my second venture into Reoville. My first was a Mini 2.1 with an RM2, and that didn’t go quite as I had hoped. I had a hard time finding the love that I thought I’d find. Now I’m back with a TRA LP Grand, Magma on top. I’ve also got a Plume Veil, but so far I’m in love with this Magma. I have one for my DNA mods, so I went with something I knew I’d l like. Loving this set up so far!

Quick question though, I bought the Grand used, and there is a little bit of ghost flavor going on. What’s the best way to clean it out?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

New to Vaping

Hello All,

I’m new to this genre of electronic cigs, I was using the Logic brand for awhile but I was never really satisfied with it. I’m just getting off smoking a pack a day so the strength wasn’t really enough for me.

I just received a Mr-E-Go starter kit that comes with two 900 mAh Passthrough batteries and two Smok 2.2ohm clearomizers (along with chargers and juice, obviously). My question is, should I be okay sticking with this hardware for awhile? I’m able to purchase 1.8ohm RBC replacement coils from either Smok or Kanger, but I’ve heard mixed reviews. I’m willing to spend a little to upgrade hardware, I’m just not sure what I should look into upgrading exactly.

To give a better idea of my preferences, again I’m someone who is coming off smoking a pack a day analog. So I’m looking for a strong throat hit, and I’ll be using it relatively frequently throughout the day.

I apologize if my question to a little too broad, but any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, everyone!

The FDA’s Proposed Rules are Unworkable

So, I’ve been reading over the rules proposed in the federal register:

Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Regulations on the sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products

I’m currently trying to figure out how the FDA plans to argue this when it eventually gets to Court. The proposed rules derive their statutory authority from 21 USC 387, the Tobacco Control Act. This means that the FDA has chosen to take one of two routes to enforce regulation that were described in the Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin. In other words, the FDA could have attempted to regulate under the Tobacco Control Act or under the FDCA’s drug/device provisions as a therapeutic device.

By choosing to go with the Tobacco Control Act, the FDA has limited itself to the scope described in 21 USC 387(a). Because of this, the FDA can only regulate tobacco products. The term tobacco products is defined in 21 USC 321 as:

(rr)(1) The term “tobacco product” means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).


(2) The term “tobacco product” does not mean an article that is a drug under subsection (g)(1), a device under subsection (h), or a combination product described in section 353(g) of this title.

This all begs the question, are e-cigarettes tobacco products, or rather what parts of e-cigarettes are tobacco products? Obviously, the nicotine that is contained in e-liquid is derived from tobacco would fall under this definition. However, there is still a question that about whether the rest of the additives and the devices themselves are tobacco products. As the concurrence in Sottera, inc. points out, absent agency interpretation entitled to Chevron deference, it is impossible to know what the extent of a tobacco product is from the statute (the concurrence demonstrates a problematic line of reasoning from this statute, stating that if the plastic components of an e-cigarette are tobacco products, then so is a syringe with nicotine liquid in it).

So, the FDA needed to issue an interpretation on this. They did this in the proposed rules, which reads:

Products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco products” can include currently marketed products such as certain dissolvables, gels, hookah tobacco, electronic cigarettes, cigars, and pipe tobacco. Components and parts of tobacco products, but not their related accessories, would also be included in the scope of this proposed rule. Components and parts are included as part of a finished tobacco product or intended for consumer use in the consumption of a tobacco product. Components and parts that would be covered under this proposal include those items sold separately or as part of kits sold or distributed for consumer use or further manufacturing or included as part of a finished tobacco product. Such examples would include air/smoke filters, tubes, papers, pouches, or flavorings used for any of the proposed deemed tobacco products (such as flavored hookah charcoals and hookah flavor enhancers) or cartridges for e-cigarettes.

Now, this definition can be challenged as to whether the FDA has Chevron deference. I think that the first part of Chevron is obviously met. So, the question is whether the FDA’s interpretation is permissible based on statutory construction. I would argue that this interpretation would fail the arbitrary and capricious standard articulated in Chevron for two reasons.

First, the problem with this interpretation relates back to the course the FDA would have had to take had it tried to regulate under the FDCA. If the FDA had attempted to do this, the rule would be subject to the provisions of 21 USC 353(g)(1). So, under the FDCA, the agency has to make a further determination of jurisdiction if the product is a device or combination product. Also, To me, it seems that this interpretation is contrary to the statute in that the same item which is a device or combination could be subject to two different levels of scrutiny not because of their different components, but because one is claimed to be used for therapeutic purposes. Additionally, it is unclear to me how the proposed rules circumvent the exception for devices and combination products that is stated in 21 USC 321. This is all my just my interpretation and I could very well be wrong about it all.

Second, and more importantly, as Chevron, citing United States v. Shimer, states:

… If this choice represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency’s care by the statute, we should not disturb it unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned.

Here, I would argue that the interpretation made by the FDA violates this fundamental principle stated in Chevron. While I have not read the legislative history, I think there is solid footing to argue that Congress did not intend to allow the FDA the broad authority they are attempting to exercise here and this interpretation is contrary to public policy. The FDA’s definition currently includes filters, papers, tubes, pouches, and flavors as something that falls under the definition of a tobacco product. Did Congress really feel that items like food flavoring, such as those sold at stores, pouches and papers should be deemed tobacco products? Furthermore, it is contrary to public policy to allow the FDA to regulate such a potentially broad category of items, especially ones that are intended for a wide range of consumer use. While it is clear that the statute allows for regulation of components, parts, and accessories, it is unclear what these are. To further complicate things, the proposed rules make exceptions for certain accessories:

FDA considers accessories of proposed deemed products to be those items that are not included as part of a finished tobacco product or intended or expected to be used by consumers in the consumption of a tobacco product, and we expect that they will not have a significant impact on the public health. In addition, FDA considers accessories to be those items that may be used in the storage or personal possession of a proposed deemed product. Therefore, items such as hookah tongs, bags, cases, charcoal burners and holders, as well as cigar foil cutters, humidors, carriers, and lighters would be considered accessories and would not fall within the scope of this proposed rule.

Why would papers, air filters, and pouches be considered tobacco products that might harm public health, but bags, tongs, and lighters not be?

Zero nic e-juice further bolsters my argument. Zero nic juice has all of the components of e-liquid, minus the nic. Under this definition, this juice falls under the definition of tobacco products since its components are used to make cartridges for e-cigarettes. However, zero nic juice contains no nicotine and therefore no tobacco derivatives. How could Congress have intended to define something that plainly contains no tobacco as a tobacco product? This also raises questions about when an item becomes an accessory or component. Take your mod and atty. they are components of an e-cigarette in the sense that they can be used for e-juice with nicotine, but they can also be used with zero nic juice. Are they simply components because they can be used for juice with nic in it? if that’s the case, we can extrapolate this logic to all vg, pg, kanthal, cotton, and food flavorings on the market since they can potentially become components of juice with nic in it.

Anyways, it seems to me like the FDA’s proposed rules could fail if challenged on a number of grounds that were left open in Sottera, Inc. The more I read over what I’ve written and the definitions, as well as the proposed rules, the more I begin to think that FDA might have to really limit it’s definition or the spectrum of items that might be included in its proposed rules, or else face constant challenges. This is assuming that the proposed rules aren’t shot down by a court.

These are just my opinions. I’m just a student of law, not an expert of it, especially administrative law. Also, this is all off the cuff, so I might be totally wrong about this whole thing and Court’s could be fine with it. I may also just be spinning my wheels and focusing on something totally irrelevant, but I don’t think these rules take into account the workings and parts of e-cigarettes as a whole and will create a world of ambiguity. So, if anyone knows more than me, see obvious flaws in my logic or interpretation, I’d love to hear them, as well as any other comments!

has anyone tired the cloud chaser 40 amp battery?

Just saw a post of someone on instagram showing off a battery that is black and blue created by a company called Purecask Vapors at Purecask.com in their battery section. Shows true stats of a 40 amp battery and 2500mah 40a continuous, claimed to be the"vtc5". Has a spec sheet on the website and everything. Has anyone tried it and is it true by what they’re advertising? I’d buy one but they’re sold out as they’re the only website to carry them and I just bought a mxjo and a imren battery.

Sorry for the typo on the title lol, I’m using Swype on my phone.

My first parallel coil. And want some advice

Just built my first parallel coil took 2 failed attempts to get it right it’s at 0.23 ohms. Also. So I wanted to know what’s the best way to wick this? Right now I just got a small amount of cotton. Thanks for any help
Attached Thumbnails

<a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/attachments/coil-builds/386776d1415074031-my-first-parallel-coil-want-some-advice-uploadfromtaptalk1415074019862.jpg” rel=”Lightbox_14514776″><img class="thumbnail" src="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/attachments/coil-builds/386776d1415073962t-my-first-parallel-coil-want-some-advice-uploadfromtaptalk1415074019862.jpg” alt=”Click image for larger version. 

Name: uploadfromtaptalk1415074019862.jpg 
Views: N/A 
Size: 20.6 KB 
ID: 386776″ />