e-Cigarette News Roundup March 15 – Ray of sunshine

Guess what? You made it to Friday, and it’s time for a fun-filled and packed to the rim e-cigarette news roundup.  We have some great items including the Utah tax’s absolute defeat, some promising science news and more. So, sit back, grab your favorite Friday morning beverage, and jump in!

e-cigarette news roundup

 
 

title image for e-cigarette news roundup

e-Cigarettes in the Media

This week featured a wide range of media stories, from typical (and sometimes extraordinary) hit pieces to interesting business analysis. Just for good measure I threw coverage of an interesting new study in the mix as well. [collapsible_item title=" Click to read media news stories"]

eCigs Less Harmful, Says Study

CSPNet covered a recent study that analyzed e-cigarette vapor. I’m sure in what would come as a shock to no one, the study found e-cigarette vapor to be much less harmful than smoking.  .The study did find that formaldehyde is a byproduct of vapor, but noted similar levels are found in FDA approved nicotine inhalers. Still, it would probably be a good idea if the industry could figure out what causes that and eliminate it. What may be shocking is that the study’s authors actually stated that harm reduction might be a good idea.

csp net 150x30 image
The report found that “levels of selected toxic compounds found in the smoke from a conventional cigarette were 9-450-fold higher than levels in the vapor of an e-cigarette. … Exposure to acrolein, an oxidant and respiratory irritant thought to be a major contributor to cardiovascular disease from smoking, is 15 times lower on average in e-cigarette vapor compared with cigarette smoke. The amounts of toxic metals and aldehydes in e-cigarettes are trace amounts and are comparable with amounts contained in an examined therapeutic product.”

What’s even more wild is that the study was a joint effort between Poland and the National Institute of Health. Apparently, there is still some glimmer of interest in real science as it relates to e-cigarettes out there.


Daily News Highlights Prohibitionist Talking Points

The NY Daily News recently posted an article piggybacking off the CDC report that more smokers are aware of, and using, e-cigarettes. The article spends a lot of time quoting various health officials who seem to think that’s a bad thing. A number of favorite arguments are presented like dual use and the gateway theory.

More people are smoking e-cigarettes, but as a quitting tool, they may be all smoke and mirrors

artecigarettecnn HVt9j 150x104 image“There are people who will choose to stop smoking because it becomes so inconvenient,” Strasser, who is the resident tobacco products expert at Penn’s Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, said. “E-cigarettes propose a way to circumvent the rules and to sustain that nicotine addiction until you are able to light up again.”

E-cigarette use is only beginning to be studied. In introductory research, “one of the things that’s interesting is the non-daily smoker as well as the heavy, over a pack a day smoker — those are the groups that are using e-cigarettes the most often,” Strasser said.

You know, it seems that actual smokers who have switched never seem to come up. The focus is on the edge cases or on non-users taking up vaping. Existing smokers who could benefit are sort of swept under the rug, as if they’re already a lost cause.


Biz Insider: Tax Court Could Benefit eCigs (also ecig co. slippery slope)

Business Insider ran an e-cigarette article. The article noted that the roll-your-own industry was dealt a blow in tax court. This setback could be a boon to e-cigarette companies which currently have no special tax (despite the best attempts of some states.) The weird thing is, the reporter interviewed one company which made some statements about their business that might open them to some risk.

tbi print 150x67 image
Frija explains that “with the ability to advertise in all media outlets, we can attract smokers, nonsmokers, and consumers of other electronic cigarette brands. ”

“Like all e-cigarette companies, we have the benefit of not only marketing as an easy-to-use alternative to traditional smoking, and as an alternative quitting aid,” Frija explains.

The article says that this company, which is the parent of EZ-Smoker has about 16% of the market. I’ve not really heard of this brand, which also pursues the questionable practice of subscription programs.


UC Fullerton Publishes Amazingly Biased eCig Article

The Daily Titan, school paper for the University of California Fullerton published an article about electronic cigarettes. The article was a full-on hit piece against e-cigarettes. There wasn’t even the typical token mention of the other side of the argument in this piece. Granted, the UC system is under the rule of one of the most vehement prohibitionists around, but this piece didn’t even pretend to be an unbiased piece of journalism.

A closer eye needed on e-cigarettes
featured ecig 100x60 image
Another problem with e-cigarette regulation is that manufacturers are able to alter the device’s look and taste to appeal to a younger crowd. Although they resemble a traditional cigarette, the various solutions available for these devices are available in fruit and candy flavors that appeal to children

The about the author blurb mentions that all journalism students must serve as staff writers on the paper. Apparently Fullerton’s J-school has a track on yellow journalism.


Verge Article Questions eCig Safety

A recent article on the site The Verge calls out the ghost of FDA past by running an article questioning what we know about electronic cigarettes. The article, to its credit, does include both CASAA and Clive Bates on the discussion who point out the flaws in the FDA’s study. However, the article seems to insinuate each and every item from China should not be trusted.

will not affect your throat large large 150x125 image
If the FDA’s initial study proved anything, it’s that right now there’s no way regular people can hope to know what’s in their e-cigarettes. While manufacturers and advocacy groups claim e-cigarettes are safe when compared to nicotine-replacement products and (especially when compared to traditional cigarettes), we’ve heard similar claims from vested interests before, and they should be treated with due skepticism. What’s needed is a full and thorough investigation into all of the brands on sale in the US, and consistent rules for future products in this category. Until it does, consumers are left having to assume that e-cigarettes are probably safer than regular smoking, trusting their lungs to vaporish claims of the companies that make them.

There is the point to the idea that some sort of standards and quality control would be helpful. The problem is the agency that is in a position to do so is perhaps somewhat less concerned with consumers than it should be.


[/collapsible_item]

 

 

local hometown news

Local e-Cigarette News

Lots going on in the local scene. From scumbag politicians to scumbags cleaning out a vendor’s shop after hours, there’s a number of stories here as well.[collapsible_item title=" Click to read local news stories"]

e-Cigarette Store Robbed

Trib.com reports that a Casper, Wyoming e-cigarette shopped was burglarized to the tune of 20 grand. The Wyoming Vapor Company had several hundred e-cigarette kits and accessories taken when thieves cut video and network cables and broke into the establishment.

51414178e91b1.preview 300 150x101 image

He’s since been a vocal advocate of the products, hosting a weekly Web show on VapeTV and urging others to drop their tobacco habit. The worst outcome of this incident, he said, would be if someone went back to smoking because he or she was in need of supplies.

“I don’t do this for the money,” he said. “I cannot let [customers’] supplies dry up just because some jackass opened up my back door with a pry bar.”

This vendor is a regular fixture in the community with a VapeTV show and everything. Most owners lament the loss of business, but this guy is afraid his customers won’t be able to get their supplies.  A class act, here’s to hoping the criminals get caught.


Hawaii Kids Rally For eCig Restrictions Industry Supports

Youth congregated at the Hawaii State Capitol in support of tougher restriction on tobacco and e-cigarettes youth sales. The unfortunate part is e-cigarettes were lumped in with cigarette companies and accusations of “tactics” were leveled.  The state is grappling with ways to deal with the issue and are considering an age restriction for the sale of electronic cigarettes. The odd thing is at least as far as e-cigarettes go, e-cigarette companies are on the same page as the protestors.

21579496 BG1 150x84 image
 ”We agree that sales of tobacco, tobacco products, and vapor products to minors should be prohibited, and already have a company policy reflecting that position,” wrote Cory Smith, President and Owner of Volcano Fine Electronic Cigarettes, in written testimony to lawmakers.

Misguided youth will be misguided I suppose.  I agree in general with age restrictions for e-cigarettes. It seems like this group might have been a little better off working with e-cigarette companies rather than assuming the worst.


Lawmaker Licks Wounds after Utah eCig Tax Defeat

As I mentioned earlier in a breaking news update, Utah’s House shot down a proposed bill that would effectively kill the industry in the state.  The bill was down voted by a pretty healthy majority with a number of lawmakers stating they didn’t believe raising taxes would do anything to prevent youth use of electronic cigarettes. For his part, the lawmaker that hatched this scheme is sticking to his story in the wake of defeat.

235d035ddd0565072b0f6a706700d961 150x88 image“E-cigarettes are illegal to those 19 and under,” Ray said. “But recently a Utah high school high took 200 e-cigarettes from their students. Somewhere many kids are getting those.”

It’s interesting, the reports that came out when this bill was first proposed a week prior had Ray claiming there to have been 100 e-cigarettes confiscated. Just a scant week later, that number has doubled. Either someone has a penchant for embellishment, or Utah will soon have more e-cigarette using students than there are people in the state.


Oklahoma Proposes eCig Tax, ALA Against it?

Oklahoma is half way to taxing e-cigarettes at the same rate as traditional cigarettes. Local prohibitionists apparently have some lawmakers convinced there’s no evidence e-cigarettes are any safer than smoking, so they should get taxed at the same rate. Oddly enough, the Oklahoma chapter of the American Lung Association is against the tax as it thinks that means the state is condoning e-cigarettes.  I guess that means the state endorses regular cigarettes as well.

21577607 BG1 150x112 image

“The regular cigarettes, they have more toxins compared to the electronic cigarette, but they’re still not safe,” says Dr. Wagas Chishti of Freeman Health System.  “So they had a lung function test before they used the electronic cigarette, and they did a lung function test immediately after they inhaled an electronic cigarette.  It did show their lung functions decreased immediately after they used the electronic cigarette.”

Some lawmakers in Oklahoma say the known short term effects of e-cigarettes are bad enough to put them in the same category of traditional cigarettes.

The thing with that test is there’s no comparison.  How severely did it impact lung function? How did that compare to a smoker? But what I find interesting is that so many states are all trying to tax e-cigarettes at the same time.

Update: Greg over at CASAA alerted me to the fact the proposed tax is actually way lower than tobacco taxes, maxing out at 10% of the tobacco tax (which is about a buck per pack of cigarettes.)  The ALA is up in arms because the tax is too low, not because it exists.


[/collapsible_item]

 

 

World News

e-Cigarette News Around the World

From across the US to across the pond. Let’s finish out the regular news coverage with a couple of articles from around the world. [collapsible_item title="Click to read world news stories"]

Malta Wants eCig Ban Regardless of EU

Looks like Cyprus is getting impatient for the EU’s overbearing Tobacco Products Directive. In a recent post in the Cyprus Mail, the country apparently envies Belgium, Malta and Slovakia for their proactive bans on electronic cigarettes. The country’s police and health officials want to at least ban the devices in public whether or not the TPD ever sees the light of day.

Waging war on ‘safe’ cigarettes – Cyprus Mail

 artecigarettecnn HVt9j 150x104 imagePolice chief Michalis Papageorgiou said Cyprus needs to join these countries and adopt strict regulations on the use of electronic cigarettes in public spaces irrespective of future EU directives on the issue.

“Regardless of whether the European Union will issue a legally binding directive regarding electronic cigarettes, we will act to best serve the people of Cyprus,” he said.

“And we believe that banning the use of electronic cigarettes from public places will benefit the public.”

All this coming from a country that apparently has a difficult time enforcing its regular smoking ban. I suppose trying to crack down on the real deal before dealing with much harder to detect e-cigarettes made sense to someone.


[/collapsible_item]

 

CASAA Call to Actions This Week

[collapsible_item title=" Click to CASAA Updates"]

CASAA Letter to Connecticut Joint Committee on Public Health

This is a syndicated post, which originally appeared at CASAA. View original post.

On March 6, 2013, CASAA issued a Call to Action regarding proposed legislation in Connecticut that would ban the use of electronic cigarettes in any public place where smoking is prohibited. This would include using them for demonstrations in e-cigarette stores located all across Connecticut. 

The Joint Committee on Public Health will hold a public hearing on Friday, March 15th at 10:30 a.m. at Room 3000 in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.  CASAA Directors Karen Carey and Gregory Conley, as well as several other e-cigarette consumers, plan to attend. Below is the formal letter submitted to the Joint Committee by the CASAA Board of Directors.

CASAA+Letterhead image



March 14, 2013
Public Health Committee
Room 3000, Legislative Office Building
Hartford, CT 06106
Re:  Vote No on Senate Bill 990
Via Email
Dear Committee Members:

On behalf of its Connecticut membership, the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA)[1]urges you to report unfavorably on Senate Bill 990, which would ban the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in any public place where smoking is not permitted.  Simply stated, e-cigarettes do not produce smoke and have never been shown to pose any risk to bystanders.  Moreover, as discussed below in more detail, this legislation would have some significant unintended consequences.
I.  E-cigarettes do not produce smoke and pose no risk to bystanders and, as such, should not be included in smoking bans.
Smoke-free laws were passed ostensibly to protect bystanders from the effects of second-hand smoke.  However, because there is no combustion involved in their use, e-cigarettes do not produce smoke.  Rather, liquid is gently heated to the point where a vapor is formed.  Various studies have examined the composition of the vapor produced by e-cigarettes, and none have found any reason to believe that bystanders are at any risk.[2]
The vapor, which contains no products of combustion or harmful concentrations of any toxic substances, begins to dissipate almost immediately, and there is typically little or no detectable odor.  (If there is an aroma, bystanders typically describe it as pleasant and smelling not at all like smoke.) 
Even the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Heart Association acknowledge that smoke-free laws do not require a ban on e-cigarettes.  Last year, those three organizations agreed to specifically exempt smoke-free e-cigarettes from a smoking ban in Springfield, Missouri so as to avoid any confusion over their legal status.[3] 
Including e-cigarettes in smoking bans when there is absolutely no proof of appreciable risk to bystanders is not only inappropriate, it represents legislative over-reaching.
II.  Unintended Consequences of Senate Bill 990:
●     Discouraging smokers from switching to lower-risk alternatives:
While CASAA appreciates the legislature’s desire to protect the citizens of Connecticut, banning the use of smoke-free e-cigarettes in public places is not warranted based upon the information currently available. In fact, CASAA believes that banning the use of smoke-free e-cigarettes in public places may actually work against the legislature’s stated purpose of promoting the health of its citizens.
The concept of Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR)—replacing tobacco cigarette smoking with far less hazardous sources of nicotine—is becoming increasingly recognized as a valid strategy in combating the crippling health problems associated with smoking.  
As noted by the Royal College of Physicians, a large percentage of smokers may never be able to give up all use of nicotine.[4]  For those who are unable or unwilling to completely quit nicotine use, switching to a smokeless alternative can achieve substantial health benefits, with many such products carrying less than 1% of the risk posed by smoking.  Low-risk products embraced by THR include smokeless tobacco products, e-cigarettes, and long-term use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products.[5]  Smoke-free e-cigarettes are proving to be one of the most promising of the THR products.
Rather than treat all tobacco products as equally dangerous, politicians and health care advocates should embrace THR.  In fact, both Indiana and Nebraska have passed proclamations embracing the concept of THR, recognizing that current strategies simply are not effective enough. 
Sound public health policy surely would encourage smokers to replace or reduce their cigarette consumption—not create obstacles to it. Banning the use of e-cigarettes where smoking is prohibited sends a message to smokers that they may as well continue to smoke, whereas allowing e-cigarette use indoors provides an incentive to switch to a far safer alternative.
●     Senate Bill 990 will effectively prohibit the use of e-cigarettes in (i) any tobacco shop that has changed its size or opened since the end of 2002, and, by definition, (ii) all e-cigarettes stores since none existed at the end of 2002.
There is no justification for banning e-cigarette use in stores that legally sell such products.  Forbidding the use of these products in those circumstances is an unreasonable restriction on businesses. 
III.  As a practical matter, a ban on e-cigarette use would be largely unenforceable.
As noted above, whereas cigarette smoke has an unmistakable odor and smoke lingers in the air, e-cigarette vapor is practically odorless and visible vapor begins to dissipate almost immediately.  When a person using an e-cigarette chooses to hold the vapor in his or her mouth for several seconds, there is typically no (or very little) visible vapor upon exhale.  There is a serious question of enforcement that the Committee should weigh when considering this bill.
IV.  Allowing e-cigarette use where smoking is prohibited will not pose any problems with enforcing existing smoking bans and will not “normalize” smoking.
Forty-seven states do not ban e-cigarette use where smoking is prohibited, and yet there are no reports of authorities in these states having had problems with enforcement. Cigarette smoke has an unmistakable odor, and smoke lingers in the air. E-cigarette vapor is practically odorless; but, even when detectable, the odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. Any visible vapor begins to dissipate almost immediately. Smokers who see an e-cigarette used indoors don’t light up—they ask, “What is that?” and “Where can I get one?”
Moreover, e-cigarettes do not “normalize” smoking.  What it actually normalizes is smoking cessation. And it de-normalizes cancer and lung disease. 
  
For the foregoing reasons, CASAA urges the Committee to issue an unfavorable report on Senate Bill 990.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gregory Conley, Legislative Director

[email protected]
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
CASAA – The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association




[1] CASAA is a non-profit, all-volunteer organization with a grassroots’ membership of approximately 3,000 individuals from all walks of life.  CASAA is dedicated to ensuring the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking and to providing smokers and non-smokers alike with honest information about those alternatives.  Since its founding in 2009, CASAA has educated the public and increased awareness about the benefits of reduced harm alternatives to smoking.  CASAA also encourages responsible legislative policy designed to improve public health by recognizing that smoke-free tobacco- and nicotine-containing products are inherently far less dangerous than smoking.
[2] For example, see Goniewicz ML, et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tobacco Control. Published online ahead of print on March 6, 2013. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859, where the authors note, “Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study.”
[4] Royal College of Physicians. Harm reduction in nicotine addiction: helping people who can’t quit. A report by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. London: RCP, 2007. http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/4f…239b09c5db.pdf
[5] Rodu B. The scientific foundation for tobacco harm reduction, 2006-2011. Harm Reduct J. 2011 Jul 29;8:19. The scientific foundation for tobacco harm reduction, 2006-2011

Call to Action! Maryland Smokeless Tobacco Tax Increase -- HB683 / SB700 (UPDATED)

This is a syndicated post, which originally appeared at CASAA. View original post.

Maryland: 316% Increase in Smokeless Tobacco Tax (HB683 / SB700) 

Call to Action Icon image

[full text of HB683] [legislative tracking for HB683]
[full text of SB700] [legislative tracking for SB700]

These bills would:
Increase Maryland’s tax on smokeless tobacco products from 30% to 95%.

Please note that this bill would *not* tax e-cigarettes.  


UPDATE (3/10/2013): The Senate Budget and Taxation Committee will hold a hearing to discuss and possibly vote on SB700 on Wednesday, March 13th at 1:15 pm. Public testimony will be allowed from attendees wishing to speak. We strongly encourage advocates to attend and testify this meeting in opposition to the tax increase on smokeless tobacco. If you are planning to testify, please contact us at [email protected].

HB683 had a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday, February 28th. A vote has yet to be taken on the bill.

CASAA is requesting that its members send e-mails and make phone calls to members of both the Senate Budget and Taxation and the House Ways and Means Committee.


Please call, write or fax the members of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee & the House Ways and Means Committee below.

1. Let them know that you oppose HB683 and SB700 because they would impose an unnecessary and punitive tax increase on smokeless tobacco products.

2. Tell your story on how switching from cigarettes to a far less hazardous smoke-free tobacco product has changed your life.

3. Explain that the purpose of increasing cigarette tax rates was to reimburse state expenditures for treating the many diseases caused by cigarette smoking.  Because smokeless tobacco products have been found to be around 99% less harmful than cigarettes, there is no justification for such an outrageously excessive tax, which would discourage smokers from switching to a less harmful alternative.

4. Because smokeless tobacco products are taxed at a much lower rate in neighboring states, many or most smokeless tobacco users in MD will travel a short distance to a neighboring state to buy tobacco, which will result in very little tax revenue increase for Maryland.  Adjacent states include:  PA (no smokeless tax), WV (7% of wholesale price), VA (10% of manufacturer’s price) and DE (15% of wholesale price).

5.  Sharply increasing the smokeless tobacco tax rate also will encourage former smokers who had switched to using smokeless tobacco products to return to smoking.

6. Tell them that by switching to a smokeless product, you have greatly reduced your health risks.
 
7. Direct them to the CASAA.org website for more information.


Senate Budget and Taxation Committee Members (to oppose SB700) 

3 West, Miller Senate Building, Annapolis, MD 21401

(410-841-3690 Annapolis/Baltimore or 301-858-3690 Washington, D.C.)

Comma delimited email list:
[email protected], [email protected], Davi[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Chair: Edward J. Kasemeyer
[email protected]
3 West Miller Senate Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
410-841-3653 or 301-858-3653

Vice Chair: Nathaniel J. McFadden
[email protected]
422 Miller Senate Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
410-841-3165

David R. Brinkley
[email protected]
420 James Senate Office Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
301-858-3704 or 410-841-3704

Nancy J. King
[email protected]
222 James Senate Office Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
301-858-3686

Richard F. Colburn
[email protected]
315 James Senate Office Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
410-841-3590

Richard S. Madaleno, Jr.
[email protected]
203 James Senate Office Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
301-858-3137

Ulysses Currie
[email protected]
201 James Senate Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
301-858-3127

Roger P. Manno
[email protected]
3 West Miller Senate Building
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
301-858-3151

James E. DeGrange, Sr.
[email protected]
101 James Senate Office Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
410-841-3593 or 301-858-3593

Douglas J. J. Peters
[email protected]
121 James Senate Office Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
301-858-3631

George C. Edwards
George.Edward[email protected]
322 James Senate Office Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
301-858-3565

James N. Robey
[email protected]
120 James Senate Office Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
301-858-3572 or 410-841-3572

Verna L. Jones-Rodwell
[email protected]
420 Miller Senate Bldg.
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
410-841-3612


House Ways and Means Committee Members (to oppose HB683)

Room 131, House Office Building, Annapolis, MD 21401-1912
(410-841-3469 Annapolis/Baltimore or 301-858-3469 Washington, D.C.)

Comma delimited list:
[email protected], [email protected],  [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],  [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Chair: Sheila E. Hixson
[email protected]
131 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3469, (301) 858-3469

Vice Chair: Frank S. Turner
[email protected]
206 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3246, (301) 858-3246

Kathryn L. Afzali
[email protected]
319 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3288, (301) 858-3288

Kumar P. Barve
[email protected]
361 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3464, (301) 858-3464

Joseph C. Boteler III
[email protected]
326 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3365, (301) 858-3365

Talmadge Branch
[email protected]
151 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3398, (301) 858-3398

Jon S. Cardin
[email protected]
304 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3833, (301) 858-3833

Don H. Dwyer, Jr.
[email protected]
216 House Office Building
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3047, (301) 858-3047

Mark N. Fisher
[email protected]
151 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3231, (301) 858-3231

C. William Frick
[email protected]
219 House Office Building
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3454, (301) 858-3454

Ron George
[email protected]
163 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3439, (301) 858-3439

Carolyn J. B. Howard
[email protected]
301 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3919, (301) 858-3919

Jolene Ivey
[email protected]
207 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3478, (301) 858-3478

Anne R. Kaiser
[email protected]
151 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3036, (301) 858-3036

Eric G. Luedtke
[email protected]
222 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3110, (301) 858-3110

Aruna Miller
[email protected]
225 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3090, (301) 858-3090

LeRoy E. Myers, Jr.
[email protected]
215 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3321, (301) 858-3321

Andrew A. Serafini
[email protected]
215 House Office Building
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3447, (301) 858-3447

Melvin L. Stukes
[email protected]
412 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3544, (301) 858-3544

Michael Summers
[email protected]
203 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3340, (301) 858-3340

Jay Walker
[email protected]
204 House Office Bldg.
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
(410) 841-3581, (301) 858-3581

Alonzo T. Washington
[email protected]
204B House Office Bldg.
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3652, (301) 858-3652


Call to Action! Vermont Bill to Impose a 92% Tax on E-Cigarettes -- HB71

This is a syndicated post, which originally appeared at CASAA. View original post.

UPDATE (3/11/2013): CASAA has been informed that the Vermont Attorney General’s office has confirmed that e-cigarettes would *not* be subject to a tax under legislation currently pending in the Vermont Senate.

As a result, CASAA has deleted its Call to Action. No further action is needed. If you did contact members of the Vermont Senate, please feel free to send a follow-up e-mail noting that you withdraw your opposition.

CASAA thanks its members for their cooperation.


[/collapsible_item]

 

 

Deal of the Moment

V4L New Colorful Vapor Zeus + Coupon Code (UPDATED)

I just got word that Vapor4Life has some new color options for the Vapor Zeus if the original cigar or black weren’t your thing.  There’s also a new mini-Zeus clocking in at 650mAh if you want something more petite. But this wouldn’t be a deal of the moment if there were no deal.  You can get up to 30% off regular priced items. The Zeus apparently isn’t regularly priced at the moment, but you can still get 10% off of it when using the codes.

But hurry up and visit V4L soon, this deal is over tomorrow (Aug. 2nd) at 11AM Central! UPDATE: This deal has been extended until Monday, August 5th!

Vapor Zeus Beach 8 2 300x200 image

Take 30% off* regularly priced items in orders over $60
Coupon code: COLORS30

Take 20% off* regularly priced items in orders under $60
Coupon code: COLORS20

Also take a 10% discount on all other items (with both codes) including the Vapor Zeus, Dial-A-Volts, Smileomizers and Best Sellers  


Older Entries » Apollo E-Cigarettes

Comments are closed.