Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Juice review: Love Potion No. 6 by Decadent Vapours

Looks like Decadent Vapours have a plan to release limited edition e-juices for holidays and other special days. They released their "Gold" last Christmas. Now Valentines day is coming up and DV have created a new juice for the occasion: Love Potion No.6.

Love potion No. 6 
Tested on: Kanger Subtank (RDA at 0.4 Ohms, 20-25 watts)
With Love Potion No. 6 Decadent Vapours have tried to duplicate the taste of a some well known sweets: Love Hearts. Well, of course I can't speak for the rest of the world, but these have been around here in Norway for as long as I can remember, and I honestly think I'll have a hard time finding someone who has never tasted them. The juice comes in a red bottle with lots of hearts like you see in the picture. So... I've had to hide the bottle away to avoid the inevitable harassment that would follow if anyone at work saw me filling up my tank from such a bottle :)

Decadent Vapours describes the juice like this: "A lovesome blend of red berries, fizzy sherbet and seductive vanilla with a touch of cherry drop, this is just the vape to set the mood with someone special." I can see that description fit on the sweets as well so the question is then... does the juice really taste like this as well? The answer is quite simply ... yes it does. At least they are not very far off here. It might have a bit more sweetness and a little less berries than the sweets but to me it becomes closer and closer every time. Whether this is my mind playing tricks on me or it has something to do with the flavour actually changing I don't know really. The Kanger is quite a large tank and the juice have been in there for a while and it might actually be some steeping going on. Think I'm going to leave in the dark for a while and see what this does to the flavour. I also noticed that you get more berries if you vape a little cooler. So if I turn down my watts from the usual 25 I use with this tank to around 20 it gets a bit closer to the sweets. DV has also managed to recreate that fizzy feeling of the sweets, but of course not that strong. For me it's a bit on the sweet side to being an all day vape... but then again, I've said that about a lot of juices lately that I've ended up vaping for days.

Anyway, for anyone that have tried the Love Heart sweets, the flavour should be pretty familiar. And if you like the sweets, you definitely should try this juice as well. Simple as that actually.


  • All my reviews are my honest opinion even if I am affiliated with the company manufacturing or selling the product. 
  • The juice was sent to me free of charge for the purpose of this review.
  • This review does not contains affiliate links.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Authors of e-cig formaldehyde junk science: "We just wanted to get it out"

I'm sure you can find something
dangerous in that glass of 
water, Dr. Pankow. Use your 
Last week we saw another formaldehyde scare story hit the news, with a couple of so called scientists proving nothing more than this: If you crank up the voltage of your vaporizer until it starts tasting like shit, and keep on vaping it, you might inhale some formaldehyde as well. In other words, if you intentionally want to inhale formaldehyde, it is perfectly possible to do so using some of the e-cigarettes available today.

The fact that the only vaper in the world that would willingly do that is a robot in Dr. Peyton and Dr. Pankow's lab is not the only problem with this study. In fact, the good doctors themselves goes a long way in saying that their study is shit. Some of their statements are summarized in this great post on Does Formaldehyde Make E-Cigarettes Worse Than the Real Thing?
Pankow told NBC "we are not saying e-cigarettes are more hazardous than cigarettes," although that is the impression left by the NEJM letter. He noted that "we are only looking at one chemical" out of the thousands that can be found in tobacco smoke, of which hundreds are toxic or carcinogenic. "The jury is really out on how safe these drugs are," he said. According to Reuters, "Pankow conceded that the study could have contained more context about overall relative risk, but said the authors 'just wanted to get it out.'"
Wow, hang on there... so "just wanting to get it out" is now an excuse to publish science that is so bad that even Dr. Neal Benowitz, one of the scientist thrown off FDA's TPSAC (FDA Tobacco ProductsScientific Advisory Committee) because of... well corruption, questiones the legitimacy of some of it's conclusions (have a look at Reuters article mentioned in the quote above):
But he questioned the legitimacy of comparing the effect of formaldehyde delivered in a cigarette to that delivered via hemiacetal, in droplet form, in an e-cigarette. The effect on organs could be entirely different, he said. 
And, one of our dear doctors even agrees with this:
"There has never been a cancer study with hemiacetals," Pankow said in an interview.
In other words: We don't really have any proof of anything, so we just made up a conclusion "to get it out". Dr. Farsalinos was also quick to point out this error in his initial reaction to the study.

I'm seriously having problems deciding who I think is the biggest idiots here. The "scientists" deciding to publish this because they "just wanted to get it out" (how the hell did they get their PhDs anyway?), or the media? Like NBC that decided to go with this headline based on something that a couple of junk scientist just wanted to get out:
Before You Vape: High levels of Formaldehyde Hidden in E-Cigs
For now I think I'm just going to count them as equally useless. The saddest part is that neither has said or done anything to make this right yet as far as I know.

VaporVial Fivepawns

Friday, 23 January 2015

New study by Dr. Farsalinos: Dual users more worried about E-cigarette risks

In a study published by Dr. Farsalinos and his team have examined the factors associated with dual use of tobacco and electronic cigarettes. In other words, why the dual users don't stop smoking tobacco cigarettes completely. In a comment published today Dr. Farsalinos says that their most important finding was that the strongest predictor of dual use was high risk perception for e-cigarettes. This shows how the misinformation and lies published about e-cigarettes actually keep people smoking, most probably shortening their lives by years. To add to that, Farsalinos suspects we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg here:
Although expected, this is a very important finding because it shows that misinformation and exaggeration about e-cigarette risks is discouraging smokers from making a complete switch. Considering that the survey was performed in dedicated users, I expect that this factor will be even more important for the general population. Moreover, I think that it is not only associated with dual use but also with failure to reduce smoking or with relapse to smoking.
Again, we come back to the fact that it's very important to get proper, true information out to the public, and the media will be the key to doing this. I'd like to shout out a big thanks to Dr. Farsalinos and his team for their work and efforts to spread the truth about e-cigarettes to the public. Thank you!


Thursday, 22 January 2015

Another flawed study on Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosols

Yesterday another vaping horror story, based on this junk science, hit the media (for example here). I guess it was just a matter of time before it happened again. This time Dr. Peyton and Dr. Pankow at Portland State University in Oregon have used a puffing machine of some kind and found that you'll detect a lot of formaldehyde if you run a CE4 top-coil atomizer at 5 Volts (generating like 12W) and do 5 second puffs. This means, you do ONLY dry-puffs! Of course no-one in real life would do this so the study is totally irrelevant on only serves to show the incompetence of it's authors. If you run it at 3.3 Volts, like anyone with taste-buds would do, not surprisingly no formaldehyde was detected. Our dear doctors then came to the conclusion that vaping is 5-15 times as dangerous as smoking. I'm baffled that someone is able to publish such crap, and I'm just sad that the media once again takes the bait. This is like testing the safety of seat-belts in cars by strangling people with them.

AVA, Clive Bates, Dr. Siegel and Dr. Farsalinos already wrote great comments on the case explaining how bad this so called research is, and Dr. Farsalinos also wrote another comment verifying the equipment used in the "study". I suggest everyone bookmarks these comments and send them to anyone confronting you with this non-sense. And my God I look forward to the day Dr. Farsalinos' study on temperature of evaporation, liquid consumption and vapor analysis in realistic conditions is published so we can put an end to this formaldehyde scaremongering.

Subtank Fivepawns
photo credit: tbecreview via photopin cc

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

Reasonable "regulations" proposed in the New York Times

On Sunday, an article by Sally a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, was published in The Opinion Pages of the New York Times. In the article Satel points out that not enough smokers are switching to e-cigs despite their relative safety and that the initial public enthusiasm over e-cigarettes is waning. She mentions a few reasons for this:
Smokers are barraged with news about inaccurate labeling, shoddy counterfeits and poorly made e-cigarettes that emit toxins and cancer-causing chemicals in vapor. And to the frustration of smokers, public health experts and, yes, manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration, which has not yet set up sensible regulations, is making the situation worse.
The point is that there are some bad apples in the e-cig industry and we currently don't have a good way of knowing which ones are good, and perfectly safe and which ones are not. So it is no wonder smokers are sceptical. But how can we turn this trend around?

You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the proposed FDA regulations would effectively put most of the independent e-cigarette industry out of business, leaving Big Tobacco comfortably in total control of the market. Satal explains why in her article:
Consider the complexity. The proposal has some useful provisions, such as a ban on sale to minors and a requirement to disclose ingredients. But the proposal would also push e-cigarettes into the hugely burdensome regulatory framework that Congress set up for any new tobacco product.
Although the deeming rule does have some traces of reason in it, it will do more harm than good. Satel, however, has some really good suggestions on how the FDA could use their resources to actually help smokers quit instead. You see you don't really need strict, expensive regulations to make vaping safe. The majority of products on the market today are perfectly safe, so all you need to do is point the users in the right direction. 
Instead of waiting years to develop burdensome regulations, the F.D.A. should act now by setting interim safety guidelines. These guidelines would not carry the force of law, but they could go far to bolster smokers’ confidence that a safer way to inhale nicotine exists.
The agency should start by focusing on a few basic steps. It should outline basic good-manufacturing practices for the devices and liquids, including limits on the amount of chemicals, like formaldehyde, and metals, like nickel, that can be present in the aerosols. It should disallow outright some contaminants in the nicotine solution and flavorings.
It should require manufacturers to ensure that all batches of chemicals are traceable and that all sources of hardware are known. The guidelines should also require makers to verify that e-cigarette batteries can be charged safely and that they will operate safely in the course of normal use. Interim guidelines should require manufacturers to use childproof packaging that carries a warning: “This product contains nicotine, which is addictive and is intended for adult smokers only.” Also, a mechanism for reporting adverse effects is needed.
Satel says that these should be only guidelines not laws. In my opinion some of her proposed guidelines could also carry the force of law (limits on chemicals for example), but enforcing them should not be done the way the FDA suggests with a pre-market approval scheme that would put all the innovative forces in the industry out of business. The independent companies are also the ones that are focusing their innovations towards user safety (take Evolv for example). Big Tobacco on the other hand (which would be left in total control under such regulations), has never been, and never will be, very concerned with user safety. Instead of pre-market approval, a system where the authorities can check that the manufacturers are following the rules and their products are safe could be established. If controls show that a manufacturer is not playing by the rules they can be forced to start doing so or eventually be shut down by the authorities. In addition to this the industry organizations could establish a system where manufacturers voluntarily apply for approval, documenting that they follow the organizations guidelines, and then be allowed to use this approval in their marketing. Such systems would let customers choose the safe alternatives, making it hard for the unreliable players to earn money, and eventually vaping will be even safer than it is today.

Last, but not least, Satel suggests the FDA lets the industry tell the truth about e-cigarettes. Although I'm not sure about the wording on her label, it would be a big step forward:
Finally, the F.D.A. should allow companies to tell smokers about the benefits of switching to vaping products. Labels could read: “While more research is needed, it is likely that e-cigarettes meeting F.D.A. interim safety guidelines are much safer than smoking.”

VaporVial Fivepawns
photo credit: tbecreview via photopin cc

Friday, 16 January 2015

Review: Subtank by Kanger, a heavyweight champion

Sub-Ohm vaping, with coils measuring resistances below 1 Ohm was kind of a buzz-word last year. Still, this has been somewhat reserved for the more advanced vapers who builds their own coils chasing the biggest clouds possible. But late last year this changed. Aspire released their Atlantis tank, with atomizer heads measuring 0.5 Ohms. This meant we could now enjoy sub-ohm vaping without having to build our own coils, just replacing the atomizer head like in any other clearomizer. Not long after Aspire's release, Kanger released the tank I'm reviewing here, the Subtank. This has the option to choose between Kangers own pre-prebuilt atomizer heads and a rebuildable atomizer head, giving you the convenience of the pre-built heads but also the option of experimenting and building your own coils. This sounds like a tank that would appeal to a lot of people, including me. So is it as good as it sounds?

Some specs:
  • Coils: Kanger offers their newly designed pre-built "Bottom Plane Dual Coil (BPDC)" heads in 0.5 and 1.2 Ohm versions. They're also called Organic Cotton Coil or OCC heads. In addition the Sub-tank comes with an RBA meaning you could build your own coils with any resistance you wish.
  • Adjustable airflow: The ring at the bottom of the tank can be twisted around to open different air-holes around the base, giving you the option to adjust the airflow to your liking.
  • Connector: Standard 510, with a spring loaded center pin meaning it would fit almost any mod you can think of.
  • Size: A length of 55mm(without drip tip) and a diameter of 25mm makes this a pretty big tank, I think the biggest I've tried at least.
  • Juice capacity: With OCC head installed you'll be able to fit in 6 ml juice, with the RBA 4.2 ml. Huge capacity in other words.
In the package:

  • 1 x Organic Cotton Coil Head: 0.5 Sub Ohm / Range 15 - 30 W
  • 1 x Organic Cotton Coil Head: 1.2 Ohm / Range 12 - 25 W
  • 4 x RBA Coil 
  • 1 x RBA Tip Connector
  • 1 x RBA Base
  • 1 x Screw Driver
  • 2 X Screws
  • 1 x Manual
  • Some organic cotton made in Japan
  • 1 x Beauty Ring (From Φ25 to Φ22mm)
Design and looks:
This is indeed a big, and pretty heavy tank. It weighs in at 94g with the OCC head, probably around 100 with the RDA. With it's red o-rings it has a pretty distinctive look which I personally think is pretty nice. It can take other drip-tips as well, but I think it looks best with the rather bit driptip, with what looks like fins to get rid of some heat, matches the tank perfectly. Considering it's size I think it looks best on a pretty large tube-mod or a box mod, but I guess you're going to have to use that anyway as you want to run this on 25ish watts meaning you'll need some battery capacity.

Now Kanger has probably realized that the subtank might be a bit too large for some people. So they are releasing 2 new versions of it soon:
  • The Subtank Mini, which is just a smaller 22mm diameter version, that comes with all the same features, using the same heads and a smaller RBA.
  • The Subtank Nano, even smaller measuring 18.5mm in diameter, using the same pre-built heads, but no RDA on this version.
    If you're using the pre-built coils setting up this device is really just screwing the parts together. Easy as hell, and very convenient if you're out and about or just in a hurry. Changing the head takes you less than a minute.

    Now if you're changing to the RBA (or back to pre-built) you need to change the top of the tank as well. The reason for this is that the RBA is kind of higher and you'll need a top with a shorter centre tube. There is a couple of screws at the top you need to unscrew to do this, but it's not a very complex operation and done in a couple of minutes. The screws are tiny so make sure you don't loose them on the floor, cause spotting them can prove to be an impossible task. You only get two extra screws (I have one left) in the package, so hopefully you'll only make this mistake once or twice.

    Setting up the RBA itself is something that requires a little training and a little patience. It's not any more difficult to set up than any other RBA, so for the experienced vaping geek this is no problem. The RBA also came with 2 of the 4 coils already mounted so if you don't have any experience you'll get to see what it should look like when you're done. Of course you can build this any way you want, single coil, dual coil etc. However I think you're going to have to spend quite some time experimenting if you're going to fit more than 2 coils in there cause you have limited room for that. The dual-coil setup it came with measured 0.4 Ohms. If you're going to use the setup they already put in there for you, make sure you check that the screws are tightened properly... mine were pretty loose so at first the Sigelei I used measured anything from 0.7 to 3 Ohms. Once I tightened the screws it showed .4 and stayed that way. When you've got the coils  in place, all you need to do is put in some cotton (or silica if you prefer). In the manual there are some images suggesting how much cotton you should use, and there is also some cotton in the box. If you follow the steps in the manual, you should be able to get going with the RBA setup in less than 10 minutes (probably 3 if you're experienced).

    In use:
    First of all... this tank produces a whole lot of thick, warm, delicious vapor. Changing heads and juices, as I mentioned above, is fast and easy. It has a spring-loaded 510 connector, meaning it will fit most devices no problem. On my Sigelei 100 W I did no adjustments, just screwed it on and stared vaping. So in other words... the Subtank works very well and is easy to use.

    With the 0.5 head and the RBA at 0.4 Ohm's I think that 25W is the sweet spot for this tank. This is also not far from what you'll get if you put it on a mech-mod. For the 1.2 Ohm head I turned it down to around 20W. Pretty similar vape to the others there as well and no wicking issues even at 25W on that coil. On a mech-mod you will of course get cooler and probably a bit less vapor from the 1.2, so this comes down to personal preference. One of each is included so you get to try them both if you want.

    I did encountered a couple of small issues though. First, I had a small leaking issue, with juice coming out of the air-control holes. I took the tank apart and when I put it back together I noticed that the glass tube was not cut perfectly straight at both ends. One end was better than the other, so I tried putting the tube back on the other way around. This fixed the leaking issue. I think the reason for this is that on top you have one (kind of weird, angled) o-ring where you can get away with the tube not being perfectly straight. On the bottom there are 2 separate o-rings and you need the tube to make contact with both of them to avoid leaking.

    I also have a small issue with the 510 connector, where the spring-loaded centerpin is stuck, so it's not really spring loaded any more. For me this is not a problem as the mod I'm using has an adjustable 501 connection as well. It is pretty easy to take the whole center of the 510 connection on the Subtank out, so it would be very easy to replace. Hopefully Kanger will supply spares soon. In fact they I think they should consider putting a spare in the box. I also see they now supply spare o-rings, which I also think they should consider including. Actually I don't know if they already do by now, as they we're not even available at all when I got the tank.

    Refilling the tank is done by unscrewing the whole base and just filling up to the top of the center tube. Quick and easy. Of course they could have made a filling hole on top, but personally I really don't see the need for one. I'd screw of the base anyway so I can fill directly from bigger bottles. Since the tank has a capacity of 6 or 4.2 ml it will last you more than a day anyway so you don't really need to fill on the go. That said, having the option to fill from the top would be something to consider for the next version, it could make it possible to squeeze even more juice in there.

    Despite a couple of minor issues that I mentioned above, this is easily one of the best tanks I've tried. Kind of a heavy weight champion. Once I fixed the leaking issue, there is no leaking at all from it, and it just works. Changing coils or heads, refilling and using it is easy as hell, and the vapor and flavor it produces is just awesome.

    Now I do suspect that I'd use this mostly with the 0.5 Ohm heads. I haven't had the time to experiment a lot with the RDA, but the 0.5 head and the RBA at 0.4 Ohms gives me pretty much the same vape. Now wicking issues at 25W on either. I hope I get to try out the Atlantis from Aspire as well to compare that one. I do think the RDA option gives the Subtank a slight advantage on paper over the Atlantis, but as I said, I haven't tried the Atlantis yet, so I can't really say for sure... yet. 

    Price-wise it's not bad either at £32.99. Replacement coils are £13.99 for a pack of 5. And if you decide to try this one out, using discount code vapingiraffe will knock 5% off at UKEcigStore. Thanks to UKEcigStore for sending me the Subtank for this review. 
    AspireAtlantis Subtank

    • All my reviews are my honest opinion even if I am affiliated with the company manufacturing or selling the product. 
    • The atomizer was sent to me free of charge for the purpose of this review.
    • This review contains affiliate links.

    Thursday, 15 January 2015

    Help spreading the truth to doctors, health care professionals and scientists

    Professor Gerry Stimson, Jacques Le Houezec PhD, Professor Riccardo Polosa, Konstantinos Farsalinos PhD and Carmen Escrig PhD are asking doctors, health care professional and scientists around the world to educate themselves on e-cigarettes and vaping and to support their M.O.V.E  manifesto.
    We call on our colleagues to sign this declaration in support of the merits of electronic cigarettes based on scientific evidence and ethical debate.
    I do believe that the statements and opinions of Doctors and health care professionals in the vaping debate will affect the opinion of the general public, and the politicians, strongly, either directly or indirectly through the media. I expect my doctor to know what he's talking about and trust his advice, and I don't think I'm the only one here. So I really appreciate these guys efforts to reach out and educate those of their colleagues who still needs it, and gathering the signatures of those already educated to create a strong voice that will help educating the general public.

    We, as vapers, can help them do this by spreading the word to health care professionals around the world. Give this link to your own doctor, your friends that are doctors or any health care professional you come across:

    AspireAtlantis Subtank

    Tuesday, 13 January 2015

    If you "don't know enough yet", SHUT UP!

    Norwegian politicians love their precautionary principle. Whenever they feel they don't know enough about something, they jump to this principle proclaiming that "we don't know enough yet". I came across an article in a small local newspaper today reporting that the Working Environment Committee for Namsos (a small town a bit further north from where I live) has suggested that e-cigarettes should be included in the smoking ban that prohibits smoking during work hours for all municipal employees. They say that "it is not known whether these substances are harmful" and because of that they want to ban e-cigs as well, using their precious precautionary principle.

    The precautionary principle itself is not necessarily a bad thing, if used correctly. It is often reasonable to use it when a new product comes along, that for some reason (use common sense) might have some harmful effect, to be a bit cautious until research is available. The problem with Norwegian politicians, as the article clearly shows, is that they use it whenever THEY don't know enough, even if they haven't even dragged their asses over to the computer and googled the subject. When the politicians in Namsos talk about the substances in e-cigarettes I bet they don't even know what substances they are talking about. Clearly not actually. They are using the principle even if a lot of research is available, and has been for quite a while now, and that is just WRONG!

    With all the research available on the subject today, if you "don't know enough yet" that has to mean you either don't want to know, you're to lazy to find the information or you're to incompetent to do it. In either case, if you're a politician responsible for creating reasonable regulations, you are not doing your job! IT IS YOUR JOB TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ABOUT THE THINGS YOU ARE GOING TO REGULATE! In fact, anyone claiming that "we don't know enough yet" in the case of e-cigarettes in 2015 is clearly not qualified to join the discussion in the first place. I mean, it's totally ok to not know enough about whatever you don't want to know enough about, but then you need to stay out of the discussion as well.

    Norway has a lot of oil and from time to time we have discussions about how much we should pump up. Lots of factors to consider, like how it affects the price, the environment and so on. I don't know much about this, so what I do is to keep my mouth shut. If I want to join that discussion, I see it as my duty to read up on the subject and make sure I know as much as possible. Oil is a huge part of the Norwegian economy and the decisions made in the area affects a lot of people. Joining this discussion without even taking time to read up a bit and educate my self would do nothing but making the discussion less productive. If I did what a lot of e-cig opponents, that know pretty much as little about e-cigarettes as I know about oil, do, and claim to be an expert in the area as well, I would also run the risk of affecting the final decision in a way that makes it far from the best. If I want to join the discussion on oil, it is my duty to at least read up on the subject, cause there is a lot of information easily available if I can be bothered to lean forward and grab the iPad on my living room table. If I can't be bothered to do so... I should continue to keep my mouth shut. The same thing goes for the e-cigarette debate, the information is there, just a google search away. If you "don't know enough about e-cigarettes yet", SHUT UP UNTIL YOU DO!

    VaporVial Fivepawns
    photo credit: jonnwilliams via photopin cc

    Thursday, 8 January 2015

    Juice review: Absinthe by Decadent Vapours

    It's time for my first e-juice review of 2015. Last time I reviewed a juice from Decadent Vapours I reviewed the Sarsaperilla, a quite new taste for my tongue. This time, the taste is a lot more familiar, but not totally unrelated to the Sarsaparilla.

    Tested on: Hellfire Dripper (Cotton wick, around 0.4 ohms @ 15-25W)

    Aniseed has become quite a popular taste in e-liquids and there's a bunch of different options to choose from out there. Quite a few juice makers have them in their lineup nowadays, but I think Decadent Vapours take on the taste has been around for as long as I have been vaping at least. It's named after the famous alcoholic beverage and probably aims to recreate the taste of the drink. I do believe I've tasted it, the drink that is, a couple of times, but for obvious reasons it might be difficult to remember exactly how that tasted. When it comes to aniseed e-liquid, I've tasted several... the legendary Mad Murdoc's Radiator Pluid, Mido's Scorpion Blood just to name a couple of my favourites.

    The Absinthe tastes like a mix of aniseed and liquorice, well balanced and with a sweetness in the aftertaste that I find myself liking more and more. A bit strange as I usually complain about juices being to sweet. However lately I've found myself liking more and more sweet juices... so maybe not that strange anyway. The 50/50 PG/VG that DV sent me produces huge clouds of thick vapor on my setup, that I think look slightly green even though I know they are not. I've heard that the looks of food affects how we perceive the flavour. Hopefully what I'm experiencing is the opposite effect of this, and not something weird they've put in the juice. Nothing wrong with the vapor production in other words.

    Throat hit is not bad either. Aniseed juices usually give quite a strong throathit in my experience. However I do find the Absinthe a little less strong tasting than other aniseed juices I've tried, and a bit sweeter as I said above. From time to time, but not in every draw I think I get a tiny bit of citrus as well. I like that... makes the juice more interesting.

    Aniseed is one of these love/hate tastes. Some people can't stand the taste, others love it but not many are in between. If you are on the love side I'd say the Absinthe should be on your list to try out. If you haven't tried this taste in an e-liquid yet, it's a good one to start out with, not being the strongest of them all.

    AspireAtlantis Subtank

    • All my reviews are my honest opinion even if I am affiliated with the company manufacturing or selling the product. 
    • The juice was sent to me free of charge for the purpose of this review.
    • This review does not contains affiliate links.

    Tuesday, 6 January 2015

    Make 2015 the year vapers when won the media war!

    Before I took a short break from blogging during Christmas I kind of concluded that 2014 had been a year with a lot of ups and downs for vapers. The media published horror stories, claiming that vaping is more harmful than smoking cigarettes or that vaping would cause a new generation of nicotine addicts, and then the next week they published hallelujah-stories claiming that vaping could save millions of lives. Yesterday the Ashtray blog published a pretty amusing post on this topic: E-Cigs Cause (Media) Schizophrenia: A Case Study. As James points at the end of his post the media is of course not really as schizophrenic as they appear at times, they are just doing what they can to get as many readers as possible:
    The Daily Mail isn’t really schizophrenic, it simply takes stories from both sides, and twists and manipulates them to ensure they sell the most papers.
    I think this is one of the most important facts we, as vapers who want to continue fighting for our case, have to remember this year. Hopefully, we will be able to make some changes in 2015, but I believe some things will be the same... and will never change:
    • The media will write their stories to get readers and in this way earn more money. 
    • Big Tobacco and Big Pharma will continue their lobbying in 2015 for the same reason, to earn money, or maybe in their case, to avoid loosing money. 
    • Then there is Glantz and his fellow prohibitionists. These guys did not care much about facts and truth in 2014 and I have no hopes that this will change in 2015. As Steve K pointed out recently, New year, same prohibitionists
    Working to stop Big Pharma or Big Tobacco or to trying to turn the prohibitionists around will pretty much be a waste of time and energy. Luckily, these are not the guys that will decide what regulations e-cigarettes will be subject to in the end. The politicians will. And politicians need support from the public to be able to stay in charge. I don't believe that e-cigarette regulations are the most important case for most politicians. Most of them probably knows very little about it, and do not care too much either. There are other, more important cases on their minds. So if the general public has a positive attitude towards vaping, chances are these politicians will have that too, just because it will give them some goodwill.

    We have to remember that most people are not smokers or vapers. Most people's knowledge of the subject and their attitude towards vaping is based on what the media writes about it. Actually, from my experience, most people's attitude is based on the headlines alone. I don't have the exact percentage of non-smokers in the world today, but I don't think I'm wrong if I say it's somewhere around 70% and 80%, most of them with little knowledge of vaping other than what they read in the papers or see on their TV-screens.

    For these reasons I think vapers and vaping advocates need to focus on getting the truth out in the media this year. This will affect the general public's, and the politician's, attitude towards vaping in a positive way. If we can "win" the media war in 2015, chances are that vaping will be allowed to continue saving millions of lives.

    So my advice for 2015 is, if you want to help out and make a difference in this case, don't just educate yourself on vaping, but try to educate the media as well. Write a couple of emails to the local newspaper, give them some tips on the research I'm sure you've read about. Who knows... if they get enough emails, maybe they will write a story about it. And maybe some bigger newspapers or news agencies will pick up on it and the snowball will start rolling, hopefully knocking down some prohibitionists on it's way. Make 2015 they year when vapers won the media war!