Regulators! Get out of our way, we're trying to vape safely here!

Having just recently ventured into the world of regulated powerful box-mods I was checking out the data-sheet on the new DNA40 chip by Evolve, comparing it to the DNA30 and other chips. Yeah I know, I'm kind of a geek. Anyway, reading the data-sheet I see that Evolve has put quite a lot of energy into developing a new feature, temperature protection. This is a safety feature designed to avoid the coil getting too hot and hence prevent the wicking material from charring, juice degradation and probably also degradation of the metal in the coil itself, all of which could potentially contaminate your vapor.

So I did some more google searches and found the video by Phil Busardo, where he discusses the new chip with the CEO of the Evolv, Brandon Ward:

It's great to see Evolv putting user safety first on their priority list, and I'm pretty sure they've done a great job with the DNA40. The reason I'm sure of this is the reason Brandon gives us for putting safety first:  

"I was a smoker for 20 years and I don’t want to put myself in danger"

Brandon Ward and Evolv is not doing this just to make money. I'm not saying that they don't want to make as much money as possible, but they are also vapers themselves and genuinely wants to make vaping as safe as possible. The reason these guys got into vaping in the first place was to get rid of the risks of smoking, and what Evolv has realized, and in my opinion this is why they are one of the innovation drivers of the industry: Evolv understands that practically all vapers got into vaping to reduce risks as much as possible. So user safety is important to all vapers, and this means that if they put user safety first, not only  will they protect their customers and themselves from harm, but it will also give them a competitive advantage. It's pretty hopeless for a company based in the US or Europe to compete with China on price, we all know that, so this means they have to compete on other attributes, for example quality, design and of course safety.

If you've watched the whole video you'll notice there is a lot of talk about user safety and how their main focus is to avoid any harm to the user, even if the user does something wrong, like putting in a battery that can't handle enough output without blowing up. Another question they bring up that I find quite interesting is this one: With this new technology, will wicking materials and e-juices now start to have temperature limits printed on the packaging? Now, Phil points out that the juice-companies might not be to happy with this, because that would mean they'd have to start testing their juices. But Brandon says "no-no", they've already talked to some juice companies about it at they are just excited about the new technology. There are several reasons for that. For one thing it is pretty easy to do this testing, and for the e-liquid-companies to put a maximum temperature limit or a recommendation on the bottle would give them the opportunity to protect the customer from harm. Because obviously user safety is also a priority for the e-juice companies. Why? Well, they are usually also vapers and former smokers that got into vaping to avoid harm. They are already testing their juices for harmful substances like diacetyl. And with the focus on vaping safety that's in the media they would be put out of business pretty quickly if their juices turns out to harm the users.

A lot of you have probably heard about Dr. Farsalinos' new study on "Temperature of evaporation, liquid consumption and vapor analysis in realistic conditions". The results of this study I think will be very interesting and very important. As you probably noticed in the video, Brandon is talking quite a lot about how temperature affects wicking-materials, liquid and metals, and the fact that temperature controls flavour, while wattage affects the amount of vapor produced. So I think it's pretty safe to assume that Evolv has done some testing themselves and have some idea what will come out of this study.

Think about it, a lot of people, if not most of them, that are now working in the vaping industry took a chance and quit their old jobs to start working with something they believe will help others quit smoking like they did. It is in all these peoples interest to make vaping as safe as possible. I guess some of you are seeing where I'm going with this, right? What I'm saying, and what I think the DNA40 is a perfect example of, is that user safety is one of the things that companies in the vaping industry is going to have to focus on to stay alive (literally and figuratively). The companies that don't, won't last long. The very nature of vaping, the whole idea behind it, harm reduction, will make safety a top priority for all serious companies that plan to stay alive for a while, because their customers main priority is to minimize harm.

The focus and studies on safety, and the innovation that is done to ensure vaping is as safe as possible is happening without any regulation from authorities. It is in the interest of the industry and the vaping communities to ensure vaping is safe and the majority of them are working in that direction today and will continue to do so, if the regulators will let them. The regulations proposed by WHO and their pharma-friends will work in favor of the only companies that didn't get into the vaping industry to reduce harm, the Big Tobacco companies. These companies do not have the same reasons for being in the industry, and they do not have the same incentives to work for user safety as the independent e-cigarette companies. So if the authorities really want to help smokers, reduce harm and save lives they need to get out of the independent vaping industry's way and go stand in the way of Big Tobacco instead.

COP-6: Caviar and Champagne for the pharmaceutical industry

Apparently the WHO couldn't afford to stop the Ebola outbreak (http://goo.gl/SS1jc7), but they seem to have no problem hosting a £1.6 million party in Moscow for their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. While Ebola was (and still is) ravaging West-Africa, the delegates attending COP-6 was eating caviar and drinking champagne in Moscow: http://goo.gl/AYv1kC. And while the media and the public was thrown out and the doors were shut behind them to make sure the decision making wouldn't be affected by outsiders, Big Pharmas lobbyists were allowed to stay: http://goo.gl/w2C39t.

I asked before the weekend what happened to the FCA behind those closed doors. I think Dick Puddlecote pretty much sums this up in his excellent post on the subject:

With all those dissenters out of the way; with the hall packed with pharma lobbyists and security forcibly silencing any flies in the ointment, I suppose it made it quite easy for the FCA's original recommendation on e-cigs - for caution and a postponement of recommendations pending further study - to be steamrollered out in favour of encouraging wholesale bans.

I highly recommend reading the whole post. I also recommend reading Christopher Snowdon's post "Health über alles". There is so much wrong with the way the WHO and public health is handling the situation right now, and I think Snowdon's post gives some great insights when it comes to why things are the way they are.



photo credit: geishaboy500 via photopin cc

COP-6: What happened to FCA behind those closed doors?

This photo was taken on the 13th.
The next day the media was thrown out. 

On Saturday we got the final wording on the decision on ENDS from COP-6. On Clive Bates' blog you can see Professor Gerry Stimson's reaction to this, as well as follow the evolution of this statement (have a look at the bottom of the post on Clive's blog). I don't see the need to elaborate to much on what I think of decision from COP-6, as I've written a good deal about this earlier when WHO's report on ENDS prior to COP-6 was published, and I also agree fully what professor Stimson writes in his post.

To me the whole COP-6 was a farce, with the WHO closing the doors completely, making sure they avoid any critical voices raised as they made their decisions. The event wasn't streamed, not much info got out on the internet during the event, and the WHO threw out the public, the media and even the Interpol (http://goo.gl/ddLfGC)... and all principles of transparency along with them. One has to start wondering what the WHO is hiding? How on earth are we supposed to trust the WHO when they do this, with just some lame excuse that there might be representatives from the tobacco industry observing? So what, they are not making the decisions, only observing, right? So what they are signalling by this is that their decision making will be affected by the tobacco lobby just being there? Then they are clearly not the right people for the job they're set to do if you ask me.

Margaret Chan on COP-6

It doesn't make it better that their Director-General, Margaret Chan, misleads the public to believe that she's using all her time to fight Ebola, when she in fact is in Moscow (http://goo.gl/WCxfa1) delivering opening remarks at COP-6, at expense of a speech about the Ebola pandemic. And her reasoning for this makes it even worse: “I can’t be a single-issue director-general. I don’t want people to think I spend all of my time on Ebola.” Ehm... say what? Is this for real? This is the leader of UN's health agency, WHO, faced with one of the biggest health emergencies of this century, and she DOESN'T want people to think she's spending all her time on it? Now, even if she was only in Moscow for the opening remarks and maybe some photos, I think this show a total lack of judgement and common sense, and I don't see how we can trust an organization that makes such priorities.

So, back to the topic: What did actually happen behind those closed doors in Moscow last week? Especially, what happened to the FCA? Before the meeting they published a statement on ENDS that showed their position was in sharp contrast to WHO and their report. From their own bulletin from day 2 of COP-6 (http://goo.gl/hU3awS) you can also see that this position was presented there. But now... they're urging governments to implement the ridiculous guidelines mentioned at the top of this post as soon as possible (http://goo.gl/yqaocd). To be fair, they don't mention ENDS in that last statement at all, but they are not excluding them either: "Decisions made this week in Moscow will save hundreds of millions of lives if governments work to implement them immediately." So, what are they saying now then? "Forget what we said last time, the WHO was right and those principles we suggested earlier (http://goo.gl/oUX8sK)... that was just something we said, but we don't see any reason to make a fuzz about the WHO flushing them down the drain."

So, what do I think happened behind the closed doors in Moscow? I'm not really sure to be honest, but I am certain that from WHO's point of view it was the right thing to do. A picture of Margaret Chan beating the FCA with a baseball bat before surgically removing their balls keeps popping up in my head.

Juice review: Sarsaperilla by Decadent Vapours

Decadent Vapours have been around for a long time (5 years I think) now, and I remember them from I started out vaping. After I was done trying out the crappy pre-filled cig-alikes from Deal Extreme I remember I found Totally Wicked, which actually had a Norwegian "branch" back then (3-ish years ago now). They used to have an e-juice range called Black Label from which I remember I found my first real favourite juice called Marlbury. When they stopped selling this range I did some research and found out that this Black Label range was actually made by Decadent Vapours, and that the Marlbury I loved was actually American Red. I think this was when I really started trying out all kinds of juices, and for a while I tried out a lot of the Decadent Vapours juices. I remember I was hooked on Aromatic and Cinnamint for a while, in addition to American Red of course. I also remember their Diablo Loco that almost killed me. Damn, that juice was strong! Then I started reading more forums and got input from the community and kind of moved on, trying out juices from all over the place, and kind of forgot about my old time favourites.

But then recently I saw Decadent Vapors started following me on Twitter and some days later they got in touch asking if I wanted to do a review, which of course I agreed to since they're really nice people who helped me out a lot when I was trying to figure out how to get more of my favourite juice back in the days. I got some options and decided to go for something I had no idea what would taste like, the Sarsaparilla from their "Tastes of America"-range.

They also asked if I wanted to give them some feedback on some new juices they're working on and sent me some small samples as well. I'm not allowed to tell you their names yet, and I haven't really had time to try out all of them, but it looks, and smells pretty promising. Hopefully I'll be able to post reviews of them when they're released.

Sarsaparilla
Tested on: Hellfire Mega (around 1.3 ohms)

Many of you guys are probably familiar with the history of Sarsaparilla and have probably tasted some kind of Sarsaparilla soft drink. I must admit I was not, but the name sounded familiar so I had to look it up on wikipedia: http://goo.gl/b6eXN8. However, the taste of the juice was very familiar to me from the first vape. I'm still trying to figure out exactly where I've got it from, but I suspect it might be from a flavour of "Ice Drops" (a liquid breath freshener sold in really small bottles). I don't know if these are even sold here in Norway any more, but I'll certainly buy a bottle to check if I come across one. But anyway, this is a pretty complex flavour and in my opinion it's a great one. It's described by Decadent Vapours as "A delectable balance of bold flavours; vanilla, caramel, wintergreen and licorice". For me the balance of these flavours is perfect. The vanilla and caramel is pretty subtle, but certainly there to make the juice sweeter and more interesting while the licorice and what I guess is wintergreen (which is a flavour I'm not familiar with from before) is more dominant. It's also one of those juices that keeps growing on you even though, at least for me, it started out very good as well. To be honest this is one of the best juices I've tried this year. However, I'm pretty sure it's one of those love/hate juices as well. It's unique and it's got a lot of flavour so either you love it or you hate it. I'm on the love side and would give it a 9/10 (just in case I come across something even better). Best way to find out which side you're on I guess is to try it out.




Disclosure:

• 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.

Is this Big Tobacco's death rattle?

Have a look at what Deborah Arnott says about the decline
in smoking. (Thanks to the Ashtray blog for the illustration)

Yesterday, my friends at the Ashtray blog published a great post asking "Are e-cigs leading to a drop in smoking rates?". It's not possible to prove that e-cigarettes are causing the rise in successful quit attempts we are seeing right now, but the fact that this rise seems to have started when ecig sales exploded certainly suggests it. The numbers presented in the Ashtray blog also goes a long way in disproving the gateway theory.

What really got me thinking in the article was what the tobacco marketing executive applying for a job that Smokers Angel advertised said when asked why he wanted to leave his job:

The tobacco industry is dying – everyone is leaving.

Are the lobbying for bans on open systems and the new horrible warning labels on Big Tobaccos e-cig brands really a final desperate attempt to keep their sinking ship floating? Is this the death rattle of Big Tobacco? Has this marketing executive realized that the e-cigarette revolution cannot be stopped?

I think he might have. I think what he fears is this: Even if the WHO, FDA and all the other anti-ecig organizations and people (Big Tobacco included) manages to slow down the revolution, even if they manage to ban ecigs, there will be ways for people to keep vaping and the number of vapers will increase. There will be black markets and there will be ways to avoid the bans. Because there are now huge communities perfectly capable of providing it's members with nicotine e-liquid and vaping equipments and no way to stop them from doing so. And the research will continue, and evidence will keep showing that e-cigarettes are not killing people, but saving their life. At some point the anti-ecig movement will have to pull up their white flag and admit they were wrong, and that no-one have died or gotten sick from e-cigarettes in years. It is just a matter of time and how many lives they are willing sacrifice on Big Tobaccos altar in the process. And seeing this, I don't blame the guy for wanting to get out as soon as possible.

FCA COP-6 brief on e-cigarettes, is it good enough?

The Sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO FCTC, also known as COP-6 is going to be held next week (from the 13th to the 18th of October) in Moscow. I guess most of you noticed that WHO published their report and position on e-cigarettes (or ENDS as they like to call it) a little while ago, a report that to me looks like it's designed by Big Tobacco and backed up by Big Pharma to make sure e-cigarettes pose a health problem. You can read my comments on the report here.

On October the 7th the Framework Convention Alliance (FCA) published it's brief on e-cigarettes prior to the COP-6, and yesterday Clive Bates did an excellent review of their paperwork: http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2448. As Clive says, the FCA position on e-cigarettes is in sharp contrast to WHO. I'm happy to see that the FCA recognizes that there could be negative unintended consequences from over-regulation just as there could be from under-regulation, something the WHO doesn't seem to understand at all. To me this very sentence shows that they are actually seeing e-cigarettes as part of a possible solution, not the problem, as opposed to the WHO who only sees e-cigarettes as a problem (or at least so it seems from their report). 

The FCA also recommends agreeing on direction setting principles prior to any policy making, and suggest 7 such principles: 

1. The global burden of death and disease from tobacco is primarily caused by smoking.  
2. While quitting tobacco use is paramount, quitting nicotine use altogether is the best option.
3. For those unable to quit tobacco, switching to alternative sources of nicotine that are less harmful can reduce, often very substantially, the harm smoking causes to the individual. 
4. The benefits of such an approach would be maximised if uptake were limited to existing smokers who are unable to quit. 
5. The risks of such an approach would be minimised by taking measures to limit uptake by never-smokers, in particular amongst young people, to protect non-users, and to discourage long-term dual use.
6. There could be negative unintended consequences from over-regulation just as there could be from under-regulation. 
7. The involvement of tobacco companies in the production and marketing of e-cigarettes is a matter of particular concern as there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest between those profiting from the sale of tobacco and public health.

Clive comments on each of these principles, and I agree with most of his comments, so I'm just going to recommend reading his post. I especially like Clive's comments on number 4, where he disagrees with the FCA, and say that "this sounds reasonable but it is not true". The point here is that non-smokers taking up vaping could actually be doing so instead of taking up smoking. Clive points to Scandinavia and says that part of the reason for low smoking initiation rates here is that Snus initiation has displaced smoking. This is exactly the same theory that I've written about earlier, the firewall theory. E-cigarettes work as a firewall towards cigarette smoking, both for ex-smokers hindering a relapse, and for non-smokers, often youth that would otherwise have experimented with cigarettes smoking.

Now I said I agree with most of Clives comments. When it comes to the last principle Clive says that Big Tobacco's involvement "should be problematic only if their involvement results in more smoking." Although I don't actually disagree with that statement I think Clive gives Big Tobacco more credit than they deserve: "It is very far from clear that the companies have incentives to protect smoking". In my opinion, seeing how they have navigated and lobbied so far it's not that far from clear. Their latest warning labels on their e-cigs are a good example. However, as Clive says, it is problematic to deny a harm reduction product as a matter of principle just because it's made by Big Tobacco. But I do understand FCA's concern.

The FCA's brief on e-cigarettes are miles better than the WHO's, but I also ask myself the same question that Clive does: Is it good enough? I'm sitting here with a feeling that FCA is holding back a bit to avoid colliding to hard with the WHO, and I'm a bit afraid that we'll end up with something in the middle, which in my opinion isn't good enough. To quote Clive once again:

Think what could be achieved if this alliance embraced the concept of tobacco harm reduction, and ran hard with it – becoming the experts and authorities on managing the risks and unintended consequences in their own countries and, if appropriate, in the FCTC.

Harm reduction in Sweden down the drain

The Swedish government has decided to increase the tax on Snus (Swedish smokeless tobacco) by 12% according to Swedish newspaper Expressen: http://goo.gl/LE7HKD. Cigarettes, and other smoking tobacco on the other hand, gets only a 6% increase. I'd like to quote my fellow blogger Dan, who started an excellent blog last month and lives in Sweden:

This batshit crazy policy will cause harm – as some people might decide to choose to smoke, instead of using a product that is so much safer that it isn’t just in a different ballpark, it’s a different sport altogether.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Dan. I mean, why would the country that has the lowest cigarette consumption and the lowest rate of tobacco related harms and diseases in the EU put a tax on a product that actually is one of the main reasons they are in that position? Can you think of one reason? I bet you can... and you're right again: It's all about the money. Expressen wasn't able to get hold of the Swedish Minister of Finance, Magdalena Andersson, but was able to get comments from Fredrik Olovsson who I guess answers on her behalf. My knowledge of all Swedish political titles isn't all that good, but he's a finance guy at least. Anyway, here is his reasoning: "We need the money. We are borrowing 10 million each hour in Sweden today [...] we really need this money." Well, Mr. Olovsson, making a country dependent on sin taxes isn't just a bad idea, it's a horrible idea. It doesn't really take a political mastermind to figure that out, now does it? If you make your country dependent on people destroying their health, you're in deep shit. I don't really have to explain that do I? Well, I kind of did a while ago: http://goo.gl/ilDxwT.

So, what does this all have to do with e-cigarettes? Well the Swedish government is also trying their best to ban e-cigarettes, which, as Snus, is a lot less harmful than cigarettes. It seems to me that the Swedish government is willing to sacrifice the health of their people to pay their bills. They seem determined to flush all harm reduction alternatives down the drain, because it will reduce their income as well as harm.

I'd like to finish today's post by recommending another blog, especially for the ones that are interested in Scandinavian e-cigarette politics: argvargen. "Argvargen" means something like "the angry wolf". Especially I'd like to recommend this post from a few days ago on the topic of snus and e-cigarettes in Sweden. Great, well written blog, Dan. I hope you keep biting their head of with your razor sharp wolf teeth.

Juice review: Signature, Strawpeardew and Pink Custard by Liquid Voyage

Liquid Voyage is a pretty new Swedish e-juice company that has just started shipping outside Sweden. According to their website they "strive to offer premium e-liquid, premium service, and premium care when hand making every bottle of E-Liquid". Now there aren't many Scandinavian e-juice companies around, and one of the reasons for that is probably that prices are pretty high here compared to other places in Europe. Here in Norway it's even illegal to sell e-juice with nicotine for now, and in Sweden it's currently kind of a grey area. Shipping is very expensive as well, so juices from Scandinavia will be pretty expensive. Competing with the rest of Europe on price is pretty much out of the question, meaning high quality is what Scandinavian juice makers will have to go for if they want to get into the market. And this, I think, will lead to most (if not all) Scandinavian e-juice manufacturers really aiming to create the best flavours available. That's pretty cool actually. I think we have a lot to look forward to.

That being said, I don't think the prices are that bad. 55, 130 and 200 SEK for 10, 30 and 50 ml respectively. That's £4.75, £11.2 and £17.25, so not to bad for good quality juice in my opinion. Looking at the Liquid Voyage website they have a selection of 10 different flavours, 5 of which you can get in a "Reserva"-version, which means they are heat steeped for 1 night then stored in a cellar cabinet for 2 weeks and sold in limited quantities. Costs the same as the normal version but only available in 50 ml bottles from what I can see.

So, onto the juices. All three juices reviewed here were 18mg/ml and 60/40 VG/PG. I should add that I did not steep them any extra before I tried them. The fact that they offer a version that is steeped more than the standard tells me that maybe I should.

Signature
Tested on: Hellfire Dripper (around 1.3 ohms)

According to the website this is a Virginia leaf and dark caramel blend. And I'd say their description is pretty much spot on. First thing it reminded me of was one of the first juices I tried actually, a Virginia based tobacco from Decadent Vapours. Only this one is smoother and more toned down. The caramel is also pretty toned down, it's just enough of it to give the tobacco a bit more depth. For me, the Virginia taste itself takes a bit of getting used to, don't know why. At first I find it a bit to sweet I think but after vaping it for a while it just gets better and better and I could easily use it as an all day vape.

Strawpeardew

Tested on: Hellfire Dripper (around 1.3 ohms)

Honeydew melon, Strawberry and Pear according to the website. I'd say Pear, Honeydew melon and a maybe a little bit of Strawberry. At least that's what my tastebuds told me, in that order. The pear is definitely the most dominant, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. There's a lot of takes on strawberry juices out there so I think using strawberry in the background like this is a good use of it. To be honest it took me a while to taste it, and I still don't get strawberry on every draw, but it's there from time to time, making the juice more interesting. Also an all day vape candidate, as it's by no means overpowering.

Pink Custard
Tested on: Aspire Nautilus BVC (1.6 ohms)

Again, the strawberry is in the background, almost not noticeable, but just popping out from time to time. But this is a rich and creamy vanilla custard, with some kind of twist making it different. The website says it's strawberries and some secret ingredients that I haven't managed to put my finger on. But it's something that makes it a notch less sweet, and a bit fresher than other custards I've tasted. Now this one I put in an Aspire Nautilus, but I think I'll have to try it in the dripper to see if it will pull out some surprises of this liquid. Definitely one to try out.

All in all I'd say Liquid Voyage delivered some good quality juices. None of them are very strong flavoured, but still very good. I would definitely recommend trying out these juices and I also think they might get even better with some more steeping time. Thanks to Marco for sending me the juices to do this review.

A little update:
If you want to try out Liquid Voyage you can enter "giraffe" as a discount code for 10% off. Marco also says he just lowered his shipping costs through out europe to 3.5£/4.4€, which means he's pretty competitive price wise as well.



Disclosure:

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

Big Tobacco's new e-cig warning labels are not what they look like

MarkTen e-cigarette packages now feature a 117-word warning (http://goo.gl/2WHa7z). The full warning can be found on MarkTen's website and goes like this:

This product is not a smoking cessation product and has not been tested as such. This product is intended for use by persons of legal age or older, and not by children, women who are pregnant or breast feeding, or persons with or at risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, or taking medicine for depression or asthma. Nicotine is addictive and habit forming, and it is very toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin, or if swallowed. Nicotine can increase your heart rate and blood pressure and cause dizziness, nausea, and stomach pain. Inhalation of this product may aggravate existing respiratory conditions. Ingestion of the non-vaporized concentrated ingredients in the cartridges can be poisonous.

It's kind of weird that MarkTen and other Big Tobacco companies choose to put warnings on their products that are several decrees more severe than the warnings on their tobacco products, especially when it's not even required by regulation. So what do they hope to achieve with this?

The New York times thinks this is to appear more responsible, open and frank and to insulate themselves against future lawsuits. I think this is an explanation Big Tobacco really likes and can live with, cause wanting to be more responsible and making sure they don't get sued in the future sounds like a reasonable strategy and it doesn't really hurt someone. Sounds like the responsible thing to do.

But I believe that one has to look at what the possible effect of such warnings to see what Big Tobaccos real reasons behind them are. I can think of several rather dangerous effects that would suit Big Tobacco perfectly:

• Even though the warnings are only on Big Tobacco's products, people will draw the conclusion that these warnings apply to all e-cigarette and vaping products. Remember also that Big Tobacco's cig-alikes are entry level products... a lot of vapers start out with them. And according to "Motherboard", Big Tobacco has officially lost its hold on the e-cigarette market: http://goo.gl/1WX9sG. Such warning will serve to keep the customers in a market that Big Tobacco is not loosing, the cigarette market.
• I think Big Tobacco is trying to set a standard on how warnings will look like if they get required by regulations in the future. Such warnings will, as mentioned above, stop some people from buying and using the products. For an independent e-cigarette manufacturer this means loosing customers, but for Big Tobacco it doesn't. They will keep their customers, because the customer is already a smoker. 
• I've written earlier that e-cigarettes work as a firewall, protecting young potential customers of Big Tobacco from the dangers of cigarette smoking. Such warnings would weaken this firewall effect, and make it easier for Big Tobacco to gain new customers in their cigarette market. 

In other words, I don't think Big Tobacco is issuing this warnings just to appear responsible and avoid lawsuits (although it's a nice side-effect), but I think they're doing it to weaken, or ultimately try to get rid of the competition. Big Tobacco has used a lot of money to get into the e-cigarette market, but looking at their morale track record I think it would be pretty naive to think they are doing this because they suddenly realized what they've done and want to make up for it. If you have a closer look at how they are behaving and navigating in the market, you'll see that their actions are not exactly helping the cause. This latest warning labels are a good example and it also gives us a clue to why they've chosen to stay in, and try to get as much control as possible in, the entry level market: Stopping people from switching is the best way of keeping them smoking right? Or even worse: Making teens believe that e-cigarettes are worse than cigarette might lead them to start smoking instead of trying an e-cigarette.

Not everything is what it looks like eyh?