FEELLiFE Nicotine Salt:
· Better Taste
· Better Feel
· Closer to Real
An alternative to smoking
Easy to get rid of nicotine addiction
Benefit to use nicotine salt:
You’ll get more nicotine, more quickly: In general, nicotine salts formed using a suitable acid and paired with the right sort of device seem to get nicotine to your blood more quickly.
You can use higher-nicotine juices: You don’t need to consume 10 mL of e-juice per day if you can have a 50 mg/ml e-juice instead of a 5mg/mL one.
Nicotine salt e-juice has a longer shelf-life: Nicotine salts are more stable than freebase nicotine, which means that nicotine salt e-juice will last longer in storage without the nicotine degrading.
You don’t need a powerful device: Nicotine salt e-liquids are more efficient at getting you nicotine, so you don’t need to compensate with a 150 W box mod – a simple, tiny device can be just as satisfied.
Since set up in 2009, FEELLiFE has focused on the research and development and production of e-liquid, rapidly developed into the top global e-liquid OEM manufacturer, providing high-quality e-liquid products for many well-known e-liquid brands all over the world.
With modern international standard factory, pharmaceutical grade dust-free workshop and assembly line, FEELLiFE make sure every bottle of e-liquid to meet the requirements of high quality.
Factory Address: 202 North California Ave, City of Industry CA 91744 U.S.A.
As of next February, tobacco products in Canada must be sold in packages that are brown, devoid of all colours and logos, and feature large graphic health warnings. These rules are part of the federal government’s strategy to reduce tobacco use among Canadians to less than 5% of the population by 2035. “It’s a very significant public health measure and it’s going to make a difference,” said Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society.
During a consultation process launched last November, the federal government had also explored the idea of placing warnings on individual cigarettes. Such warnings would read “smoking causes cancer” or similar wording.
“There is recent but limited research showing that health warnings placed directly on a product, such as cigarettes, could be effective in making the product less appealing to users,” read a government consultation document. Cunningham had endorsed the proposal. “It’s an incredibly cost-effective way to reach every smoker every day with the health message,” he said at the time.
Meanwhile plain packaging policies are catching on around the globe. A few months back, Singapore’s Ministry of Health (MOH) also announced that it will be introducing standardised packaging for tobacco products. The list of countries that have either implemented or are considering a plain tobacco packaging regulation, include Australia, Korea, Ireland, Scotland, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway, and Chile.
Last month, the Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA) announced that they found evidence of an “epidemic” of misinformation when it comes to consumers’ understanding of vaping products and nicotine in general.
“SFATA believes that while the [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] is busy giving adults and teens an epidemic of misinformation, Public Health England, the national health organization of the U.K., has truthful data showing that ‘vaping may be contributing to 20,000 U.K. smokers quitting every year,’ says Mark Anton, the trade group’s executive director, in a press release. Anton, while using talking points that industry advocates in the United States argue regularly, is honestly telling the truth.
Public Health England (PHE) is one of the only public health agencies in the world that promote vapes and e-cigarettes as legitimate aids for harm reduction and smoking cessation interventions. Even the National Health Service (NHS), the U.K.’s national healthcare delivery system, supports the PHE findings that long-term e-cigarette use is safer than combustible cigarette use and such devices are at least 95 percent safer than a combustible cigarette. From there, as I have previously argued on many occasions, regulations developed in the U.K. are promulgated based on science and not paternalism.
The United States is a different story. Barring Anton’s rhetoric, the truth behind the “misinformation” argument derives from a legitimate area of concern. Despite the political economy behind the tobacco tax and the federal government’s dependency on cigarette dollars, the health components used in justifying aggressive regulations usually derive from a single-sided and often unethical approach to fighting population-level health challenges related to tobacco use and nicotine use addiction.
Nicotine is treated differently compared to other illicit and formerly-illicit substances. Drug control advocates make themselves out to be hypocrites by supporting harm reduction strategies when dealing with marijuana, psychedelics, intravenous drug use, and opioids over risk minimization interventions that involve nicotine. That one-sided logic luckily eludes tobacco harm reductionists and causes some folk to question whether there are ethical implications when considering a broader context.
Charles Gardner, the director of Health Science and Technology for the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, calls the climate of consumer misinformation in the United States a troubling one.
“Giving smokers accurate information on relative risks helps them make informed choices for their own health. If they make the right choices, they can reduce their health risks substantially,” Gardner told me. He added: “On a population level, this means far fewer people suffering from preventable smoking-related disease and death. The outcome will be an improved quality of life for millions of people.”
Here, I asked Gardner about the impacts of “full-picture” information access at a population-level and whether it would impact a quality-adjusted life year (QALY). His response, naturally, was a confirmation that QALY measurements, a theory used in health economics to measure resource allocation and the overall health care costs for treating someone, are positively impacted.
A recent study published in the journal Epidemiology concluded a similar case utilizing a QALY measurement.
“This modeling suggested that a fairly permissive regulatory environment around vaporized nicotine products achieves net health gain and cost savings, albeit with wide uncertainty,” Frederieke S. Petrović-van der Deen et al. concluded.
The researchers utilized a multistate life-table model for about 16 diseases linked to tobacco use and simulated a QALY scenario and health system cost analysis at a no-percentage discount rate, utilizing New Zealand as a background jurisdiction. “We incorporated transitions from never, former, and current smoker states to, and from, regularly using vaporized nicotine and literature estimates for relative risk of disease incidence for vaping compared to smoking,” the researchers stated.
Considering these arguments, we can conclude thatcimprovements in quality in health and life for smokers can be owed to individuals who have more information about what they are ingesting into their bodies. Additionally, if you apply medical ethics to this argument, accessible information about nicotine could further support an individual’s autonomy, or the right to decide what is best for their health.