Happy Christmas from ezSmoke.ie




Merry Christmas & Happy New Year from ezSmoke.ie

We would like to take this opportunity to thank all our customers for your custom and support this past year and look forward to a very exciting 2013.

ezSmoke.ie will be closed from December 22 until January 4 inclusive.  Please note that no orders will be processed during the holiday period and any queries etc, will be replied to after the 4th.

Christmas Vaping Gift Suggestions

1. Let There Be Juice

The new T-Juice Super Blends ‘Let There Be Juice’, Volume 1 gift tin is the perfect present or great way to experience some of T-Juice’s top flavours. The tin include six flavours in 5ml bottles.

    Afro Dizziac


Jack The Ripple

Green Steam

Vamp Vape

& High Voltage (new flavour beautiful blend of menthol and Cherry… Yum!


2. eGo ECO Starter Kit

Also known as the Ego Vision or Stardust, the Ego CE4 Plus. Ease of use, combined with great flavour make the CE4 Plus Electronic Cigarette Starter Kit the ideal kit for both moderate and heavy users.

Our new ECO Packs are designed for those who want to give e-cigarettes a try without the expense of buying a full blown starter kit, and this kit is a perfect way to introduce first time users.


3. Disposable Electronic Cigarettes

A handy stocking filler, that might just make someone close to you make the switch to vaping. No plugs, no travel adaptors, and no replacement liquid to carry around. Ready to vape.





Industry booming as e-cigs catch on

from The Raconteur (The Times / Sunday Times)

OVERVIEW The electronic cigarette industry is booming as more and more smokers quit tobacco, but the future for “vaping” is uncertain, writes Dan Matthews

Though still in its infancy, the electronic cigarette industry is in the middle of a “big bang”. In stark contrast to sales of tobacco products, e-cigarettes are becoming more and more popular across Western Europe and the United States. In the UK the number of “vapers” – those who choose vapourised nicotine over tobacco smoke – is growing by 50 per cent a year, according to the Electronic Cigarette Consumer Association (ECCA).

By the end of 2013, says the ECCA, the UK will be home to around one million e-cigarette consumers, up from about 600,000 today and stacking up ever-more favourably to the ten million or so tobacco-cigarette smokers. Such has been the magnitude of the boom that a new economy has burst into life, giving rise to a universe of paraphernalia with dedicated magazines, clubs, social networks and even festivals.

Live in Utah and enjoy vaping? Then of course you should join the Utah Vapers. There are Irish Vapers, a Vapers’ Corner, a Vapor Den, an annual Vapefest; even a Planet of the Vapes (Google any or all for proof). Such is the interest in these new devices that the term “niche product” is becoming less and less applicable to them.

But while commercial opportunities push the industry forward at a quick clip, bureaucrats in Britain and elsewhere are struggling to keep up. Between the World Health Organization, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, there is no hard position on whether the emergence of e-cigarettes is a good thing or not. Even the Department of Health will not issue its formal stance until next spring, almost ten years after the products first entered the market.

Now is a fascinating, if confusing, time for electronic cigarettes as crucial questions weigh on the industry that will define its future course. Are e-cigarettes quitting devices? Are they lifestyle products? Should they be sold in newsagents, petrol stations and off-licences or in pharmacies and chemists? What are the health implications and exactly how much safer are they than tobacco?

And when all the rules have at last been defined at a national and European level, will the big tobacco companies, such as BAT or Philip Morris, make their play and throw several giant-sized cats into the assembled group of pigeons? Both of these companies, as well as others, have started to get serious about the market potential of tobacco-free nicotine products.

All of the above questions and more are still to be answered, and while uncertainty hangs in the air, the e-cigarette industry remains at times patchy and rudderless. The entrepreneurial first-movers in the e-cig business are jostling for position and a selection of new brands have made impressive inroads in a chaotic market, like prospectors in frontier days. Of these, many are lobbying for clarification from government, which would give them a firm footing from which to grow their brands, invest in advertising and reach deeper into the market.

Once the playing field has been defined, a more confident group of businesses equipped with standards and official targets to hang their hats on will no doubt continue to grow quickly with high-quality products and focused product lines providing choice for their customers.

While it’s unlikely that e-cigarettes will benefit from the same impetus that caused an explosion in tobacco consumption a hundred years ago, when powerful branding, advertising and endorsements spellbound millions of smokers, it can only become more and more mainstream. Whether we will witness Hollywood actors vaping in future films noirs or at society bashes remains to be seen.

Today is an ideal time to investigate this market and consider what happens next. The future of dozens of businesses, thousands of jobs and millions of pounds depends on it, not to mention the future health or otherwise of a legion of smokers, vapers and abstainers.

Nudge Unit Favours E-cigarette Approach to Stopping Smoking (UK)

from Euromonitor International

Analyst Insight by Don Hedley, Analyst – Tobacco, at Euromonitor International
The UK Government’s Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insight Team, also known as the Nudge Unit, wants to persuade smokers, who are disinclined to give up the habit, to manage their nicotine addiction in a different way. Is it also telling them that e-cigarettes are safer?

The Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insight Team recently published its first annual report. The unit aims to persuade or ‘nudge’ people into better, safer, more beneficial modes of behaviour without recourse to legislation. The approach has the virtue of cutting out the difficult part – getting bills passed in Parliament – and appealing directly to consumers and regulatory bodies using argument and persuasion. The nudge unit claims to have implemented a series of measures which will save thousands of lives and £100 million over the course of the next parliament.

Quit or die is not working
As regards smoking, the Nudge Unit believes the current approach to smoking, which it characterises as ‘quit or die’, is not working. It therefore suggests the alternative approach of managing nicotine addiction as a means of helping entrenched smokers indifferent to pack warnings by which it means substituting a nicotine delivery product like the e-cigarette for the combustible tobacco cigarette.

Smoking is not the Nudge Unit’s only target: The unit is suggesting people opt out rather than opting in to donating organs when filling out online driving licence applications. The annual report also says the government is to change tax forms to tell people how many people in their area have paid their taxes ahead of them as a result of another Nudge Unit initiative.

Substitute similar behaviour or extinguish entrenched habit?
The Nudge Unit is not actually saying that e-cigarettes are the answer, it is however saying that new products that deliver nicotine without the toxins in tobacco smoke should be explored and encouraged. According to the Nudge Unit annual report: ‘It will be important to get the regulatory framework for these products right, to encourage new products. A canon of behaviour change is that it is much easier to substitute a similar behaviour than to extinguish an entrenched habit (an example was the rapid switch from leaded to unleaded fuel). If alternative and safe nicotine products can be developed which are attractive enough to substitute people away from traditional cigarettes, they could have the potential to save 10,000s of lives a year.’

No more harmful than caffeine in coffee
According to reports, experts have advised the UK government that the nicotine contained in some new, smoke-free cigarettes is no more harmful than caffeine in coffee. An unnamed ‘Cabinet Office source’ is quoted in a national newspaper as saying: ‘A lot of countries are moving to ban this stuff; we think that’s a mistake.’

Read full article…….

FREE 10ml T-Juice with eCigarette Starter Kits

Ireland’s Electronic Cigarette Supplier ezSmoke.ie in association with Europe’s Premium eLiquid House, T-Juice are today pleased to announce that while stocks last, most Electronic Cigarette Starter Kits will come with a FREE 10ml Bottle of T-Juice Primo Verde or Ice Queen**

It is hoped that these authentic tasting eliquids made from Natural Tobacco extracts, will make the transition from smoking to vaping that much easier to the newcomer.

This juice is a complex, deep, dark and rich tobacco flavour, with strong notes of Burley and more subtle notes of bright Virginia. Exhaled slowly through the nose you can really taste the complexity of the tobacco blend. This is as analogue a cigarette tobacco taste you will have experienced using an electronic cigarette.




To compliment the new real flavour extract range, Ice Queen has been perfected for menthol cigarette lovers. Using parts of the Primo Verde base, we have added a sprinkling of menthol crystals and peppermint, which delivers a multi faceted flavour sensation. Be dazzled by the Ice Queen’s brilliance!


Additionally today we have complimented our T-Juice range of eLiquids, with most now available in both 10ml & 30ml bottles.

“Let There Be Juice”
Sneak preview, but later this week we will be launching a limited edition of some favourite T-Juice eLiquids in a Gift Tin for Christmas.

** Special Offer while  stocks last.
** FREE eLiquid not included with pre-filled cartomizer starter kits, or Ego ECO Starter Kits


The Deadly Crusade Against E-cigarettes

from “The American”

By Gilbert Ross, M.D.

What the critics see as a bug is actually a feature: e-cigarettes can work as a public health tool precisely because of their resemblance to the real thing.

It’s among the most important public health problems in the world — preventing the devastation wreaked by smoking. Experts predict the global death toll of cigarettes will approach 1 billion lives lost this century. But misguided or agenda-driven public health officials worldwide are condemning one hope for slowing this catastrophe — electronic cigarettes, or “e-cigarettes,” and certain low-risk tobacco products that have the potential to reduce the risk caused by smoking.

Public health officials are gathered at a conclave in Seoul, South Korea, for the revision of an international tobacco treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). They’ll be taking up e-cigarettes and perhaps even calling for a ban.

The logic employed by these critics is that since e-cigarettes look like actual cigarettes, they must be curbed as well.

But what the critics see as a bug is actually a feature: e-cigarettes can work as a public health tool precisely because of their resemblance to the real thing.

E-cigarettes work by giving addicted smokers the nicotine they crave, without the toxic smoke. They supply a variable amount of nicotine in a watery vapor and produce a red glow at the tip when puffed upon.

That similarity — especially the nicotine, the addictive substance smokers crave — is what is best about e-cigarettes. The nicotine “hit” they supply matches, more or less, that of inhaling cigarette smoke, as do the behavioral mannerisms of holding the thing as though it was their familiar “friend,” the conventional cigarette.

Among the 46 million smokers in the United States, well over half say they want to quit, and more than one-third attempt to do so each year — but less than one-tenth succeed.

But that’s where the similarity ends. There are no products of combustion to be inhaled hundreds of times a day, and hence no tobacco toxins.

E-cigarette users — they call themselves “vapers” — get the satisfying drug but none of the tarry smoke. That’s why many smokers who switch to e-cigarettes succeed in staying smoke-free.

An important fact, rarely discussed by “public health” gurus, is that the patches, gums, and drugs they recommend as “safe and effective” are all-too-often neither. Among the 46 million smokers in the United States, well over half say they want to quit, and more than one-third attempt to do so each year — but less than one-tenth succeed.

Read full article



Former Action on Smoking And Health Director Discusses Nicotine and Endorses Electronic Cigarettes and THR

Excellent interview from Ashtray Blog

By: James Dunworth

If you wish to leave a comment and / or share, please do so from Ashtray Blog website.

“In the latest in our series of interview with experts on electronic cigarettes and/or tobacco harm reduction, Paul Bergen interviews Clive Bates, former director of Action on Smoking and Health.

Clive Bates has had a varied career in the private, public and not-profit sectors. He was the Director of London-based campaigning organisation Action on Smoking and Health from 1997 to 2003. He no longer works professionally in the public health field and specialises in energy and the environment. He has no conflicting interests or affiliations in health organisations, pharmaceutical companies or the tobacco industry, but continues to take a personal interest in public health policy. In this interview, he is speaking strictly in a personal capacity and not for his employers past or present.

Paul: In tobacco-related circles you are perhaps best known for a 2003 document you were first author on while with ASH-UK, European Union Policy on Smokeless Tobacco, which essentially argued for modifying the ban on smokeless tobacco so as to provide a safer nicotine source than cigarettes for smokers. Now, ten years later, ASH seems to teeter between arguing for or against safer alternatives whether snus or e-cigarettes. At the time you were with ASH did you have support within the organization when you were developing that paper or were they just putting up with you?

Action on Smoking and Health.

Clive: The idea of ‘harm reduction’ is always controversial – whether it is needle exchanges for intravenous drug users, contraception for teenagers, or even cycle helmets. There are people who think that promoting anything other than quitting smoking completely is somehow an unacceptable compromise. But this takes no account of real human behaviour and that fact that what matters is what people actually do, not what you want them to do.

There was support within the organization because we argued the case properly and used the best evidence we had at the time, and it is even clearer now. You’ll notice that document is co-authored with some of the leading academics in this field and so the case has both weight of evidence and some authority. There were doubtless some in and around the public health field who were uncomfortable. But then, as now, they just could never make a convincing argument, so they had to put up with me and the others like me who see this issue more pragmatically. ASH remains pretty reasonable on all this if you listen carefully to what they say. The problem lies with the big health charities and European alliances, which just seem to take positions that appeal to their instincts and what they think will be popular.

Paul: There have been a few examples of people who started as active in anti-smoking or clean air initiatives but ended up promoting alternatives for smokers (for instance Michael Siegel, Bill Godshall or David Sweanor) but yours is the only case I know of where an active support of harm reduction originated from within an anti-smoking organization. When you started with ASH, were you already inclined toward harm reduction or did that position evolve over time?

Clive: I was fortunate enough to be the Director of ASH, and it is easier to influence the position of an organization if you are in charge! My views definitely evolved as I came to understand the underlying science better.

My first foray into this arena was looking into ‘low tar’ cigarettes, and whether they really were reducing health risks (nb. The answer is definitely ‘no’). That Low Tar report is still available and mixes science and some of the most tobacco industry documents to paint a picture of companies deliberately and cynically engineering false reassurance in response to the health concerns that were rising at the time. But the interesting underlying scientific premise is that smokers smoke to meet their nicotine needs (so-called nicotine titration) and adjust their behaviour to compensate for, say, vent holes in the filter, in a way that the official cigarette tar and nicotine testing machines do not.

I campaigned to have the tar and nicotine numbers removed from packs in the 2001 tobacco directive because they sent a misleading signal, but alas to no avail. The directive did at least clamp down on branding words like ‘mild’ and ‘low’ (article 7). But once you understand nicotine-seeking as the prime driver of smoking behaviour and that is the tar particles and hot gases in the smoke that are the main causes of disease, you are soon drawn into harm reduction and the idea of clean or cleaner ways of nicotine delivery. I had brilliant teachers on all of this in Martin Jarvis and Ann McNeill. They were part of a London-based group of scientists inspired by the work of the late, great Mike Russell, who pioneered the early understanding of the pharmacology and psychology of nicotine dependence.

Paul: Though one would think that for any group working with tobacco and health that promoting safer alternatives (such as snus or e-cigarettes) should be a logical step this just does not seem to happen. Is there something about the culture of these organizations that make change from within difficult?

I’m incredibly frustrated by some of the health groups. They’ve taken a cavalier attitude to the evidence and ethics of harm reduction, and seem to show no empathy or concern for the people they are supposedly trying to help. It is as if they value their anti-tobacco industry credentials more than doing something about cancer, lung and heart disease. If you swear a fight to the death with Big Tobacco, you will be treated kindly by politicians, the media, funders and the public. But if you care about health, and I mean really care, there are some tougher choices and trade-offs to make about reducing the harm caused by tobacco.

I also think there are some uneasy conflicts too: the European Commission provides funding to some of the Brussels based health lobbyists; Big Pharma is involved to some extent and has mixed motives; and some of the health charities have a funding and research philosophy that is ideological and narrow-minded rather than a genuine scientific quest. There is certainly a lot of group think and lack of internal critical challenge within these groups. Sad to say, I don’t think they even recognize that as a weakness.

Paul: In your most recent writing on tobacco, I see that you reiterate much of what you said ten years ago with the benefit of the evidence of the time since, but you restrict your comments to snus as an alternative. What are your feelings about e-cigarettes as alternatives and in comparison to snus.

Clive: I think the same arguments apply to e-cigarettes, vapour devices, NRT, non-combustible tobacco. They are all vastly less hazardous as a way of consuming nicotine and, unlike smoking, have negligible risks or risks that are not out of line with other lifestyle risks we routinely accept. Which do I prefer? Whichever works for each smoker.

My concern is not whether these alternatives are dangerous – they aren’t. My concern is whether they can quickly gain market share from cigarettes. The challenge from a health point of view is to get as many smokers, especially those over 40 years old and looking like they may be smoking for life, to switch. So I think we need a broad range of alternatives available to suit individual tastes and motivations.

This is an area where market forces could drive strong pro-health innovation as makers of these products seek to win market share from smoking. There will be an instinct to regulate, and in doing so to be excessively restrictive – but we must be so careful. Too much caution or excessive regulation of these alternatives would throttle the market and would in effect amount to protective regulation for the cigarette market. So my message to those health interests who want very strict regulation of new nicotine products is: “beware what you wish for, because if you get what you want, you will be doing the dirty work of the cigarette vendors for them”.

Read full interview…………….