Ocean State Vapes Legal Age Requirements

A Reminder for all of our Customers

As the vaping industry moves forward, and Governmental, State and Local Laws of enforcement become more stringent regarding selling vaping products to or purchasing vaping products for minors, we want to remind all of our customers that Ocean State Vapes follows age requirement laws to the letter!  We follow these requirements not as a “punishment” for anyone, but to ensure that the Vaping Community as a whole obtains and maintains a good reputation for adhering to the legal standards set forth by our government.

“With the new FDA rules and enforcement procedures now rolling out all across the 50 states, it is more important than ever that your staff knows how to properly age-verify your potential customers.  The penalties are pricey and the “no sale orders” are no joke.  Here are some statistics that may be eye-opening for many in our industry, as these FDA secret shops are a new experience for most vapor retailers.

The “FDA has undertaken nationwide law enforcement checks and in FFY 2016 alone conducted more than 134,000 compliance checks. Since 2010, FDA has conducted 640,000 retailer compliance checks covering every state, Washington, DC and U.S. territories and issued nearly 8,200 civil money penalties against retailers ranging from $250 to $11,000. In October 2015, FDA began issuing no tobacco sale orders (NTSO) against repeat violators.”  (Article: New FDA Tobacco Regulations Means Retailer Commitment to Compliance- We Card)

When coming to the shop please keep in mind the following:

  • If you look under the age of 27 years old, you will be asked for your ID.
  • Remember to bring your ID with you every time you come to the shop.
  • If you do not have your ID when asked, you will be asked to leave the shop.
  • If you should be in the shop with friends, whether purchasing items or not, and look under the age of 27 years old, you will be asked for your ID.
  • If you have children with you under the age of 18 years old, without ID, they will be not be allowed in the shop.
  • If you tell any sales associates that your intent is to purchase items for friends or family members under the age of 18 years old, the sale will be refused.

We appreciate all of our customers understanding and assistance in helping our Vaping Community remain strong, grow and thrive during these times of ever changing regulations!

What is an RDA?

An “RDA” is a Rebuildable Dripping Atomizer. The basic components of an RDA are the “deck”, or platform, posts, cap and “drip tip” or “chuff cap”.  The posts are anchored to the deck allowing the coils to be inserted, and provides the electrical connections to the battery (mod) that heats the coils. The “deck” is covered with the cap (outer housing) that typically slides on with O-rings. The most common style of RDA’s will have a removable “drip tip” or “chuff cap” allowing the user to have easier access to the coils and/or wicking material.  RDAs have no “tank” section to hold e-liquid, and are designed for e-liquid to be dripped from a bottle directly onto the coils and/or wicks.  Most RDA’s are designed where you only have to remove the drip tip or chuff cap, as opposed to removing the entire cap after “dripping”.  Some are made with the deck having a small “well” under the coils that holds a minimal amount of e-liquid, usually less than 1ml, but allowing there to be less frequent “dripping”.


A commonly held opinion in the vaping community is that RDA’s produce a cleaner and more intense flavor than any other method of vaping. Thus for some, RDA’s are the top choice and present the standard for which all other types of atomizers are measured.  RDA’s can produce astonishing amounts of vapor, especially when outfitted with coil builds with ultra-low resistance (0.05-0.2 Ohms) and vaped at a sufficient rate of power (100+ watts).  Most avid RDA users will typically chose to build their own coils, however there are also many companies that produce high quality pre-built coils ready for use.  Wicking materials used for RDA’s vary from organic cotton, synthetic blended materials, to even quartz crystals.

FDA New Regulation to Penalize Freedom of Speech About Vaping Products and Consumer Opinion

“To CRA or not to CRA?  

CRA you say?  What the heck is that?  The Congressional Review Act is a law enacted in 1996, which basically creates an opportunity for Congress to negate or invalidate a regulation put forth by an executive branch agency.  Do I have your attention now?

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) states that before a rule can take effect, an agency must submit the rule to Congress with a statement on its impact and whether it is a major rule.  Upon receipt of this report, Congress will have 60 legislative days in which to take action on a joint resolution of disapproval of the rule.  If the joint resolution of disapproval is submitted within the CRA specified deadline, and signed by the president, the “rule shall not take effect (or continue).”  Such rule would be deemed not to have any effect at any time – even provisions that had become effective would be retroactively negated.

What’s more, if enacted with regard to a rule, the CRA prohibits that agency from issuing any rule that is substantially the same in the future, and prohibits judicial review of this action!

I know what you are thinking…. THE FDA DEEMING RULE!  Unfortunately, the 60 legislative day limit – looking back 60 days in which Congress was in session and doing legislative business – only takes us back to early July. And, the FDA final deeming rule was submitted to Congress in May. Basically, the deeming rule was too long ago to exercise CRA option on it. So, we will have to use other tools at our disposal to address the deeming rule – including changing the predicate date and working with the new administration, etc.

However, there is another very important rule to which Congress could – and should – apply the CRA process.  I refer to the rule made final earlier this month by FDA, which I call the “Intended Use” rule.

The Intended Use rule is nefarious because it is how FDA will extend its prohibition on free speech and possibly hold manufacturers accountable for what OTHERS say about their products. That is, they prohibit you and anyone who sells vapor products from making truthful statements about relative risks of vapor products and smoking. This rule prohibits you from even citing peer reviewed scientific studies such as the Royal College of Physicians or Public Health England studies in conjunction with your business. Click here to read the rule.

Not only does this rule prohibit manufacturers and retailers from making certain truthful statements regarding risk, smoking cessation, and health issues, but it goes even further. The FDA is giving itself the authority to use not only statements made by you to determine whether prohibited health claims are being made, it also says FDA may consider other evidence of intended use, which may include “circumstantial evidence.”

FDA could use this as justification to force products off the market as unapproved medicine, medical devices, or combination products. Remember, this is the same justification the FDA used to seize vapor products several years ago before the federal court system told them (Sottera v. FDA) that they could not do this because the manufacturers who sued the FDA were not making health claims in marketing e-cigarettes.

This new restriction and enforcement power really bothers me. Because, once freedom of speech is so severely restricted, open debate about our products and public health can be critically harmed. Truthful statements should be allowed and their veracity can be tested through other mechanisms.

If this rule remains in effect, we will not only be keeping life-saving facts from the public.  We will also be left fighting this battle without being able to state facts to public audiences whose opinions sway the will of elected officials. 

In any case, NO governmental organization should be permitted to use “circumstantial evidence” (presumably what consumers are saying about cessation online??) to stop a product from being sold.

How are we, as a society, going to have an honest and open discussion of tobacco harm reduction if one side is prohibited from educating customers and the public while the other is constantly pumping out ridiculous propaganda?

Congress should consider submitting a resolution of disapproval on this new FDA “intended use” rule. If you agree, please call or email your Congressmen and urge them to apply the CRA to this rule promptly, before it does irreversible damage.”


Article Made Available by SFATA – www.sfata.org

A Brief Look at the History of Electronic Cigarettes and Vaping

If you’re a vaper, do you owe a huge debt to Mr. Hon Lik?  Yes we all do, though many think Mr. Lik, Chinese pharmacist, was the first to invent the concept of the electronic cigarette, he was not!

The honor of the first concept of the electronic cigarette goes to Herbert A Gilbert, who submitted a patent application in 1963!  Gilbert’s design included all the elements we’re familiar with today – a battery, a reservoir for flavored liquid and a heating element. He made a few prototypes but these were never deemed marketable in the culture of the 60’s, where smoking cigarettes was much more widely acceptable than today.

Though Mr. Lik wasn’t the first to conceptualize the electronic cigarette, was the first one to turn the vision into a reality, inventing a real device that actually worked.  He came up with his own idea independently and outside of Gilbert’s design, motivated by his father’s death from lung cancer and his own struggle to quit smoking with nicotine patches. Initially he used ultrasound technology to create the vapor, but it was found that the droplets were too large and didn’t have the same feel as cigarette smoke. When he hit on the idea of using a resistance heater, much better results were created, and paved the way for electronic cigarettes as they exist in today’s vaping market.  

In 2003, Mr. Lik registered a patent for the familiar modern design, and the first devices hit the Chinese market the next year.  By 2006 electronic cigarettes were becoming available outside of China and to date; China still remains the largest manufacturer of vaping technology products in the world.

In 2007 British entrepreneurs Umer and Tariq Sheikh invented the cartomizer, which is a mechanism that integrates the heating coil into the liquid chamber.  This invention revolutionized electronic cigarettes. They launched this new device in the United Kingdom in 2008 under their Gamucci brand, and the design is now widely adopted by most “cig-a-like” brands.

The first mod to replace the e-cigarette’s case to accommodate a longer-lasting battery, dubbed the “screwdriver”, was developed by Ted and Matt Rogers in 2008.  And in 2009, Joyetech developed the eGo series, which offered the power of the “screwdriver” model and a user-activated switch to the growing electronic cigarette world market.  

The clearomizer was invented in 2009, originating from the cartomizer design; it contained the wicking material, an e-liquid chamber, and an atomizer or heating coil within a single clear component.  The clearomizer allowed the user to monitor the liquid level in the device.  Soon after the clearomizer reached the market, replaceable atomizer coils and variable voltage batteries were introduced.  Clearomizers and eGo batteries became the best-selling customizable e-cigarette components in early 2012.  

Clearomizers paved the way to what is currently known today as tanks and coils in varying sizes, shapes, and colors.  Batteries or Mods have also evolved in size, shape, color and technological varieties ranging from variable voltage to temperature control models, as well as internal and external battery options.

The culture of vaping has expanded in leaps and bounds since Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Lik’s original concept; it is no wonder that in November 2015 the CDC data stated there were more than 9 million vapers in the US.  And in April of 2016 the French Inter-professional Vaping Federation estimates the number of vapers at 25 million worldwide.

Draft law to save vaping gathers steam in Congress

A new bill has been introduced in Congress which, if passed, will prevent the FDA from banning 99.9% vapor products next year. 

The cross-party draft law – known as the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017  – was tabled Thursday by Tom Cole (R-OK) and Sandford Bishop (D-GA) and is now gaining traction in Washington. If the bill passes it will move what is known as the “predicate date” for vapor products; all those that were on the market on 8 August 2016 would not now be subjected to a regulatory system so overbearing it amounts to a ban due to its cost and complexity.

Vapor products offer a promising path for harm reduction for those seeking to quit or limit their smoking,” said Rep. Bishop. “This legislation would ensure the FDA’s regulatory process does not limit the availability of safer tobacco options for those seeking to make use of them.”

While there is disagreement about whether certain tobacco products should be regulated or not, there should be agreement that new regulations should apply to products moving forward, and not retroactively,” added Rep. Cole. 

Inconsistent authority like this will be detrimental and unfair to many manufacturers and businesses. This legislation preserves the FDA’s ability to regulate these products on par with cigarettes, grandfathers currently available products and then requires the FDA’s approval before any new product is introduced.”

The new bill does four things:

Save small and mid-size vapor businesses: The thousands of small and medium-sized firms and their tens of thousands of employees will be able to continue to trade. Almost all products on the market were sold after the original predicate date in 2007, so the nine years of innovation up to August 8th, 2016 will remain available to consumers.

Save lives: Vapor products have gained widespread consumer acceptance amongst smokers who have tried unsuccessfully over the years to quit. The Royal College of Physicians’ comprehensive review of the science concluded that e-cigarettes represent less than 5% the risk of tobacco cigarettes. 

Address the issue of product safety: The FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017 requires the FDA to implement their rulemaking on product standards for batteries within 12 months. 

Protect Youth: The FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017 will restrict youth marketing and youth access to vapor products. 

Give the federal government the ability to enforce the law: The FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017 requires retailers to register their establishment unless the retailer already is required to register under a state law or federal law.

The FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017, in its entirety states:


To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for a certain effective date with respect to deemed tobacco products, to provide for the establishment of product standards for vapor product batteries, to provide for regulation of vapor products, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017’’.


Section 901(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387a(b)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘This chapter shall apply’’ and inserting the following:

(1) IN GENERAL.—This chapter shall apply’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

(2) DEEMED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.—For each tobacco product deemed subject to the requirements of this chapter pursuant to paragraph (1), each reference in sections 905(j) and 910(a)—

(A) to ‘February 15, 2007’, shall be considered to be a reference to ‘the effective date of the regulation under which a tobacco product is deemed subject to the requirements of this chapter pursuant to section 901(b)’; and

(B) to ‘21 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act’, shall be considered to be a reference to the later of—

(i) ‘21 months after the date of enactment of the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017’; and

(ii) ‘21 months after the effective date of such deeming regulation’.’’.


(a) APPLICABILITY OF STANDARDS.—Section 907 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 10 387g) and any related provisions of such Act shall apply with respect to a vapor product battery to the same extent and in the same manner as such section 907 and related provisions apply with respect to a component of a tobacco product.


(1) PROPOSED STANDARDS.—Not later than 17 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish product standards for vapor product batteries pursuant to section 907 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387g).

(2) FINAL STANDARDS.—Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate the vapor product battery standards required by this section.

(c) COMPLIANCE WITH FINAL STANDARDS.—For any vapor product (including those products in test markets) that has a battery and is commercially marketed in the United States as of the date by which final standards are required to be promulgated under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based on any change to the battery for the purpose of conforming to such final standards, shall not—

(1) require the submission of a report under section 905(j) of such Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387e(j)); or

(2) treat such vapor product as a new tobacco product for which an order is required under section 16 910(c)(1)(A)(i) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 387j(c)(1)(A)(i)).

(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘vapor product’’ has the meaning given to such term in section 20 921(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as 21 added by section 4 of this Act.


  1. IN GENERAL.—Chapter IX of the Federal Food, 24 Drug, and Cosmetic Act is amended by inserting after section 920 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 387t) the following:


  1. RELATION TO OTHER PROVISIONS.—The authorities vested in the Secretary by this section to regulate vapor products are in addition to, not in lieu of, the authorities vested in the Secretary by other sections of this Act to regulate vapor products as tobacco products.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of a vapor product shall not disseminate or cause to be disseminated advertising or labeling of the vapor product in a newspaper, magazine, periodical or other publication (whether periodic or limited distribution), other than an adult publication.

(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘adult publication’ means a newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication—

(A) whose readers younger than 18 years of age constitute 15 percent or less of the total readership as measured by competent and reliable survey evidence; and

(B) that is read by fewer than 2 million persons younger than 18 years of age as measured by competent and reliable survey evidence.


(1) IN GENERAL.—A retailer may sell vapor products only in a direct face-to-face exchange.

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) does not apply—

(A) to mail order sales; or

(B) to sales by means of a vending machine or self-service display that is located in a facility where the retailer ensures that no person under 18 years of age is present or permitted to enter at any time.

(3) CIVIL PENALTY.—A violation of this subsection shall be subject to a civil penalty under section 303(f)(9) to the same extent and in the same manner as a violation of any requirement of this Act which relates to a tobacco product.


(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017, the Secretary shall promulgate final regulations to require packages of vapor products to bear a label containing—

(A) the phrase ‘Keep Out of Reach of Children’;

(B) the phrase ‘Underage Sale Prohibited’; and

(C) if the vapor product includes nicotine in a solution or other form at the time of sale, an accurate statement of the nicotine content.

(2) MISBRANDING.—A vapor product whose label is in violation of paragraph (1) is deemed to be a misbranded tobacco product under section 903.


(1) REGISTRATION BY RETAILERS.—Every person who owns or operates an establishment in any State engaged in the retail sale of a vapor product shall register that establishment with the Secretary by the later of—

(A) 60 days after the date of the enactment of the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017; and

(B) 30 days after first engaging in such retail sale.

(2) EXCLUSION.—The requirements of this subsection do not apply with respect to any establishment subject to an active registration or retail license under—

(A) any State law relating to tobacco products; or

(B) section 905.

(3) PUBLIC ACCESS TO REGISTRATION INFORMATION.—The Secretary shall make available for inspection, to any person so requesting, any registration filed under this subsection.

(f) VAPOR PRODUCT DEFINED.—In this section:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘vapor product’—

(A) means any noncombustible product that employs a heating element, power source, electronic circuit, or other electronic, chemical, or mechanical means, regardless of shape or size, to produce vapor from nicotine in a solution or other form; and

(B) includes—

(i) any electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic cigarillo, electronic pipe, or similar product or device that is intended to produce vapor from nicotine in a solution of other form; and

(ii) nicotine in a solution or other form, whether in a cartridge or container or otherwise dispensed, that is intended to be used with or in a product described in clause (i).

(2) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘vapor product’ does not include any product regulated as a drug or device under chapter V.’’

(b) PROHIBITED ACTS.—Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(eee) The disseminating or causing to be disseminated, by a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of a vapor product, advertising or labeling of the vapor product in violation of section 921(b).

(fff) The failure of a person who owns or operates an establishment in any State engaged in the retail sale of a vapor product to register as required by section 14 921(e).’’.


Author: NEIL MCLAREN;  FEBRUARY 17, 2017