ProChat - All Things ProVape and Beyond
- Thread starter rbrylawski
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
One more inquiry, if you'd indulge me. [I know I'm a few years behind you, technologically speaking, but I love my mini, and I paid extra for the blue LED. 
]
What is y'all's opinion on beauty rings. I remember reading about different beauty rings back in the day--ProVape, Loki, Tatroe... Any of them good? Do they all spin and scratch the mod? What's the best one? I would like to use my larger tanks on my mini.
]What is y'all's opinion on beauty rings. I remember reading about different beauty rings back in the day--ProVape, Loki, Tatroe... Any of them good? Do they all spin and scratch the mod? What's the best one? I would like to use my larger tanks on my mini.
That''s the one! 44 bucks? Hmm... I'd rather get a couple of Provi rings (or extension caps
).And hello there, MsLoud!
One more inquiry, if you'd indulge me. [I know I'm a few years behind you, technologically speaking, but I love my mini, and I paid extra for the blue LED.
What is y'all's opinion on beauty rings. I remember reading about different beauty rings back in the day--ProVape, Loki, Tatroe... Any of them good? Do they all spin and scratch the mod? What's the best one? I would like to use my larger tanks on my mini.
My personal favorites are actually the ProVape ones, but that's such a personal issue/opinion...
"options are good!" - name of the quote withheld to protect the guilty...Options are excellent!
I dont know the best but on my work satin black 2.5 i use the black ring from provape, looks better then without and i just hold it so it dont spin, dripper is still loose enough for the ring to spin
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
You may be thinking of the Atmistique Twins:
I think tea is talking about a one-piece double height ring that's available.
Thank you all kindly. My cart is full of goodies. Much obliged!
Beat me.
You may be thinking of the Atmistique Twins:
I think tea is talking about a one-piece double height ring that's available.
I remember the one that telescoped. But that was a couple years ago, maybe three. And I remember Tatroe rings and extensions and stands...
Yea i didnt like the older rings or at least most of them plus the price was outrageous
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
RIP Mr. Muhammad Ali
Yeah, I just heard. So sad. RIP, Champ! Float like a butterfly...
Last edited:
Awe my favorite boxer of all time, sad day for boxing history
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
@Vape360 How many people does ProVape employ? You are the perfect example of the kind of small business the US should be proud of. I'm focusing a lot of my letters on the economic impact the regulations are vague about.
Also, does your logo appear on any trade association websites? In the FDA's Regulatory Impact Analysis they specifically chose to ignore industry estimates of the number of manufacturers impacted (claiming it "did not provide concrete data sources"), but instead went with their own estimates based on "logo counts from trade association websites and FDA listening sessions...."
I haven't been on the ProVape threads lately, since I have been reviewing regulations the members of congress may be unaware of. This is a fun one:
"Under the FFDCA [Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act], drug and device manufacturers must demonstrate that their products are both safe and effective in order to gain FDA marketing approval. The safety and effectiveness standard poses a difficult challenge for regulating tobacco products, which are manifestly unsafe when used as intended.
"Critics of FDA’s 1996 rule argued that in asserting regulatory authority over tobacco products, the agency would have no choice but to ban them because of their harmful and addictive effects.
"In commenting on the rule, the FDA conceded that tobacco products are “unsafe” as that term is generally understood, but concluded that banning tobacco products was not a realistic option because the health care system would be overwhelmed by more than 40 million nicotine addicts seeking assistance for withdrawal symptoms. Moreover, the agency argued, banning cigarettes would create an enormous black market, which might lead to the use of unregulated and potentially even more harmful products."
I didn't find the report itself all that interesting, but I liked the quote.
FDA Final Rule Restricting the Sale andDistribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco (June 24, 2010)
http://www.nacsonline.com/Advocacy/Issues//Tobacco/Documents/CRSReport.pdf
So, in 2010 the FDA was worried that 4 million nicotine addicts would overwhelm the healthcare system, yet 6 years later, after we found something that works, they are regulating it out of existence. Are they ...... that we didn't get their permission to save ourselves?
Also, does your logo appear on any trade association websites? In the FDA's Regulatory Impact Analysis they specifically chose to ignore industry estimates of the number of manufacturers impacted (claiming it "did not provide concrete data sources"), but instead went with their own estimates based on "logo counts from trade association websites and FDA listening sessions...."
I haven't been on the ProVape threads lately, since I have been reviewing regulations the members of congress may be unaware of. This is a fun one:
"Under the FFDCA [Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act], drug and device manufacturers must demonstrate that their products are both safe and effective in order to gain FDA marketing approval. The safety and effectiveness standard poses a difficult challenge for regulating tobacco products, which are manifestly unsafe when used as intended.
"Critics of FDA’s 1996 rule argued that in asserting regulatory authority over tobacco products, the agency would have no choice but to ban them because of their harmful and addictive effects.
"In commenting on the rule, the FDA conceded that tobacco products are “unsafe” as that term is generally understood, but concluded that banning tobacco products was not a realistic option because the health care system would be overwhelmed by more than 40 million nicotine addicts seeking assistance for withdrawal symptoms. Moreover, the agency argued, banning cigarettes would create an enormous black market, which might lead to the use of unregulated and potentially even more harmful products."
I didn't find the report itself all that interesting, but I liked the quote.
FDA Final Rule Restricting the Sale andDistribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco (June 24, 2010)
http://www.nacsonline.com/Advocacy/Issues//Tobacco/Documents/CRSReport.pdf
So, in 2010 the FDA was worried that 4 million nicotine addicts would overwhelm the healthcare system, yet 6 years later, after we found something that works, they are regulating it out of existence. Are they ...... that we didn't get their permission to save ourselves?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
