Re: Regulation is sensible the article is not
>The purpose of an e-cigarette is to introduce a pharmecutical into the body through the lungs.
Ur doin it rong. Depending on your technique, only a very small percentage is likely to be absorbed through the lungs because the particle size of vapour is much larger than that of smoke. The nicotine is much more readily absorbed through the mucous membranes in the mouth and nose; especially the nose, so really the optimised method of vaping is to stick it up your hooter (though I like most vapers find it just a little odd to be doing this in public).
You're right that a lot of the bill is perfectly sensible, but I submit that the regs on bottle and tank volume and concentration are not. We've already heard from one of the MEPs (now a Lord) involved in drafting the EU law admitting to the House that Big Pharma were heavily involved in the process, and this speaks volumes about whom the chosen limits serve. Any bottle I've ever bought has been child-proofed anyway, so I fail to see why volume's a concern; you can do yourself far more harm with a smaller volume of drain-cleaner, and they sell that by the gallon. Same goes for tanks, although even more so as I'm as likely to let children near my e-cig as I was my cigs and lighter. These quantitative limitations serve one purpose only: to make vaping less competitive against traditional NRT.
If I may go anecdotal again (for your benefit as you admit you are not a "vapper"): I smoked heavily for 20 years. Many attempts in that time to quit both with and without conventional NRT products got me absolutely nowhere near that goal. I tried Gen 1 e-cigs when they came on the market, but while promising, they didn't get me there either. (From what I've since read, this may well have been because although I chose 2.4 strength, the delivery was less efficient so the effective dose was much lower.) Late last year I tried again with a modern entry-level system, and within a fortnight I had stopped smoking altogether and didn't miss it. given how entrenched I'd been, I wasn't convinced I really didn't miss it and tried one at Christmas: although it was a "wimpy" budget ciggy compared to the unfiltered rollups I used to smoke, I was too disgusted to finish it.
Would the story have been the same with only 2.0 liquid available? Impossible to say, though I have my doubts. I didn't find the e-cig *more* satisfying (of my cravings) than a cigarette; it simply achieved parity. (The bonuses of smelling better, having more energy and money etc. didn't really kick in until a bit later so they wouldn't have got me there.) And I'm quite certain there are smokers still out there who are hooked harder than I was. If they don't achieve parity, if it's not *as* satisfactory, they won't quit that way and may not at all. That would be a real shame, especially when I know it's only happened so Big Pharma can trouser more cash from the NHS and us with their inferior (for many) solutions.