Reply to post: Who do regulations protect?

Sorry Nanny, e-cigs have 'no serious side-effects' – researchers

frank ly

Who do regulations protect?

I'm now three months into vaping and have been tobacco free for all that time (after a failed attempt four years ago). This time, instead of the 'pen' type system, I bought a tank system and vaped 24mg strength liquid even though the tank instructions say not to use anything more than about 16mg. I found that this was the only way to satisfy the cravings I experienced. After a couple of weeks, I diluted the 24mg with 16mg to give a 20mg liquid and got used to that. I've been working my way down, using simple mixing/dilution and am now vaping 10mg liquid and I find that the cravings are much less. My intention is to get down to 4mg or less and then quit.

If you want to save money, you can dilute high strength liquid with glycerine but you lose the flavour and you get big clouds of vapour (which some people enjoy).

I believe that my failure, four years ago, was because I was using a pen system with 24mg liquid and that didn't give me enough of a 'hit' to satisfy the cravings. As I recall, organisations that seem to be against vaping have recommended that the maximum strength of vaping liquid made available to the public should be set at a low level to 'protect them from harm'. It would appear, at least in the case of people like me, that this would have the effect of protecting BB&P from people quitting tobacco.

I realise that some people will say that 'the public' must be protected from their own foolishness but I can easily buy enough whiskey to kill myself, so what's that about? Oh, government tax income, yes. I hope I can stop before they get regulated/taxed.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019