Here's the thing... ...regardless of what I know now, I do know that vaping is less harmful to me as a form of NRT. I will do what I have to in order to continue persuing that instead of continuing to smoke (which is the only other viable option I have found - I have explored the other alternatives.) I am resourceful enough to gather the knowledge and materials required in order to extract nicotine from tobacco. I understand that there are risks to doing this, but I will take them upon myself in order continue doing what I enjoy. The way I see it, the potential for a catastrophic mishap as a consequence of negligence on my part is still less than the statistically inadmissible probability that I will die an early death as a direct consequence of going back to my second most preferred form of nicotine administration, which is smoking. I trust myself to handle it on the basis of my own self-appraisal of my competence. Does that mean I can't possibly screw up? Hell no!
What actions will any body of government take to counter the intentions of people like me? What of ensuring the safety of the people then? I mean, seriously. No matter which way things go from there, measures will have become quite extreme. At that point, they have taken the ball into their court. It's action like this that makes drinkers into moonshiners and/or supporters of the illicit moonshine trade. If taken to larger proportions, it would be drug/alcohol prohibition all over again. I'm not saying there would be violent carnage of comparable magnitude (I mean, we're talking about nicotine here,) but really now... ...the people responsible for taking away the lesser of two 'evils' need to ask themselves if they have it in them to abolish all 'evil' in that form before taking steps to eliminate just one. It's not just for us that I implore such reflection, but for them and their absurd ideals as well. People who otherwise would get by just fine could be seriously hurt by such supply limitations.
Here's an idea: do the best you can to ensure that the safest, most pure form of what the people want dominates the market and you will see the biggest reduction in harm that anyone can hope for. Sure, cutting off supply is feasible in a practical sense, but what about demand? Is it pragmatic to assume this is possible by any measure?
It's just like alcohol prohibition in the sense that it is better to allow avid drinkers to have alcohol in a form that is refined and produced in accordance with the highest standards possible than it is to force them to take matters into their own hands in ways that many would consider to be rather extreme. The unfortunate reality of the world we live in is that a great many people out there are quite willing to go to extreme measures when cornered. And the burden of justification for any resulting harm lies on those who would see fit to corner them.
