While your article on e-cigarettes states that “going cold turkey is not recommended when giving up vaping” (No need to rush’: How to give up vaping, 23 June), that’s exactly how most people succeed.
A poll last month on a Reddit “quit vaping” support group asked members what method they had used if they had quit vaping and remained nicotine-free for at least three months. Of the poll’s 172 responses, 50.6% selected “cold turkey (abrupt nicotine cessation)”. Interestingly, just 8.7% selected “gradual nicotine weaning” and 13.4% selected “nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine patch, gum, lozenge, spray or inhaler).
While your addiction suggests gradual stepped-down nicotine weaning, your instincts suggest cold turkey – 100% nicotine-free and beyond peak withdrawal within 72 hours. Trust your instincts.
And remember, while one puff would be too many and thousands not enough, it’s impossible to fail so long as all nicotine remains on the outside.
John R Polito
Recent articles on vaping have suggested again that there is not enough knowledge regarding the long-term effects of the habit, and this is especially true in relation to illegal disposable vapes (Millions of illegal vapes seized in UK in three years, data shows, 23 June). But there is good evidence that many non-vapers exposed to passive vaping suffer symptoms including sore throats, coughs, breathlessness and headaches.
Because there is no ban on vaping in enclosed spaces, as there is for smoking, many vapers believe they aren’t doing anyone else harm. But there are many individuals like me who have to leave as soon as someone vapes because of the chronic headaches it causes.
It would therefore be a proportionate preventive measure to ban vaping in enclosed spaces, as recommended by the World Health Organization. A ban such as this would send a clear message that there are potential harms from vaping, while also protecting non-vapers from the short-term, and potential long-term, effects of the habit.
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I was hoping you would consider taking the step of supporting the Guardian’s journalism.
From Elon Musk to Rupert Murdoch, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.
And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media – the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. While fairness guides everything we do, we know there is a right and a wrong position in the fight against racism and for reproductive justice. When we report on issues like the climate crisis, we’re not afraid to name who is responsible. And as a global news organization, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective on US politics – one so often missing from the insular American media bubble.
Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.