I don’t, and never did, for the following reasons:
The entirety of the eucharist is present in both species. One does not get “more” grace by receiving both species. I believe it was the pre-reformation heretic Jan Hus who first popularized the heresy that one needed both forms in order to have a full communion.
Receiving in the chalice (as commonly done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite) is the precious blood’s equivalent of receiving in the hand and is tantamount to self-communication. In fact, both practices became popular at about the same time. I can remember when only the priest drank the blood. Just as I believe that only a priest should handle the host, so only he should handle the chalice.
It greatly increases the danger of sacrilege by risking spillage.
It needlessly increases the number of extraordinary ministers.
(Although receiving under both forms increases the length of the Mass and is unhygenic–these are not problems for me.)
I can think of absolutely not one reason that I should receive from the chalice, as is typically done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite.
Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?