blase deviant said:
I wonder how much crap cigarette makers would get if they tried to make cigarettes with something that had higher affinity for nicotinic receptors/the dopamine receptors. It's not exactly as if cigarettes are FDA approved... or are they approved because of the labelling?
I think the FDA/DEA position is the same pragmatic view most regulators take :- that if tobacco was suddenly discovered today then they would try to prevent its sale by making it illegal, but because its already here and there is a lot of money involved, they put up with it. The tobacco lobby is powerful, well connected and very effective. the drug legalisation lobby in comparison is a total non-entity. The only country with a total ban on smoking tobacco is Bhutan, all they have done is create a lucrative illicit market.
I can only really talk about the UK situtation, but in the UK nicotine in the form of cigarettes/tobacco is specificallly exempt from a lot of medicinal products legislation, but pure nicotine itself is controlled as a medicinal product...so the impure natural product can be sold anywhere, the pure ingredient is controlled, in some countries pharmaceutical nicotine, in the form of patches, inhalors and gums are prescription only. there is also no attempt to promote nicotine patches, gums etc as cigarrette replacements, they are specifically marketed as quitting aids and are designed not to fully substitute for the nicotine hit from cigarettes. I understand in the UK there was a deal done in the mid 80's between regulators and manufacturers of nicotine type quitting aids regarding the promotion and design of the products.
Epibatidine type compounds for recreational use would only be tolerated if they were sensibly introduced and backed by a rich and powerful lobby, and such a lobby would have to be richer and more powerful than the tobbacco lobby. never going to happen. if the epibatitine type compounds are fun than they will rapidly become prescription only and controlled drugs.
Tobacco manufacturers are not interested in more effective and safer replacements for cigarettes, the profit margin on tobacco is more than sufficient. they also know that by introducing a safer form they tacitly admit that the current forms are unsafe... they can absorb any current litigation costs and pass it on to the consumer but cannot take a massive hit.
Governments by the same token know that it is easily taxed and provides a very good revenue stream, far greater than the health care costs, so thay make a noise about preventing smoking, but in reality they are not too bothered, except when they think they will not get their duty!!! it all seems to work rather well, the big players win. The small players lose.
that has become a bit of a rant,
apologies
v
