9 ms·

>Because it is a drug, and I think the FDA should regulate all drugs. It might be a drug by some definition, but it's not by law and, by the same law, FDA cann

>Because it is a drug, and I think the FDA should regulate all drugs. It might be a drug by some definition, but it's not by law and, by the same law, FDA cannot regulate all drugs but only new ones. >One, do you support the FDA regulating drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen? In general, I do not support FDA at all and think this agency has long overstepped it's mandate and in need of serious regulations for itself. In particular, I do not see how giving aspirin to FDA is going to do any good. It's not like children never got poisoned by FDA-approved drugs. >Third, are you ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation? No, only pragmatically. If you can show a regulation improving life of anybody other than people administering it on expense of general public then I am all for it.

scott_s 11y ago
The FDA already regulates other forms of nicotine (patches, gum, lozenges, sprays, inhalers). But, since you are opposed to the FDA in general, then I think our discussion of the FDA regulating this nicotine product is not productive - our disagreement is not on any particular aspect of this particular drug, but in the existence of the FDA, and regulations in general. You object to all FDA regulations, not just nicotine. That is a much larger discussion, which I don't particularly want to engage in right now.
- pandaman 11y ago
  > The FDA already regulates other forms of nicotine (patches, gum, lozenges, sprays, inhalers). And it's able to do so because these are sold as a cure for smoking i.e. a medicine. If you tried to sell charcoal as a cure for, say, cancer then FDA would be in its right to regulate you as well. I do not oppose FDA overseeing medical claims on principle. More, I think this is exactly what FDA should be doing. And I agree that this discussion is going nowhere, you seem to consider regulation good by itself, which should be enforced no matter the effects.

scott_s 11y ago

The FDA already regulates other forms of nicotine (patches, gum, lozenges, sprays, inhalers). But, since you are opposed to the FDA in general, then I think our discussion of the FDA regulating this nicotine product is not productive - our disagreement is not on any particular aspect of this particular drug, but in the existence of the FDA, and regulations in general. You object to all FDA regulations, not just nicotine. That is a much larger discussion, which I don't particularly want to engage in right now.

pandaman 11y ago
> The FDA already regulates other forms of nicotine (patches, gum, lozenges, sprays, inhalers). And it's able to do so because these are sold as a cure for smoking i.e. a medicine. If you tried to sell charcoal as a cure for, say, cancer then FDA would be in its right to regulate you as well. I do not oppose FDA overseeing medical claims on principle. More, I think this is exactly what FDA should be doing. And I agree that this discussion is going nowhere, you seem to consider regulation good by itself, which should be enforced no matter the effects.