4 ms·

> make nicotine a schedule I controlled substance at the federal level. No longer can bigwig suits legally addict our country to a deadly drug. Forgive my igno

> make nicotine a schedule I controlled substance at the federal level. No longer can bigwig suits legally addict our country to a deadly drug. Forgive my ignorance, but my understanding is that nicotine by itself is not particularly deadly, merely addictive. The only reason we consider nicotine any worse than caffeine is because of all the genuinely deadly stuff that comes along for the ride with typical nicotine delivery mechanisms (i.e. cigarettes.) If we had to smoke to get caffeine instead of drink tasty and arguably healthy beverages it would be just as stigmatized.

didibus 8y ago
Is caffeine really addictive? Comparatively to nicotine? I find issue in selling addictive products, not in terms of health, but just financial abuse. Like Casinos, micro-transactions in games, etc. The buyer is drugged by your product to need to buy more of it. There's definitly a bit of a moral dilemma here.
- morpheuskafka 8y ago
  Agreed--I'd argue that a physically harmless, pleasure causing, addictive product is inherently worth of regulation. Dependence (use without truly wanting to) and abuse (use despite harm--which can arguably include financial harm even with no physiological affects) are the criteria for a substance use disorder which is in itself a medical diagnosis. Products that serve no useful purpose and readily lead to the development of use disorders should not be sold.
dreamcompiler 8y ago
Tar poisons the lungs; nicotine poisons the heart. This is oversimplified but it's not wrong.
morpheuskafka 8y ago
You are correct in that its not deadly in it's own right, I should have written that tobacco should be banned and nicotine with it. However, I think it certainly is fair to consider attendant consequences of its modes of abuse in regulating it--while the drug itself is not lethal in normal patterns of abuse, it's patterns of abuse do lead to deaths. It's acute lethal dose can be as little as 500mg and it is considered a deadly posion; it's actually a good thing in that regard that nicotine is rarely used "directly," as it would be hard to develop poisoning from regular use. But with the liquid in vapes themselves, that is a concern, particularly if small children have access. In terms of chronic effects, the biggest concern is adolescents and effects on brain development--not deadly, but definitely a direct harm from the drug itself. It is not a carcinogen, but it may be a tumor promoter. And it can lead to death or severe harm to the fetus if used by a pregnant mother as it crosses the placenta readily (a case of chronic levels harmless to mother reaching acute toxicity levels against the tiny weight of the baby). Lastly, the harvesting of tobacco does lead to consequences for the workers such as GTS which can cause serious symptoms. And regarding the addictive affect itself, I do see your point with regard to caffeine, however, I think it is important to consider the relative magnitude of its effects. Caffeine can lead to dependence and withdrawal, but the frequency of these effects doesn't lead to a public health concern on the level of nicotine, which is one of the core factors for a CSA scheduling action.

didibus 8y ago

Is caffeine really addictive? Comparatively to nicotine? I find issue in selling addictive products, not in terms of health, but just financial abuse. Like Casinos, micro-transactions in games, etc. The buyer is drugged by your product to need to buy more of it. There's definitly a bit of a moral dilemma here.

morpheuskafka 8y ago
Agreed--I'd argue that a physically harmless, pleasure causing, addictive product is inherently worth of regulation. Dependence (use without truly wanting to) and abuse (use despite harm--which can arguably include financial harm even with no physiological affects) are the criteria for a substance use disorder which is in itself a medical diagnosis. Products that serve no useful purpose and readily lead to the development of use disorders should not be sold.

dreamcompiler 8y ago

Tar poisons the lungs; nicotine poisons the heart. This is oversimplified but it's not wrong.

morpheuskafka 8y ago

You are correct in that its not deadly in it's own right, I should have written that tobacco should be banned and nicotine with it. However, I think it certainly is fair to consider attendant consequences of its modes of abuse in regulating it--while the drug itself is not lethal in normal patterns of abuse, it's patterns of abuse do lead to deaths. It's acute lethal dose can be as little as 500mg and it is considered a deadly posion; it's actually a good thing in that regard that nicotine is rarely used "directly," as it would be hard to develop poisoning from regular use. But with the liquid in vapes themselves, that is a concern, particularly if small children have access. In terms of chronic effects, the biggest concern is adolescents and effects on brain development--not deadly, but definitely a direct harm from the drug itself. It is not a carcinogen, but it may be a tumor promoter. And it can lead to death or severe harm to the fetus if used by a pregnant mother as it crosses the placenta readily (a case of chronic levels harmless to mother reaching acute toxicity levels against the tiny weight of the baby). Lastly, the harvesting of tobacco does lead to consequences for the workers such as GTS which can cause serious symptoms. And regarding the addictive affect itself, I do see your point with regard to caffeine, however, I think it is important to consider the relative magnitude of its effects. Caffeine can lead to dependence and withdrawal, but the frequency of these effects doesn't lead to a public health concern on the level of nicotine, which is one of the core factors for a CSA scheduling action.