--

Tobacco to be regulated?

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/1631486/

>> The bill, which the Senate health committee was expected to approve Wednbesday and which is identical to House legislation, would give the FDA the same authority over cigarettes and other tobacco products that it now has over drugs, food, medical devices and other consumer products. <<
Permalink Send private email xampl 
July 25th, 2007 1:57pm
Tobacco has always been regulated.  Haven't you heard about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?  Also known as "The ATF"?

They're just talking about moving the regulation of Tobacco under the FDA.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 25th, 2007 2:08pm
So the ATF agents are all gonna need new jackets?
Permalink Send private email Philo 
July 25th, 2007 2:16pm
I think they should leave tobacco right where it is, an agency devoted to three things that can kill people.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 25th, 2007 2:19pm
"ATF Snapshot 2007
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is a principal law enforcement agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) dedicated to reducing violent crime, preventing terrorism, and protecting our nation. ATF has dual responsibilities for enforcing federal criminal laws and regulating the firearms and explosives industries."

Preventing Terrorism is now an agenda of DOJ? HaHaHa...
Permalink Rick Zeng 
July 25th, 2007 2:23pm
Oy, Chinese-Canadians.  They gots no respect for anti-Terrorism efforts.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 25th, 2007 2:24pm
A cigarette is nothing more than a drug delivery system, so putting it under FDA jurisdiction works for me.
Permalink Aaron 
July 25th, 2007 2:31pm
I don't really think Tobacco should be given to the FDA.  A known carcinogen risk, to be consistent the FDA would probably have to ban the stuff, if it's treated as a Food or Drug.

I mean, why rock the boat at this point?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 25th, 2007 2:35pm
Tobacco's not really a drug, because it has no medicinal or positive purpose.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 25th, 2007 2:36pm
Exactly.  So why give it to the Food and Drug Administration?  Makes no sense.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 25th, 2007 2:37pm
"Tobacco's not really a drug, because it has no medicinal or positive purpose."

Which is why I've heard repeatedly of psychiatrists prescribing smoking habits to the chronically stressed, depressed, and obsessed.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 25th, 2007 3:02pm
Not that I believe anything about head shrinkers.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 25th, 2007 3:03pm
So what are the medicinal or positive effects of smoking meth?
Permalink Aaron 
July 25th, 2007 4:30pm
Therapeutic uses of nicotine:

"...in a few situations, smoking has been observed to apparently be of therapeutic value to patients. These are often referred to as "Smoker’s Paradoxes"[11]. Although in most cases the actual mechanism is understood only poorly or not at all, it is generally believed that the principal beneficial action is due to the nicotine administered, and that administration of nicotine without smoking may be as beneficial as smoking, without the high risk to health.

For instance, recent studies suggest that smokers require less frequent repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).[11] Risk of ulcerative colitis has been frequently shown to be reduced by smokers on a dose-dependent basis; the effect is eliminated if the individual stops smoking.[12][13] Smoking also appears to interfere with development of Kaposi's sarcoma,[14] breast cancer among women carrying the very high risk BRCA gene,[15] preeclampsia,[16] and atopic disorders such as allergic asthma.[17] A plausible mechanism of action in these cases may be nicotine acting as an anti-inflammatory agent, and interfering with the inflammation-related disease process, as nicotine has vasoconstrictive effects.[18]

With regard to neurological diseases, a large body of evidence suggests that the risks of Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease might be twice as high for non-smokers than for smokers.[19] Many such papers regarding Alzheimer's disease[20] and Parkinson's Disease[21] have been published. A plausible mechanism of action in these cases may be the effect of nicotine, a cholinergic stimulant, in decreasing the levels of acetylcholine in the smoker's brain; Parkinson's disease occurs when the effect of dopamine is less than that of acetylcholine.

Recent studies have indicated that nicotine can be used to help adults suffering from Autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy. The same areas that cause seizures in that form of epilepsy are also responsible for processing nicotine in the brain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Therapeutic_uses
Permalink O^O 
July 25th, 2007 4:31pm
There is nothing wrong with tobacco, it's a fine herb. Yeah, if you smoke anything it can hurt your lungs, so ? Next you'll be saying the FDA should regulate pot.

What needs to be made illegal is additives like tar, cyanide and arsenic which are designed to increase the saturation of nicotine in the blood stream, to make you addicted, and which are also responsible for most of the carcinogenic effect.

When was the last time you saw someone addicted to cigars? It's a lot rarer than cigarettes, because cigars don't have those additives.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 25th, 2007 6:22pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics