Just saw this

[drewterry]

(S)-(2)-5-ethynyl-3-(1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)pyridine HCl (SIB-1508Y, Altinicline), is a subtype-selective neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonist. In rodents, SIB-1508Y exhibited antidepressant activity, reversed age-related decrements in vigilance, and improved motor and cognitive function in primate models of Parkinson's disease. The goal of the study was to explore neurochemical effects of SIB-1508Y and its isomer, SIB-1680WD. In uitro, SIB-1508Y increased dopamine (DA) release from slices of rat striatum, nucleus accumbens (NAc), olfactory tubercles (OT) and prefrontal cortices (PFC) in a concentration-dependent manner.




This is nicotine. And this is what it does. This is from a scientific research paper on the effects of nicotine. And if what I said is nonsense then why does the FDA who is supposed to only approve safe drugs keep approving drugs with severe side effects? My dad went into a coma and almost died because of the FDA approved drug Celebrex. I cant take any medications because it gives me an anaphalatic reaction. Makes my throat swell shut. And this reaction that I get is from taking drugs that the FDA has approved and labeled as being safe.

[wv2win]

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

Drew, I've rarely read such consistent nonsense. I kept looking for some truth in what you wrote; it's nonsense.



There is an approval process set up for drugs. Nicotine is a drug. The FDA is the regulatory agency. All of the nicotine delivery systems (NRT) on the market were tested and approved by the FDA. Testing costs a fortune. But that's the legal way to get a nicotine product approved.

The rest of the ramble I'll leave to others ...

TB, I'm not disagreeing with you because your points are in line with what the FDA sees as their responsibility. But I would like to know why analogs are not considered "nicotine delivery systems" and thus under FDA control, since they do deliver nicotine. That part seems hypocritical to me.

[LaceyUnderall]

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

There is an approval process set up for drugs. Nicotine is a drug. The FDA is the regulatory agency. All of the nicotine delivery systems (NRT) on the market were tested and approved by the FDA. Testing costs a fortune. But that's the legal way to get a nicotine product approved.

The rest of the ramble I'll leave to others ...

And this is why the ecig falls in limbo. Keeping it NOT an NRT. And the importance of suppliers not marketing it as such. Yes. This changes if the Senate approves the Waxman Bill that allows the FDA control over all nicotine. But that isn't necessarily the end of our sunshine. We will have regulations. Just like we will have taxes. But to what extent is still unclear and that is why it is important that all suppliers play by the rules and stick together.

If we really want to make a statement, then users will stop supporting suppliers who make claims that bring all of us, users and suppliers, into the bad light. Think about it, if every supplier was making absolutely no claims regarding health, quitting or safety, what would the bad reports have to report? Nothing but the facts.

Smokey Joe has already PM'd suppliers with those statements on their websites telling them to change their tactics or be removed from the forum. That is a step in the right direction.

[drewterry]

Summary Mice genetically selected for high and low blood pressure were exposed to nicotine via a single injected dose or addition to drinking water for 52 weeks. In the acute study, the response of mice with high blood pressure was a statistically significant increase in blood pressure. In the chronic study the pattern of response to nicotine ingestion was similar for mice with high blood pressure and those with low. Both lines responded with an increase in blood pressure after 6 weeks followed by a decrease to below baseline blood pressure at 12 weeks.



How interesting is that? For the first six weeks the blood pressure was higher but that increase was followed by a decrease to below base line readings at twelve weeks.

[drewterry]

Originally Posted by wv2win

TB, I'm not disagreeing with you because your points are in line with what the FDA sees as their responsibility. But I would like to know why analogs are not considered "nicotine delivery systems" and thus under FDA control, since they do deliver nicotine. That part seems hypocritical to me.

I agree with this.

[leaford]

Originally Posted by wv2win

TB, I'm not disagreeing with you because your points are in line with what the FDA sees as their responsibility. But I would like to know why analogs are not considered "nicotine delivery systems" and thus under FDA control, since they do deliver nicotine. That part seems hypocritical to me.

It's not hypocritical. The FDA would love to consider them drug delivery devices. The courts, though, have ruled otherwise, and congress would have overridden the FDA even if the courts hadn't.

[drewterry]

A drug, broadly speaking, is any chemical substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.



So what about sugar? Wouldnt sugar qualify as a drug?

[leaford]

No, because metabolizing sugar is part of normal bodily function.

[drewterry]

I mean what is the criteria for whether a drug should be regulated or not? Sugar is a drug and its not regulated. Caffeine is a drug and its not regulated. So why the inconsistency? There are several drugs out there that are not regulated.

[drewterry]

Originally Posted by leaford

No, because metabolizing sugar is part of normal bodily function.

Yeah but metabolizing marijuana is also part of normal bodily function. Our brains naturally create a form of THC. Metabolizing anything could be said to be part of our normal bodily fuctions couldnt it?