Alright... I haven't read through the many many threads on this topic so please excuse me. I've been thinking a lot about this and from the information I've gathered there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between the affects of nicotine and caffeine on the body. You can buy MASSIVE amounts of caffeine in pill form... liquid form. I supposed not vapor but still. I'm not sure where I'm going with this because I guess the FDA does have some kind of regulations on the distribution of caffeine. They just seem very loose whatever they are.
I guess my point is that the focus seems to be that nicotine is a drug but caffeine is also a drug and no one seems to bat an eye at that.
Sorry about the length of what I am posting herein, but Dietary Supplement regulation is a very similar issue to ours. We could learn something from how the grassroots movements in the mid-90's were able to get their products protected from Big Brother. There is far more at wiki (
Dietary supplement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) on this, but a strikingly relevant excerpt is as follows (Especially note Clinton's quote in the middle). Maybe we should try to communicate their successes as precedent in our letters to congress, govs, etc?
United States Regulation
Pursuant to the DSHEA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates dietary supplements as foods, and not as drugs. While pharmaceutical companies are required to obtain FDA approval proving the safety or effectiveness of their products prior to their entry into the market, dietary supplements, like food, do not need to be pre-approved by FDA before they can enter the market.[13]
The DSHEA gave the FDA the express responsibility to regulate the manufacturing processes of dietary supplements, and the FDA issued its first proposed rule in 2003.[14] In June 2007 it issued its final rule,[15] which requires all dietary supplement manufacturers to ensure by June 2010 that production of dietary supplements complies with current good manufacturing practices, and be manufactured with "controls that result in a consistent product free of contamination, with accurate labeling."[16] In addition, the industry is now required to report to the FDA "all serious dietary supplement related adverse events." The new rules have been criticized, however, with skeptics arguing lack of FDA resources, loopholes, and an exception on quality assurance for raw material suppliers (with the burden placed on manufacturers) will lead to continued quality problems.[17] There's also concern that supplement manufacturers and retailers will hide behind the new regulations.[17] Prior to the rule supplements have had major quality problems, and the number of FDA investigators has declined.[18]
The DSHEA, passed in 1994, was the subject of lobbying efforts by the manufacturers of dietary supplements.[19][20] At the time of its passage DSHEA received strong support from consumer grassroots organizations and members of Congress. In recognition of this, President Bill Clinton, on signing DSHEA into law, stated that "After several years of intense efforts, manufacturers, experts in nutrition, and legislators, acting in a conscientious alliance with consumers at the grassroots level, have moved successfully to bring common sense to the treatment of dietary supplements under regulation and law." He also noted that the passage of DSHEA "speaks to the diligence with which an unofficial army of nutritionally conscious people worked democratically to change the laws in an area deeply important to them" and that "In an era of greater consciousness among people about the impact of what they eat on how they live, indeed, how long they live, it is appropriate that we have finally reformed the way government treats consumers and these supplements in a way that encourages good health."[21]
Popular support may have been based on a misunderstanding of the situation after the deregulation of the supplement industry. A large survey by the AARP, for example, found that 77% of respondents (including both users and non-users of supplements) believed that the federal government should review the safety of dietary supplements and approve them before they can be marketed to consumers.[22] In an October 2002 nationwide Harris poll, 59% of respondents believed that supplements had to be approved by a government agency before they could be marketed; 68% believed that supplements had to list potential side effects on their labels; and 55% believed that supplement labels could not make claims of safety without scientific evidence. All of these beliefs were incorrect as a result of provisions of the DSHEA.[23]
