I ran across this article while doing some research. It was written back in 2001.
http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/nrtcritique.pdf
It recommends that regulators encourage the development of less harmful forms of nicotine delivery devices to compete with cigarettes.
And this explains why it took a small Chinese manufacturer to develop e-cigarettes.
McNeill, Foulds, and Bates did and excellent job of predicting the future.
http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/nrtcritique.pdf
It recommends that regulators encourage the development of less harmful forms of nicotine delivery devices to compete with cigarettes.
And this explains why it took a small Chinese manufacturer to develop e-cigarettes.
NRT is currently treated much like any other medication with a fairly cautious approach to the issues of efficacy, safety and abuse potential. If a food or pharmaceutical company could create a nicotine delivery device that competed with cigarettes in terms of satisfaction and speed of nicotine delivery, it is likely that medicines regulators would refuse it a license on the grounds of its higher dependence potential, abuse liability, possibly higher risk of intoxication (although as with cigarettes they could be designed to minimize this) and possible cardiovascular toxicity compared with other NRT products. Meanwhile, tobacco products with equal addictiveness and much greater respiratory, cardiovascular and carcinogenic toxicity will continue to be freely sold. Non-tobacco nicotine products, if they were acceptable to consumers as alternatives to tobacco and widely marketed, could make very substantial public health gains by reducing the harm caused by recreational tobacco use. Given the likely failure of such products to surmount the regulatory hurdles provided by the medicines regulators, there is little incentive for companies to develop and produce them.
McNeill, Foulds, and Bates did and excellent job of predicting the future.