Why doesn't the FDA ban cigarettes?

[thoughtfull1]

The FDA, a government agency has been put in place in order to protect consumers from products that are hazardous to the public.

Cigarettes, undoubtedly killers, go untouched. Why? Well, I guess they can't actually be catigorized as drugs, and they are certainly not food. Are they outside the FDA's jurisdiction? I don't know.

Obviously banning cigarettes would be political and fiscal suicide, but beyond that.....why don't they ban cigarettes?, if they're so damned worried about our health?

Don't get me going now Personally I have very little faith in the FDA.
How many drugs can you think of that have been recalled due to safety issues? They just seem to have a very hard time getting it right. But, if the hand get's greased enough, you can get just about anything passed them.

 

[lxconv91]

FDA is big business now. look who is in charge of it. All prior execs of large food distribution companies.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Thought--the FDA can not ban cigarettes a s a matter of law. Congress specifically adressed this last year. Cigarettes where never with the FDA's jurisdiction till last year. Now the FDA will be able to do some regulating such as banning flavorings, and eventually lowering nicotine content, but they can not ban them.


Sun

 

[redrhino]

The Part about the hand getting greased is 100% agreed.....The only problem is, it's not the FDA whose doing the greasing....But the lobbyist.....

Just My 2 Cents Worth....

 

[Vadim]

[FONT="]Tax revenue for our country,
Imagine if analogs were banned, the government would lose billions in tax revenue.
Then also if you smoke and want to quit FDA will sell you nicotine gum and nicotine patches, more tax revenue and finally when you get lung cancer you will need a doctor treatment or hospital treatment, those hospitals pay taxes.
It's a big business and the government is not about to let that go away.[/FONT]
[FONT="]At least that’s how I see it.[/FONT]

 

[shatner]

[FONT="]Tax revenue for our country, [/FONT]
[FONT="]Imagine if analogs were banned, the government would lose billions in tax revenue.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Then also if you smoke and want to quit FDA will sell you nicotine gum and nicotine patches, more tax revenue and finally when you get lung cancer you will need a doctor treatment or hospital treatment, those hospitals pay taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT="]It's a big business and the government is not about to let that go away.[/FONT]
[FONT="]At least that’s how I see it.[/FONT]

This is spot on. It's all about MONEY. Sad really.

"And if you only live for cash, well than you can kiss my .... Because you are the problem here. Am I making myself clear? AM I MAKING MYSELF CLEAR?" -30footFALL

 

[LostInDaJungle]

tobacco is an agricultural product. As such it is regulated differently.

A specific amount of Nicotine in a PG solution is considered a drug by the FDA.

Coffee beans are also regulated differently than caffiene tablets.

RJR had the same problem with marketing the "Eclipse" in which the FDA no longer considered this cigarette an agricultural product but a drug delivery system. Nicotine was no longer produced as a side effect of smoking, it was now a measured drug being delivered to the user. And questions have also been raised about the effects of heating glycerin. When burned, glycerin is known to be carcinogenic. A product ready in 1994 still has not seen the light of day due to the fear of the FDA.

The cigarette industry's efforts to market safer cigarettes have been met with fierce opposition by antitobacco activists, who want to see such products labeled as nicotine delivery devices and subjected to government regulations. Although the opposition of health groups to a safe cigarette would seem contradictory, it is borne out of a deep mistrust of the cigarette companies, whose strategy of denial over the years has created a credibility gap with the public health community.

Scientists experimented with tobacco substitutes, including ingredients made with wood pulp, that were said to be less toxic than tobacco. But those products ran into a new set of problems because they were no longer a naturally occurring tobacco product but a synthetic creation about which health claims were being made. That meant government regulators viewed the tobacco substitutes more like drugs, subjecting them to a regulatory morass that the cigarette makers wanted to avoid.

This is one of the reason that "safer" cigarette alternatives made by US companies (as far back as the 70's) have always insisted on containing real tobacco, instead of just Nic. Devices like the Ploom are what the US companies envision. Real tobacco to circumvent the FDA.

Many e-cig vendors do make claims that e-cigs are safer... That's a health claim, and the FDA gets to step in. US companies have done everything they can to stay away from "safer" claims to the extent that Philip Morris shelved research into removing Cadmium from it's tobacco, a known lung irritant.

NOVA Online | Search for a Safe Cigarette | "Safer" Cigarettes: A History

 

[UntamedRose]

"grandfathered" in kinda thing...a LOT of our OTC drugs wouldnt be available if they had to pass FDA standards for "new" drugs. Like Aspirin, wouldnt be around for one.