Nicotine is a drug, and should be regulated at least as other over-the-counter drugs are. It's also important to keep in mind that the liquid nicotine used by the e-cig is concentrated and toxic: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-...

It is a drug as is caffeine and dextromethorphan. The former is marketed (to children!) and shown to be enjoyed by characters in popular television shows; the latter is sold in general stores, not necessarily just pharmacies. It is the ingredient in dayquil. Nicotine is a mild stimulant just like caffeine. I'm trying to find studies that compare it but I can only find scientific american and sky news stories that just say that many argue that nicotine is no more bad for you than caffeine.

I'm not clear on this point: do you think we are in disagreement? Both of the drugs you listed are regulated by the FDA. There is also a big difference between a can of Coke and a bottle of caffeine pills. The latter is similar to the vials of liquid nicotine (which are toxic, since they are are concentrations well above the standard dose).

Should nicotine be more regulated than caffeine?

I think on par with caffeine makes sense - but keep in mind that the relevant comparison here is not a can of Coke, but a bottle of caffeine pills. The latter has stricter standards than the former.

So instant coffee should be regulated by FDA? What about table salt? Also sold in deadly amounts everywhere. Vinegar?

I am not even talking about toxic common household chemicals - just the food items, directly intended for consumption.

I have no doubt FDA would love to regulate all of the above but it's specifically prevented from this. AFAIK it cannot regulate substances, which were in use when FDA was established. I hope somebody takes them to court since nicotine had been in use long before FDA.

Technically, all of that is regulated by the FDA, since food safety is part of their mandate. But they don't have extra regulations when caffeine is naturally occurring in a food. They do, however, have extra regulations when caffeine is added to a food (such as energy drinks), and part of that regulation says how much caffeine can be added.

I think people are confusing "regulation" with "I need a doctor's prescription to buy". Caffeine is already regulated by the FDA.

I think you are confusing food safety and "I need to be paid $1M+ if you want to sell this" shakedown.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. My contention is that these nicotine vials should be at least as regulated as other over-the-counter drugs, such as ibuprofen. Do you disagree with that?

Or maybe we should back up even further. Are you ideologically opposed to all kinds of regulation, including the kind of regulation the FDA already applies to existing over-the-counter and prescription drugs?

>I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. My contention is that these nicotine vials should be at least as regulated as other over-the-counter drugs, such as ibuprofen. Do you disagree with that?

Yes I do. The regulation in OP has nothing to do with safety and everything with giving the monopoly to the right people. If you are concerned about safety then the generic food/household chemicals safety protocols are applicable here. Nobody needs to go through FDA approval for the new vintage of every wine on the market. You can even blend different grapes! FDA has no say in this.

More - safety is not a problem now. There are no reports of people suffering en masse from unregulated e-juice or premium cigars. Then, why exactly do they need to be regulated?

I thought I was clear on my point, but I suppose not. I will try to clarify again.

In the beginning of the thread, I said that I do not necessarily think the regulations should be the same as cigarettes. In other words, I am not sure if I agree with the regulations that are described in the article. I bring this up because you said "the regulation in the OP has nothing to do..." in a manner that implies to me that you think I am discussing those regulations. I am not.

However, several people have said they want no regulation, which to me seems extreme. That would make the regulation of liquid nicotine less than that of other drugs like caffeine, ibuprofen and aspirin.

I find your wine example to be strange, as wine and alcoholic drinks in general are heavily regulated, just not by the FDA. For wine specifically, see: https://www.ttb.gov/wine/index.shtml

To your question, which is why do I think think these vials should be regulated the same as existing drugs? Because it is a drug, and I think the FDA should regulate all drugs. Drug safety is generally not a problem because of regulation. I also linked to a NYT article which shows that there are problems where children handle the liquid nicotine and get very sick. Liquid nicotine is toxic, which some people don't realize. And it is a problem with "supplements" which the FDA is not allowed to regulate. So, three questions. One, do you support the FDA regulating drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen? Two, if you do, why do you want to treat nicotine differently? Third, are you ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation?

I ask the third question because if you are ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation, then there's no point in discussing the particulars of regulating nicotine.

>Because it is a drug, and I think the FDA should regulate all drugs.

It might be a drug by some definition, but it's not by law and, by the same law, FDA cannot regulate all drugs but only new ones.

>One, do you support the FDA regulating drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen?

In general, I do not support FDA at all and think this agency has long overstepped it's mandate and in need of serious regulations for itself. In particular, I do not see how giving aspirin to FDA is going to do any good. It's not like children never got poisoned by FDA-approved drugs.

>Third, are you ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation?

No, only pragmatically. If you can show a regulation improving life of anybody other than people administering it on expense of general public then I am all for it.

The FDA already regulates other forms of nicotine (patches, gum, lozenges, sprays, inhalers).

But, since you are opposed to the FDA in general, then I think our discussion of the FDA regulating this nicotine product is not productive - our disagreement is not on any particular aspect of this particular drug, but in the existence of the FDA, and regulations in general. You object to all FDA regulations, not just nicotine. That is a much larger discussion, which I don't particularly want to engage in right now.

> The FDA already regulates other forms of nicotine (patches, gum, lozenges, sprays, inhalers).

And it's able to do so because these are sold as a cure for smoking i.e. a medicine. If you tried to sell charcoal as a cure for, say, cancer then FDA would be in its right to regulate you as well. I do not oppose FDA overseeing medical claims on principle. More, I think this is exactly what FDA should be doing. And I agree that this discussion is going nowhere, you seem to consider regulation good by itself, which should be enforced no matter the effects.

For about $30 you can buy enough caffeine powder to kill a horse. Not highly regulated.

The regulation doesn't make it expensive; the regulation ensures that it is pure.

Yes, thank you. Regulation is why when you buy, say, ibuprofen from the drug store, you are confident that it is actually ibuprofen. Because it is a drug, it is held to different standards than, say, strawberries by the FDA.

I think the problem here is that people use "regulation" as a synonym for "hard to get", but that's not what it means. Yes, part of regulation is in controlling consumer access, but regulation also applies to the manufacturing and distribution of the drug.

It's also worth noting that in the future, the FDA may enact stricter controls on powdered caffeine: http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm460...

I sympathize with the libertarian "I should be able to decide what I put in my body" but the fact is that right now anyone using e-cigs has no idea what's in that juice they fill their devices with. Studies have found some pretty nasty stuff in there (besides the nicotine) including diacetyl. If you want to encounter corporate overlords, try suing them after the fact for destroying your lungs. They will argue you knew it's dangerous and you decided to put it in your body.

The point is we have a drug that's known to be addictive and cancerous - and it's sold over the counter. Smokers don't know what's in a cigarette and they don't care. So in this grand equation - exactly how does regulation benefit anyone besides the tobacco industry and their crony bureaucrats? The word regulatory capture comes to mind.

> the fact is that right now anyone using e-cigs has no idea what's in that juice they fill their devices with.

The majority of mainstream manufacturers are very straightforward about EXACTLY is in their juice, and the industry has been very responsible with self-regulation, such as with diacetyl which seems to be a genuine possible risk and is now largely avoided.