What the DEA (a totally different governmental organization with different motivations and biases) thinks about marijuana is reprehensible, however.

Exactly. They have approved 3 niche pharmaceutical industry replacements. Meanwhile they have kept their head in the sand regulating the 26 state cannabis industry, and we have no universal standards for contaminants, potency, etc. beyond state imposed regulations.

The CBD industry, which has been commercialized in most states, is also totally unregulated.

If your product causes harm in any way—regardless of the benefits—you're going to have a difficult time getting regulatory approval. It will also greatly affect access to the product, as not everyone has access to good doctors, and most items that are FDA-regulated requires prescriptions.

For a product which is a superior, healthier option to cigarettes, it's a massive regulatory burden that could kill the business. I can't imagine anyone would defend that as preferable to the status quo.

Question stands, is that a bad thing?

Besides not everything FDA approved becomes a prescription medication. On topic; nicotine gums and patches as smoke cessation products are widely available as OTC.

In this case, we would certainly have to consider the potentially increased harm of non-smokers taking up vaping to assess the overall harm being done, but I see the merits of the basic argument at least.

The first nicotine gum, Nicorette, began as a prescription-only product in the US.

Long story short, I can imagine a lot of valid arguments pointing in every which way here.

Why do people have to stick their noses in things that don’t affect them?