Re:Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
by acituan on Thursday July 08, 2021 @11:24AM
(#27773156)
> If your product causes harm in any way—regardless of the benefits—you're going to have a difficult time getting regulatory approval
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.
Re:Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
by twojacobtwo on Thursday July 08, 2021 @11:52AM
(#27773639)
I think the implication is that a product can do some harm, while reducing the overall harm in the system. In this case, vaping might cause some harm, but it potentially reduces the overall harm by doing much less harm than cigarettes. I believe the comment is saying that, by pushing for regulatory approval, the product may never enter the market and would thus not be able to reduce the overall harm being done.
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.
Re:Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
by TedDoesntTalk on Thursday July 08, 2021 @12:12PM
(#27773967)
> Nicotine gums and patches as smoke cessation products are widely available as OTC.
The first nicotine gum, Nicorette, began as a prescription-only product in the US.
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.