home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8243 talk.politics.medicine:687 sci.med:24439
- Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
- Path: sparky!uunet!news.claremont.edu!jarthur.claremont.edu!ebrandt
- From: ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Eli Brandt)
- Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
- Message-ID: <1993Jan26.042624.4154@muddcs.claremont.edu>
- Sender: news@muddcs.claremont.edu (The News System)
- Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
- References: <1jkjl4INN3qu@armory.centerline.com> <1993Jan21.095319.28095@muddcs.claremont.edu> <1k1gkqINN285@armory.centerline.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:26:24 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <1k1gkqINN285@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
- >Self-limiting at what level? Tobacco shows no signs of being self-limiting
- >because of death of its users at the current level of almost a half million
- >a year in the US alone.
-
- I don't see how this is relevant to the FDA or to pharmaceuticals.
- Are you suggesting that the FDA should regulate tobacco as a drug?
- (i.e. prohibit it, given that it's unsafe and medically ineffective)
- Or that the FDA should treat addictive drugs, in general, differently
- from other?
-
- The long-standing decrease in tobacco use is not *necessarily* due to
- "self-limitation", but I suspect that evidence of harm and changing
- social factors play more of a role than do increased taxes and the
- advertising prohibition.
-
- >Innumerable other drugs are addictive as well. Addiction itself is harmless
- >(except for the cost): it is the toxicity of the drug that is at issue.
-
- Good point. How many lives do you think could be saved if the FDA
- would treat alternative nicotine delivery systems more in line with
- cigarettes? They're not "safe", but even chronic nicotine
- maintenance pales next to chronic cigarette smoke inhalation.
-
- >Mike Huben
-
- PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail
- Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
-
-
-