Why the FDA will have a hard time properly regulating cannabis
Why the FDA will have a hard time properly regulating cannabis
Consumers prefer to smoke cannabis, not take single-compound pharmaceutical-grade cannabis products. For the FDA to oversee cannabis approvals, Congress may need to act.
You're viewing a single thread.
the whole point of the FDA taking over cannabis is the same as nicotine vaping
shut down the industry with over regulation that sounds positive on the surface
If that was their goal with vaping, it's been a spectacular failure. So I say they should go for it.
no it has not been a failure
the government was able to shut down most of the vape companies
some of them were very up to code being made in clean rooms good enough to make pharmaceuticals
now we have big tobacco vapes mixed in with shoddy products
have you talked to industry leaders such as business owners of some of these vape companies?
nicotine and cannabis industry is in shambles due to bad policies and laws
no wonder look at the right leaning conservatives that keep getting voted in with the latest one having a prosecutor as a vice
cannabis being rescheduled and not legalized is a trojan horse designed to make the people feel complacent and happy with only extreme regulation and the disappearance of sustainable, innovative products being the end result
I see people vaping all over the place. If their goal was to shut down the industry, that sounds like a failure to me.
This also sounds like a failure of their goal:
Reported sales of cartridge products increased from $2.133 billion in 2020 to $2.496 billion in 2021; sales of disposable, non-refillable e-cigarette products increased from $261.9 million in 2020 to $267.1 million in 2021.
Generally, profits of an industry the government is shutting down don't go up.
Sure the industry is gaining money, but you're ignoring specific company shutdowns and restrictions that shaped the industry out of the hands of certain players. There have been a lot of regulatory fingers in the pie, particularly above state level, that weren't aimed at making the populace safer but instead at making those companies unable to produce or sell their most popular products. There's also a lot of legal language bites like "e-cigarette" and "open container" that are seeing non-uniform interpretation in legal states, across vape legislature and cannabis legislature alike.
Draconic legislature isn't quite turning the country into a hellscape for consumers, sure. But it's clearly a possible side effect that isn't being considered, especially as states are beginning to take it upon themselves to start outlawing studied hemp-derived cannabinoids (like delta8/10 or THC-P or THC-A) that are provided for under the 2018 farm bill.
Tl;Dr while the industry is growing, it's clear it has enemies with legal power and that's the crux of the complaint.
Okay, but this is what OP said:
the whole point of the FDA taking over cannabis is the same as nicotine vaping
shut down the industry with over regulation that sounds positive on the surface
The vaping industry has not been shut down, it's growing, as I demonstrated. So, again, if that was their goal, it was a spectacular failure.
Cool restatement. Did you actually read what I posted instead of snipping that post though? I acknowledge it isn't working, but you can CLEARLY see intent of decisions there skewed toward market control of a new industry, especially based on the similarities (Product control focused on appeal, not risk) of legislature brought forward compared to previous concerns
I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting what OP said and why I responded to it the way I did. OP claimed the goal was to shut the vaping industry down. I showed why that wasn't true. It's not my fault if you responded to me with some unrelated point.
You don't understand my point and you wanted to dunk on someone, it's cool. Keep posting every 2 minutes without actually reading, I'm sure the karma is good for something dude
Since your point was unrelated to mine, the only thing I don't understand is why you replied to me about it.
Seems like if they wanted to shut it down, rescheduling it first would be an unnecessary step since it's currently schedule one.
It will be a messy transition, as the article points out. But I doubt the point is to shut it down. Especially considering the political climate around cannabis and the messaging from the White House.
but rescheduling allows them to add regulations just like when this happened to ejuices
Unlikely. The public and political agendas are just the opposite for the two substances: most people support the expansion of cannabis products and oppose the expansion of nicotine products.
safe effective nicotine consumption were generally supported by the public too and was being ingrained in the culture in movies and tv
now it is combustible cigarettes with alcohol being heavily promoted again as well in television and film
if the US does not stop voting in senile past retirement age religious right leaning presidents who view any alteration in the citizen's conscience it might not ever change or get better
safe effective nicotine consumption
What evidence do you have that there is such a thing?
the synthetic nicotine being produce is done with green chemistry meaning no heavy metals used in synthesis
with the nicotine being lab made no ground pollutants such as lead and other heavy metals are present just like fake vanilla extract which most seasoning coming from India with polluted soil
also less soil less environmental impact
the ingredients have gotten safer over time as well also leading to changes in other industries
hugely better product both health and environmental and all around
not to mention not have the ill effects of second hand smoke
my own lung capacity was around 80% and dropping during the years was consuming combustible nicotine and cannabis products but now is above 90% had my lungs checked by a doctor
lightyears healthier
None of that has to do with your claim, and it is also more claims instead of evidence.
Where's your evidence that there is a safe level of nicotine consumption?
Nevermind this, see my reply to squid below. I was operating under the wrong view that nicotine by itself is not cancer causing.
Safer is not safe.
I agree, it's safer. But how can we know it's safe below a certain amount for lifelong vapers when there hasn't been enough time to do a long-term study?
Wouldn't (and I say this as a long-term cannabis vaporizer myself) putting anything into the lungs on a regular basis other than air be inherently unsafe long-term?
Nothing is 100% safe. Which is why harm reduction is an important part of the conversation when discussing drug addiction.
Water is safer than tea. Tea safer than coffee. All three can in theory kill you if consumed in large enough quantities.
Anyway, I figured I would dig around more on vaping instead of just glancing at the top search result.
And, I take what I said back. Nicotine by itself causes cancer. Tobacco just makes it more likely.
As flying squid helped me see, safer doesn't mean safe.
Nicotine alone can cause cancer and while vaping is 'safer' than tobacco, in that it's less carcinogenic, it is still a carcinogen. And because of the ROA, vaping is actually more addictive than cigarettes.