I hate smoking.

[Bereta_Eder]

That makes me wonder: people smoke because of the nicotine "key" to the biochemical reactions in the brain which release ephoric substances.

To do that they smoke, necessairily intaking tar which leads to all sort of diseases but which is not the main substance for which they smoke.


Couldn't some company just put out a product that would offer, at a cheap price and widdely available like cigs in kiosks etc, the nicotine key without all those unecessairy substances that are in fact causing the health problems?

It is already been done to an extend with the smoking substitutes. What if they were marketed as alternative to smoking instea of "quitter helpers" and be made the new safe cigs?

[Japher]

paiktis; that would be nice now wouldn't it, but what kind of substance would that be, and how would it be cheaper than just growing tobacco?

I've seen those tubes that look like cigs and you put something in it that transfers nicotine to you so you get the feel and drug that you are looking for, but to make the stuff that goes in those tubes is rather expensive.

[Bereta_Eder]

I see. It's a matter of cost then. Propably the reason why in most countries I think nicotine substitutes fall under the "medics" category.

Still I'm sure if scientists put their mind to it they could eventually come up with a cheap process of creating nicotine maybe from tobacco, or even synthetic nicotine ( ) and go on with the project...

They could really make millions...

[Japher]

Problem with doin' that here (US) is that it would still fall under FDA regulations, and would probably end up as a controlled substance due to the addictive nature of that substitute.

[Bereta_Eder]

But cigs are addictive and there're not made illegal anywhere?
Basically the only difference between "old" cigs and new cigs would be that the new ones would not hurt the physiology of the "smoker". The addiction would be on the psychological and of course the biological level but without the ill effects of "regular" smoking.

[Bereta_Eder]

Of course there're must propably be a dozen of drugs that do what I say, using other substances. Psycho drugs. The difference with the "new" cigs would be that they'd have taken all the """good""" (under lots of "") of cigs and leave behind all the bad. And would be freely circulated?

[Japher]

It would still be a different product (of course) and would be addictive. Those are really hard to get through these days for everyday use. I know it's a good idea, but the laws in place would make it difficult. It would be kind of like methadone; try selling that at the local market.

[Bereta_Eder]

I see your point very well.
However doesn't it strike you as very hypocritical for all countries involved to allow that very same drug on the market IF it also comes with cancer enducing ingredients? Like regular cigs do?

I mean

[Japher]

Yes, I think it is silly that the FDA involvement with cigs are only for a consumable product and yet its primary or selling ingredient is considered a drug. Very two-sided. It would be a battle to get the less-bad product as over the counter, but a battle worth the fight, both for health purposes and for profit...