> I'm thinking of things like cigarettes and alcohol, and wondering why they can be less restrictively regulated than little magnetic toys.

Probably because Bucky Balls does not have anywhere near the lobbying money that Big Tobacco does.

That and that those products predate regulatory agencies and also sience had not caught up with the dangers (till relatively recently). In other words, they are kind of grandparented into the social fabric. Gasoline is kind of the same --extremely falmmable liquid which is sold without end-user regulation.

Exactly. Everyone knows the risks associated with stuff like cigarettes and alcohol, so we can get away with things that we wouldn't be able to get away with nowadays. There's a lot of stuff that's like this; for instance, paracetamol/Tylenol would probably not be approved if it was introduced now because it's really easy to accidentally overdose on.

Very true. I would even say those go hand-in-hand. I kind of doubt they would have been so easily grandfathered in if they had not spent insane amounts of money to get there. :)

I'm not sure how things would work out in the present; from a historical perspective, turning the screws on drink seems to have had ill-side effects (such as the rise of organized crime). How could they be less regulated yet not be susceptible to corruption by organized crime? The only way I can see added regulation is via higher taxes (which seem to be quite high already, but I suppose more is okay).

Drink and smoke have age, seller, purity, potency, health warnings, advert restrictions, etc. All deserved, but I'm wondering what else they could be madated to do before making the enterprise lucrative to circuvention (org crime).