The problem with failing to approve a drug because it's not "safe" is that someone has to decide what is "safe" and what isn't. And the trouble is that no drug is truly "safe". And so political and moral factors, and pressure groups, enter into the decision. You could make a case against birth-control pills and morning-after pills and abortion as being "unsafe" - and you could find data to back it up. In the case I cited above, there is a large community of people who have made an informed decision, with their doctors support and monitoring, to accept the known risks of a drug because it makes their lives livable.

Insisting on truth in advertising is one thing. But telling people who are incapcitated without a drug "it's not worth the risk" is no less an imposition of morality than saying "it'll make you a slut" or "we're protecting your immortal soul". The decision to ingest a chemical should reside with the informed consumer, and with the consumer alone.