Calls to CDC on e-cigs ramp up


The CDC says it received 225 calls in February to its poison centers in regard to exposure to the type of liquid nicotine used in e-cigarettes.

Many of the calls involved questions on accidental or secondary exposure to liquid nicotine.

E-cigarette products aren't currently regulated by the FDA.

Shares of Lorillard (LO -2.8%) and Victory Electronic (ECIG -3.6%) are down a bit further than tobacco peers (MO, RAI, VGR, PM, XXII) with the e-cig news a potential factor.

From other sites
Comments (28)
  • frosty
    , contributor
    Comments (720) | Send Message
     
    So the thing that's most dangerous in cigarettes, nicotine which is a poison, and is addictive, is the primary ingredient in e-cigs. I don't understand why these things aren't banned. What if someone came up with a consumable (cig, food, drink) that contained low doses of arsenic? Wouldn't that be banned?
    3 Apr 2014, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • J Paradiso
    , contributor
    Comments (24) | Send Message
     
    You sir, are uninformed.
    Nicotine is NOT the thing that is the most dangerous in cigarettes. While in large quantities Nicotine can be poisonous, in the percentages used in e-cigs it is not.
    The harm from cigarettes comes from the tars created by the combustion of dried leaves and inhaled into the lungs.
    It's really a shame that all of this panic is ensuing around a development that has the potential to help a lot of people. By the time the well meaning do-gooders are done, vaping will be such a PIA that few will bother and instead continue to smoke cigarettes.
    3 Apr 2014, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • WestEndDividend
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    I agree with you, but as a point of clarification, it does appear that the nicotine itself acts as a 'potentiator' in the lungs for the with respect to cancer formation. The carcinogens come from the tars, and the nicotine releases free radicals at the level of the lung, these interact to form unstable situations that can form into cancers. I am paraphrasing research so it is a rough explanation. So for instance despite more tar in cannabis, people who only use cannabis do not get lung diseases (or heart diseases) at higher rates than non smokers.
    4 Apr 2014, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1893) | Send Message
     
    re "in the percentages used in e-cigs it is not".
    Show me some legitimate studies or tests proving that - preferably not from the manufacturers.
    Nicotine is POISONOUS. It is a POISON. It is harmful to the body in ANY amount.
    It is ADDICTIVE and at some point the ecigs will result in more smoking to get the nicotine back into the smokers body. Remember the "low" nicotine cigarettes like Carleton, etc. We ended up smoking more of them. Ask any smokers how many time they have tried to quit. Why do they fail? The TARS are NOT addictive - the NICOTINE contained in them IS. You are at best being deceptive and disingenuous. Education & price is the only thing that will reduce smoking. Maybe the legalization of cannabis will solve the problem - sure.
    3 Apr 2014, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • Husker Bob
    , contributor
    Comments (1453) | Send Message
     
    Trans fats slowly but surely kill.

     

    Alcohol can kill slowly or quickly.

     

    Cars are pretty darn dangerous.

     

    Ban them all!
    3 Apr 2014, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • WestEndDividend
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    The 'being so hard to quit' thing is largely a myth. There is a great book out now that confirms what I always thought: smoking is not that hard to quit, if you actually want to stop. Most smokers try to quit for others and do not want to stop.

     

    My girlfriend quit in one day after smoking for ten years, her dad quit in one day after smoking a pack and a half daily for almost forty years. It really isn't that hard as long as you want to, and have the willpower to face social situations where people smoke.
    4 Apr 2014, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • WTF-Over
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    So frickin funny. Smoking a joint is "OK" but Lord don't have a cigarette.
    3 Apr 2014, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • ScooterSC
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    Liberal rationalization?
    3 Apr 2014, 04:55 PM Reply Like
  • WestEndDividend
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    Or your own confirmation bias? cannabis has none of the long term problems associated with tobacco simply because it doesn't contain nicotine. It contains lots of tars, but people who smoke only cannabis do not get: emphysema, heart disease, or lung cancer above the normal rates for non smokers. Learn a bit it may help you in life
    4 Apr 2014, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1893) | Send Message
     
    " Learn a bit it may help you in life"
    From Wiki-
    Cannabis smoke contains thousands of organic and inorganic chemicals, including many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke.[25] A 2012 literature review by the British Lung Foundation suggested that the risk of developing lung cancer is nearly 20 times higher from smoking typical cannabis cigarettes than from smoking tobacco cigarettes, due to deeper, longer inhalation and the lack of filters.[26] They identified cannabis smoke as a carcinogen and also said awareness of the danger was low compared with the high awareness of the dangers of smoking tobacco particularly among younger users. They said there was an increased risk from each cannabis cigarette due to drawing in large puffs of smoke and holding them.
    One of the problems has been that the lack of legalization has limited research. Very recently increases of medical problems reported to the CDC has been noted. I think there was a death the other day from ingesting a MJ cookie. We will now see some more problems.
    4 Apr 2014, 03:53 PM Reply Like
  • WestEndDividend
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    ...aaand that is why wikipedia is a poor source of information. You didn't think I just made it up without looking at the data first, did you?

     

    It turns out that the presence of carcinogens is not enough for cancers to form, despite the assumptions of various lung and anti-drug associations before the research was done.

     

    check out the recent review on the topic, it is all over the internet if you look:
    http://wapo.st/1qg7rD3

     

    " The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

     

    The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

     

    "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

     

    http://ti.me/1qg7rD4

     

    "... specific properties of marijuana also matter. He says that THC has anti-inflammatory and immune suppressing properties, which may prevent lung irritation from developing into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a devastating lung disorder frequently caused by tobacco smoking.

     

    As for cancer, he says, “the THC in marijuana has well-defined anti-tumoral effects that have been shown to inhibit the growth of a variety of cancers in animal models and tissue culture systems, thus counteracting the potentially tumorigenic effects of the procarcinogens in marijuana smoke.”
    "
    16 Jul 2014, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1893) | Send Message
     
    Seeing as you are responding to a comment made over 3 months ago I guess you haven't got around to reading the subsequent comments. Having lost my mother, father & grandmother to lung cancer from smoking I guess they weren't aware of all the benefits from nicotine, etc.
    It's reassuring to hear that THC is now the new wonder drug. Obviously it's possible to find (fund) studies to support just about anything today.
    17 Jul 2014, 02:48 PM Reply Like
  • WestEndDividend
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    I see you are hurt by your experiences. My grandfather died of lung cancer though he never smoked. I know what that pain is like to watch from close range.

     

    But come now, I never said cannabis was beneficial, just that studies show that it doesn't cause cancer on it's own, or certain other lung diseases associated with smoking tobacco.

     

    nicotine has no benefits that I know of. except as a pesticide.

     

    The facts are there, and if they were not the facts, the massive amount of anti-drug studies would have found it and trumpeted the results far and wide. It is irresponsible to go around saying that the majority are the other way, when for decades only fiercely anti-drug studies were allowed anywhere. Now that we are able to look, it turns out that our anti-drug organizations have not been entirely honest with our citizenry.

     

    This is not to say that drugs are good, just that we should not demonize something by stretching the truth about it.

     

    nicotine and alcohol turn out to be some of the most dangerous drugs around...
    13 Aug 2014, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1893) | Send Message
     
    Some pretty interesting additional research info:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/1kvQflS

     

    Specifically info on reduced nicotine products:
    Table of Contents
    Section 2. The Changing Cigarette

     

    Introduction
    Cigarette Design Changes over the Years
    New Cigarette Products
    Low-Nicotine Cigarettes
    Cigarette-Like Products
    Evaluation of New Cigarette Products
    New Oversight of Tobacco Products
    Summary
    Conclusions
    References
    3 Apr 2014, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • insp699
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    The cdc involvement will undoubtedly open the doors for the anti e-cigarette politicians to pass a law, impose a tax, raise the prices, and get involved for the good of the public.
    How does someone accidentally drink nicotine fluid?
    Is that like accidentally drinking anti-freeze?
    Maybe the CDC will have the government regulate and put poison warnings on our Cars Radiators soon.
    3 Apr 2014, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • aaronsams
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    well, its like this,when ever a new product such as e-cigs hit the market, the first thing some one out in far left field wants to do is test a product such as taking a drink or to taste the nicotine only to discover that it wasn't a good idea after all.just like energy drinks have the same complaints it appears that this type of product will have the same concerns.
    3 Apr 2014, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • Purple_K
    , contributor
    Comments (508) | Send Message
     
    Bill D and Frosty-

     

    Your woeful ignorance is matched only by your willingness to display it publicly. Nicotine isn't a poison, despite its deriving from the nightshade family. With the wonders of the internets you would think people would do a 3 second Google search before getting on a message board and bellowing stupidly: http://bit.ly/1ll67c2

     

    Nicotine imitates the body's primary skeletal muscle neurotransmitter, acetylcholine. Despite the addictive qualities, which is another debate entirely, it isn't in and of itself "Nicotine is POISONOUS. It is a POISON. It is harmful to the body in ANY amount."

     

    Also inaccurate. From Wiki http://bit.ly/1ll67c2
    "Historically, nicotine has not been regarded as a carcinogen.[66] The IARC has not evaluated nicotine in its standalone form or assigned it to an official carcinogen group. While no epidemiological evidence supports that nicotine alone acts as a carcinogen in the formation of human cancer, research over the last decade has identified nicotine's carcinogenic potential in animal models and cell culture" key word : *POTENTIAL* That is far different from being a poison. Millions of everyday substances have carcinogenic potential when used in amounts far outside their natural intent, such as sugars and fats and caffeine, to name a few.

     

    I am not defending tobacco use per se. I do not smoke nor does anyone in my family, though I am long $PM and have been for over a decade. My intent is to point out that the sort of thundering zealotry that leads people to post things as the above needs to be countered when it shows up. Science is science, and no amount of SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE YOUR POINT is going to change that.
    4 Apr 2014, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • WestEndDividend
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    I no longer need reply. thanks for doing this, sir, it is basically what I would have said also:
    "I am not defending tobacco use per se. I do not smoke nor does anyone in my family, though I am long $PM and have been for over a decade. My intent is to point out that the sort of thundering zealotry that leads people to post things as the above needs to be countered when it shows up. Science is science, and no amount of SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE YOUR POINT is going to change that."
    4 Apr 2014, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1893) | Send Message
     
    A ONE SECOND SEARCH ALSO FROM WIKI -
    Nicotine poisoning
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Nicotine poisoning
    Classification and external resources
    Nicotine-2D-skeletal.png
    Nicotine
    ICD-10 F17.0, T65.2
    DiseasesDB 30389
    MedlinePlus 002510

     

    Nicotine poisoning describes the symptoms of the toxic effects of consuming nicotine, which can potentially be deadly.[1] Historically, most cases of nicotine poisoning have been the result of use of nicotine as an insecticide

     

    Can't have it both ways can you?
    Let the readers figure out who is "woefully" & "bellowing stupidly.
    4 Apr 2014, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • Purple_K
    , contributor
    Comments (508) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps you should read things before you cut and paste. From your own post: "Nicotine poisoning describes the symptoms of the toxic effects of consuming nicotine, which can potentially be deadly." Those who are even marginally literate can understand the word *potentially*, not to mention the fact that almost any substance is toxic in the right proportion.

     

    To whit: http://bit.ly/1lwdnCg

     

    OH LAWS! WHY ISN'T THE FDA BANNING WATER?

     

    Oh right - because the substance is not in and of itself toxic, rather, the disproportionate use is. To reiterate, the issue is not whether or not tobacco is "good" for you or should you use it. The issue is posting ignorant statements like "Nicotine is POISONOUS. It is a POISON. It is harmful to the body in ANY amount." which, as I pointed out in my first post, is just not scientifically accurate. An adult realizes they are wrong, and admits as such. A child stomps his feet and says "No! I don't want to!"

     

    Some wisdom for the CAPSLOCK shouter:
    "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
    Mark Twain

     

    Memorize that.
    4 Apr 2014, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1893) | Send Message
     
    YOU ARE JUST TOO EASY (figure it out)
    Now - go read a little - http://1.usa.gov/1kvQflS
    And if any of this supports your fairy tale then feel free let the CDC where they are wrong.
    HAVE A NICE DAY
    5 Apr 2014, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • Jimjiminy
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Taking the discussion back to the original issue (i.e. the news from the CDC), which is one of acute toxicity, rather than long-term risks:

     

    Looking at http://bit.ly/1e4nb6J, they quote a 2013 study which estimated the human LD50 dose (50% chance of death... 100% chance of being very very ill) as being at least 500mg.

     

    I personally use the Skycig brand (now owned by LO), which comes in 18mg dose metal capsules. So I would have to break open, and consume the contents of, a good number of capsules to poison myself (& I've tried to open one up, to examine the workings, and failed totally. You need a proper vice and a hacksaw).

     

    However there are many robo-cigs which are refilled from bottles of the stuff, and it's easy to see how people could accidentally ingest more than is wise (whether it's consumed by small children / the dog / your drunken cousin, or spilt on the skin).

     

    IMHO the important thing is that users of that format of e-cig are aware of its risk - especially to small children (ooh ! Cherry flavour liquid !) and animals - and make damn sure that it's treated like any household toxin (i.e. kept locked away, and handled with care).

     

    @ bill - please lighten up sir, and respect other contributors' opinions.

     

    If we look at alcohol, by comparison, the LD50 is about one 700 ml bottle of spirits (if you drink it all in about an hour - which isn't too difficult to do). So you've got *potentially fatal doses* of that, lined up on supermarket shelves across the world. (There's a drinks cabinet full of potentially fatal doses, in my kitchen.)

     

    There's no point in getting angry about it, it's the way of the world.
    6 Apr 2014, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1893) | Send Message
     
    Maybe you better go read the other comments insulting me personally. I've done no personal attacking. Why don't you tell them to "lighten up" sir? Not really angry - just sad that some folks seem to have no regard for the damage that is done to those unable to control the air around them that they have to breathe. As far as all the things that can kill in your kitchen why didn't you list water?
    Interesting when all else fails to make a legitimate argument some have to become grammar nazis. Apparently nicotine (and their defenders) has some other strange effects.
    7 Apr 2014, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • Purple_K
    , contributor
    Comments (508) | Send Message
     
    Here's the REAL question - why are you even here? Aren't there other soapboxes from which to moralize? These are stock message boards about companies. No one here is really interested in what you think about tobacco being good or bad for you or not. People come here to discuss stocks and the profits to be made therein. What exactly do you hope to accomplish? Do you think you're educating anyone? Going to change someone's mind about investing? None of your comments discuss anything about those elements, just about TOBACCO BAD IN LARGE FONT. You want to invest in cigarette companies? Great! You don't? Great! I guarantee no one cares either way.

     

    I'm sure the irony of someone using the term "Nazi", while telling others what they should and should not do, is totally lost on you.
    7 Apr 2014, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1893) | Send Message
     
    If the shoe fits . . . . . .
    8 Apr 2014, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • WestEndDividend
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    godwin's law
    16 Jul 2014, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1893) | Send Message
     
    And anyone who is able to read can figure out what POISONOUS means.
    Go ahead and light up. What doesn't kill you must be good for you - right?
    5 Apr 2014, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • ScooterSC
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    'What doesn't kill you must be good for you - right?' Well, it could be. It depends on how you define 'good.' We have a segment of our population who are not satisfied unless they can control many aspects of you life. They want to tell you that you can't drink, smoke, vapor or eat and drink certain foods. The next think that they will want to do is outlaw sex. For Pete's sakes, folks, enjoy life. You are only here for a short time. Quit pushing your beliefs and ideas on others. You can wear the pink thong and worship a watermelon if you want to. Just don't expect me to do it.
    6 Apr 2014, 11:14 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs