E cigarettes:

[Dark Knight]

having started to use an e cigarette, to help me stop smoking, I have over the last 3 days formed an initial opinion
they do work , as I have not had a proper cigarette for 3 days, with no obvious side effects
no mood swings, no cravings etc

they do not give off any smell or impart any smoke into the air, my clothes do not smell, and I am using it far less than I thought
yes it is still giving me a nicotine shot, but no tar, no tobacco, no nasty toxins, no carcinogens

the financial savings are also going to help ,as I calculated a saving over 12 months of well over £2500

speaking to the doctor today at my annual medical, she was very happy that I had taken this route, as in her opinion it was a much better alternative health wise to smoking and that if I carry on with the e ciggies, I should see some real positive benefits in 6 months or so

so not a bad start and I am pleased with the results so far

[Quizzical Bob]

Congratulations, please keep up the good work. I am pleased for you.

[GillD46]

Well done you! My daughter bought one today as well, and as a Type 1 diabetic it is vitally important she stop. I really wish both you and she well.

[oldbluefox]

Good result. Well done!

[david63]

Early days but it is looking good.

Now what can we spend your savings on

[Dark Knight]

David
it appears we may well be going to Mauritius in 2015.....so what do you think?

[david63]

David
it appears we may well be going to Mauritius in 2015.....so what do you think?

That sounds good - not somewhere I have been so I am looking forward to it already

[Boris+]

Well done - and keep it going.

Em

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Dark Knight:

Given your testimony there now seems an excellent case to now increase cigarette duty to produce a £50 packet for 20 and to apply a duty on e-cigarettes that will force smokers to migrate to what appears to be a safer and more socially acceptable way of smoking and ensure Treasury Revenue streams.

[arcadialover]

Well done and keep it up,

[oldbluefox]

'to apply a duty on e-cigarettes'

Surely anything which encourages people to take up a safer option is to be applauded so why apply a duty?

[The Monocled Mutineer]

OBF:

Indeed it is (apparently safer - qed), which is why I think it would be a good idea to make cigarettes a 'luxury' product returning a retail price of £50 a packet (via duty increase) and duty (+standard rate of vat) applied to e-cigarettes giving a retail price for the equivalent "pack of 20s" at about £8 (the level cigarettes are priced today) to preserve the revenue stream that the Treasury enjoys from smokers, without putting a further burden on general taxpayers (ie income, vat, etc) or/and cuts in public services funded by the state.

[oldbluefox]

But it's illogical to expect e-cigarette smokers to make up any shortfall in revenue for having given up the weed. The fact they puff vapour instead of smoke is no different to chewing gum, eating chocolate or anything else reformed smokers may do.

[Dancing Queen]

There's no pleasing some folk

I'm all for that suggestion as long as the same is applied to wines/spirits, £50 for a bottle of the cheapest 'plonk' would soon but a stop to all those 'binge drinkers' and how about £30 for a pint of your favourite ale .... just so as not to put a burden on the general taxpayer

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Punative taxes on alcohol penalises responsible drinkers. There is no such thing as a responsible smoker unless he limits his habit to a private room where he/she is always alone or walks around with a glass bubble on his head recycling the smoke into his/her lungs. There remains the risk of fire, for smouldering stubs and smoking in bed that risks the lives of neighbours and our firemen.

The best approach to binge drinkers is to apply minimum pricing to take off-sales (supermarkets, off licences, etc) up to about 75% of pub prices and ENFORCE punatively those who supply alcohol illegally (loose licences) or who serve drunks, and those who are drunk in public. Also drunks turning up at A&E should receive an invoice for any treatment and if arrested by the police, 'hotel & taxi@ charges for being conveyed to stations and locked up shoudl be applied as well as punative fines.

[Serendipity]

All very well and good TMM but where does it stop?
Drug abuse is a very common reason for being admitted to A&E.
If the suggestion that they should pay for treatment is upheld and they are living on benefits who pays in the end?
I am not a smoker as a matter of choice but as long as a smoker goes into a 'smoking' area then I am happy with that.
My brother in law has never drank nor smoked, he has cancer of the oesophogus and lung cancer and has been given months to live. He has never worked in a smoke filled place as he was a dentist.

[Dark Knight]

thanks folks
day 4 and still working well

[Content Removed]

apart from the health benefits, one of the biggest reasons for taking up the e cig, is for many , the huge cost savings that can be made, I roughly calculated an after tax saving of £2500 per year , so a pre tax value of over £3500, which is a decent sum, to save by switching to e cigs, which cost a fraction of the price
if you then increase the price of e cigs to the current cost of a packet of cigarettes, then a large incentive to quit is taken away and to suggest a price of £50 per packet is stupidity beyond measure

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Unlike compulsory taxes such as income and vat (on everyday essentials 5% such as domestic fuel and energy, sanpro and 20% on soap, shaving requisites, etc) smoking including nicotine absorption via e-cigarette is not essential and can be given up.

I am very much in favour though of encouraging people who smoke to switch to e-cigs if they won't give up on their nicotine addiction by making them cost advantageous BUT without decreasing revenue streams to the Treasury.

[Dancing Queen]

Unlike compulsory taxes such as income and vat (on everyday essentials 5% such as domestic fuel and energy, sanpro and 20% on soap, shaving requisites, etc) smoking including nicotine absorption via e-cigarette is not essential and can be given up.

I am very much in favour though of encouraging people who smoke to switch to e-cigs if they won't give up on their nicotine addiction by making them cost advantageous BUT without decreasing revenue streams to the Treasury.

BUT .. why without decreasing revenue streams to the Treasury, you/they can't have it all ways Derek

There are lots of things that are not essential, alcohol being one .. water is free ( well relatively ) petrol for another ... we could all get on 'our bikes' or walk

How does that song go ...... If I ruled the World

[HK phooey]

Degsy, your argument is nonsensical. You can't have your cake and eat it.

[The Monocled Mutineer]

HK Phooey:

I beg to differ.

Adjusting the pricing via duty to make e-cigs more price advantageous than cigarettes AND preserve Treasury revenue streams from nicotine addicts is a relatively simple correlation and can be adjusted by The Treasury, rather like the duty escalator on petrol and diesel.

[oldbluefox]

Bearing in mind the obesity problem in our nation there is more justification for loading tax and duty onto luxury foods which are high in fat and sugars. As it would also affect Michelin starred restaurants it would have the added advantage of taxing those who can most afford it.

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Overall bills in fine dining restaurants would not be impacted much by "sugar or fat tax" because raw material costs are a relatively minor cost input in fine dining restaurants. Wages of a skilled kitchen brigade and f.o.h., together with rent costs for a fairly low customer churn.

Also, unlike food you buy retail (soft drinks, confectionery, crisps, ice cream and pet food (!) excepted), food and beverages (tea & coffee) in restaurants, cafes, and takeaways attracts 20% vat, therefore a high end restaurant bill at £200 pp instantly has a cream-off to HMRC of about £33.

[david63]

Perhaps Mr Kane could answer this.

If (and it is a big IF) all smokers were to stop buying tobacco products tomorrow (I would suggest today but that is too soon!) then where would the revenue stream that was attributable to tobacco then come from?

[Ray Scully]

HK Phooey:

I beg to differ.

Adjusting the pricing via duty to make e-cigs more price advantageous than cigarettes AND preserve Treasury revenue streams from nicotine addicts is a relatively simple correlation and can be adjusted by The Treasury, rather like the duty escalator on petrol and diesel.

Rubbish utter rubbish Mr Kane. No! put the tax losses on premium wines,(anything over 7 quid a bottle) if they can afford to drink it, they can afford to pay the extra tax. Anyway isn't part of the cachet of imbibing 'premium' wines, how much you paid for it? Oh, and just think of the cost to the NHS of ever increasing cases of cirrhosis.

Ray