{"id":155214,"date":"2025-09-23T10:56:10","date_gmt":"2025-09-23T10:56:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/155214\/"},"modified":"2025-09-23T10:56:10","modified_gmt":"2025-09-23T10:56:10","slug":"banning-vaping-in-public-what-is-labour-smoking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/155214\/","title":{"rendered":"Banning vaping in public? What is Labour smoking?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The UK government has announced<\/a> its intention to ban vaping in public places.<\/p>\n

In response to a written question from a Tory MP about banning vaping in pubs, public-health minister Ashley Dalton declared that: \u2018Vapes release an aerosol that exposes people to nicotine and potential toxicants and it is important that we act to protect people from these potential health harms.\u2019 It\u2019s on this premise that ministers say they want to make all public places vape-free, just as they are already smoke-free.<\/p>\n

The issue with this is that the government\u2019s claims about vaping have no scientific justification. They are not supported by its own public-health advisers, nor by decades of research, nor even by the government\u2019s own prior guidance. A vaping-in-public ban is not evidence-based policymaking, but prejudice, panic and spite masquerading as a concern for public health.<\/p>\n

A landmark 2015 evidence review<\/a> from the now-abolished quango, Public Health England (PHE), clearly stated: \u2018EC [e-cigarette] use releases negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders.\u2019 PHE\u2019s subsequent guidance<\/a> on vaping in public went further, saying, \u2018e-cigarettes have significant potential to help reduce tobacco use and the serious harm it causes to smokers, those around them and wider society. Recognition of this should be at the centre of policies on e-cigarette use in public places and workplaces.\u2019 The guidance even warned that it \u2018is never acceptable to require vapers to share the same outdoor space with smokers\u2019. In other words, vaping should not be treated the same as combustible tobacco use, because that would risk undermining the very harm-reduction benefits of switching.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the PHE\u2019s 2018 evidence review<\/a> found \u2018no identified health risks of passive vaping to the health of bystanders\u2019. That position has only been reinforced by later research.<\/p>\n

Most recently, an exhaustive 1,468-page review<\/a> by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities into the health harms of vaping, published in 2022, came to the same conclusion. It reported that \u2018compared with cigarettes, vaping products produce no or little side-stream emissions, so we would expect effects on bystanders to be low\u2019. It further found that \u2018there is moderate evidence that acute secondhand exposure to vaping-product aerosol does not result in detectable levels of nicotine or biomarkers of potential toxicants in non-users\u2019.<\/p>\n

Enjoying spiked?<\/p>\n

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?<\/p>\n

We are funded by you. Thank you!<\/p>\n

\n \u00a32
\n \u00a35
\n \u00a320
\n \u00a350\n <\/p>\n

Choose an amount<\/p>\n

\n Donate now\n <\/p>\n

\n Please wait… <\/p>\n

Having analysed the potential risks one by one, the conclusions were unanimous: \u2018There is insufficient evidence whether acute secondhand exposure to vaping has any effects on blood pressure or heart rate\u2019; \u2018there is insufficient evidence of any impact of acute secondhand vaping exposure on respiratory disease\u2019, and so on. In fact, the report found \u2018insufficient evidence\u2019 for any material risk worthy of a government prohibition. In other words, if secondhand vaping has any effect at all, it is too small to detect.<\/p>\n

So why the sudden zeal to ban vaping in public spaces? If there is no evidence to support the claim that a ban protects others, we can only assume it is a policy driven by something else. By a desire, perhaps, to be seen to be \u2018doing something\u2019 in response to political pressures, regardless of whether that something makes sense.<\/p>\n

Applying this same \u2018precautionary principle\u2019 could justify banning people with colds from public spaces, because sneezing may spread germs. It could justify banning coffee, since caffeine is a drug with health effects. It could even justify banning food with strong odours, in case someone finds the smell unpleasant.<\/p>\n

In a liberal democracy, laws that restrict people\u2019s freedoms must be proportionate to the risks involved. Yet here the government is considering a sweeping prohibition with no evidence of material risk at all. Meanwhile, smokers who might otherwise switch to vapes are given yet another reason not to bother.<\/p>\n

This stance is ironic considering that the government\u2019s \u2018swap to stop\u2019 scheme<\/a> is widely considered a success. This scheme encourages smokers to switch to free vapes offered by stop-smoking services. But now, the government is also advising the public not to use vapes. <\/p>\n

The Royal College of Physicians issued a stark warning<\/a> against this kind of overcautious policymaking back in 2016. If a \u2018risk-averse, precautionary\u2019 approach also \u2018makes e-cigarettes less easily accessible, less palatable or acceptable, more expensive, less consumer-friendly or pharmacologically less effective, or inhibits innovation and development of new and improved products, then it causes harm by perpetuating smoking\u2019, it said. That is precisely what a ban would do \u2013 it would reinforce the false belief that vaping is as harmful as smoking, frighten smokers away from switching and stigmatise those who have already quit through the use of safer products.<\/p>\n

Quite apart from having nothing to do with health, the government\u2019s proposal for vape-free areas gives licence to politicians who dislike nicotine users to use the law to harass them. That is not a proportionate public-health response. It is an abuse of state power. Once a global leader in tobacco-harm reduction, the UK now ignores its own science to embrace empty gestures, throwing common sense \u2013 along with respect for its citizens and the rights of property owners \u2013 into the gutter.<\/p>\n

Public health should be about saving lives, not pandering to prejudice. A public vaping ban won\u2019t protect anyone from harm, but it will ensure that more smokers remain smokers. And that can cause nothing but harm.<\/p>\n

Martin Cullip is international fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance\u2019s Consumer Centre and is based in South London, UK. <\/p>\n

Help us hit our 1% target<\/p>\n

spiked is funded by you. It\u2019s your generosity that keeps us going and growing.<\/p>\n

Only 0.1% of our regular readers currently donate to spiked. If you are one of the 99.9% who appreciates what we do, but hasn\u2019t given just yet, please consider making a donation today. <\/p>\n

If just 1% of our loyal readers donated regularly, it would be transformative for us, allowing us to vastly expand our team and coverage.<\/p>\n

Plus, if you donate \u00a35 a month or \u00a350 a year, you can join