by Pippa Starr 13 January 2025
There has been a worrying trend over the last few years by governments at all levels to treat vaping like smoking when it comes to creating laws about where vapers can and can't vape. It's irresponsible and not an evidence-based reaction!
Vaping and smoking are fundamentally different. Smoking combusts tobacco, releasing thousands of harmful chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic. Vaping, on the other hand, heats a liquid, typically containing nicotine, into an aerosol. This process avoids the combustion that generates the toxic byproducts of smoking. Public health authorities, including Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians, have consistently stated that vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking.
A striking comparison highlights the risks of secondhand smoke versus exposure to vaping aerosol. Research indicates that the cancer risk posed by secondhand smoke is approximately 50,000 times higher than exposure to secondhand vapor. This enormous disparity underlines the flawed logic of treating vaping and smoking as equivalent in policy and public health messaging.
Vaping is widely recognized as one of the most effective tools for quitting smoking. It not only reduces exposure to harmful chemicals but also addresses the behavioral aspects of nicotine addiction, such as the hand-to-mouth action. Policies that conflate smoking and vaping risk discouraging smokers from transitioning to vaping, potentially undermining efforts to reduce smoking-related harm.
Relegating vapers to smoking areas exposes them to secondhand smoke, counteracting their harm-reduction efforts. UK hospitals and other institutions have set a clear precedent by maintaining separate vaping areas, acknowledging the differences between vaping and smoking. Such measures support vapers in their journey away from smoking without exposing them to the dangers of secondhand smoke.
The Irresponsibility of Equating Vaping with Smoking is:
Public Perception: Misleading comparisons may perpetuate myths that vaping is as harmful as smoking, discouraging smokers from switching.
Youth Impact: While youth vaping requires regulation, alarmist policies can create unnecessary stigma and fear, potentially driving misinformation.
Policy Implications: Governments have a duty to adopt evidence-based approaches. Treating vaping as smoking ignores the potential of harm reduction to save lives and risks breaching obligations under international health frameworks, such as the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Australia is a party to this.
(The WHO FCTC's Preamble states that adopting countries will use scientific, technical, and economic considerations to promote tobacco control measures.
It is an evidence-based treaty that reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standard of health.)
Policymaking must align with scientific evidence to maximize public health outcomes. Countries that embrace vaping as part of their tobacco harm reduction strategies, like the UK & NZ have seen much greater declines in smoking rates. These approaches balance protecting youth while promoting harm reduction among adults, creating a clear pathway to improved public health outcomes.
Equating vaping with smoking is both scientifically unfounded and detrimental to public health. By recognizing the significant differences in harm and leveraging vaping as a harm-reduction tool, governments can reduce smoking-related diseases and save lives. Policies should be grounded in evidence, supporting smokers to transition to safer alternatives without the stigmatization or barriers of outdated comparisons,
not booting them into smoking areas with threats of fines and penalties!