E-cigarettes and vaping started out as a more palatable aid to stop smoking than nicotine-laced chewing gum, hypnosis or sticking nicotine patches on your upper arms.
However, what began as a surrogate for smoking has since hatched its own entirely independent culture and identity, with vaping now very much mainstream. And while smoking tobacco was deliberately portrayed as a 鈥渘asty habit鈥� to be discouraged, members of parliament in the UK are actively urging rules around e-cigarettes be relaxed, for it be acceptable in more places.
Last week, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published its report on 鈥� stating that they 鈥渁re too often being overlooked as a stop smoking tool by the NHS鈥�. The report wants life for those who vape to be made easier, with suggestions including free e-cigarettes on the NHS, lower tax on vaping products and a meaningful conversation around their use in public spaces where they are usually banned (for example, on buses and trains).
Advertisement
But are non-vapers ready to share carriages or even workplaces with a flavoured cloud of second-hand vapour having only relatively recently rid the spaces of tobacco smoke?
Words of caution
Various studies show that inhaling vapour directly as the user of an e-cigarette has not been proven to be risk free, although the consensus is that any health risk is much smaller than that from using tobacco. For example, just a few days before the Commons report, researchers at the University of Birmingham, UK, published a study finding that . 鈥淲hile further research is needed to fully understand the effects of e-cigarette exposure鈥︹�� the study concluded, 鈥渨e caution against the widely held opinion that e-cigarettes are safe.鈥�
What is even less clear is the impact of second-hand vaping. Proof that passive smoking could kill helped usher in bans on tobacco use in public buildings, workplaces and on transport in many nations. Similar bans on vaping are largely a hangover from this.
The Science and Technology Committee report does acknowledge concern about second-hand vapours, but views it as a matter of taste as opposed to a health concern. 鈥淭here is some hostility towards the use of e-cigarettes in public areas,鈥� the report concedes, 鈥渋f only because some bystanders find its vapour unpleasant鈥�.
Saving lives
While it is arguably unpleasant to get caught in the warm fug of somebody else鈥檚 exhaled strawberry-flavoured vapour 鈥� is there any solid evidence on the health effects of passive vaping? Not really. It鈥檚 sparse and conflicting.
聽published in 2014 found 鈥渆-cigarettes are not emission-free and their pollutants could be of health concern for users and secondhand smokers鈥�. Another 聽found 鈥渦sing an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine鈥�. On the other hand, earlier this year concluded 鈥渢here have been no identified health risks of passive vaping to bystanders鈥�. The .
As a smoking cessation aid, vaping works. Lives are being saved. Smoking is now at an , and there is little denying the in that. And yet I find it hard not to be cynical about the vaping industry. While it is perhaps not akin to tobacco, it is still capitalists hawking addictive products, and should be regarded with the healthy scepticism that provokes.
With evidence on passive vaping hazy at best, and little to support the idea that the ban on vaping in public spaces is a barrier to switching from smoking to e-cigarettes, I find it difficult to see any benefit in relaxing these rules. And if there鈥檚 the option not to be caught in a cloud of strawberry-flavoured vapour while I鈥檓 on the bus to work, I鈥檒l take it.
