The price of Public Health England's advice on vaping

Whenever the use of e-cigarettes in public places is mentioned vaping advocates like to refer to Public Health England guidelines.

In reverential tones they will imply that PHE supports vaping indoors. See Why are councils making it harder to quit smoking? (ConservativeHome).

Up to a point, Lord Copper. While it is true that PHE is not opposed to vaping in enclosed public places, there is no clear recommendation that it should be allowed.

Instead what the PHE advice on e-cigarette use actually states is:

• e-cigarette use is not covered by smokefree legislation and should not routinely [my emphasis] be included in the requirements of an organisation’s smokefree policy

• reasons other than the health risk to bystanders may exist for prohibiting e-cigarette use in all or part of a public place or workplace, such as commercial considerations and professional etiquette

• people with asthma and other respiratory conditions can be sensitive to a range of environmental irritants, which could include e-cigarette vapour. The interests of such individuals should be taken into account when developing policies and adjustments made where necessary

• vaping can in certain circumstances be a nuisance or distraction for people nearby. Where a decision is taken to allow vaping in an enclosed place, policies could consider some simple etiquette guidelines for vapers, such as minimising the production of visible vapour.

So, plenty of things for employers to think about before they allow vaping in the workplace. If I was a disinterested employer looking to err on the side of caution I know what I'd do.

Where children may be present the PHE guidelines are unambiguous:

While it is not recommended [my emphasis] to allow adults who use or work in child and youth settings to vape in view of children, consider ways to make it easier to vape than to smoke.

Approaches might include allowing vaping in a designated adults-only indoor area or allowing vaping but prohibiting smoking in outdoor areas.

Several points:

One, as with smoking PHE doesn't want adults to vape "in view of children". Read into that what you will but it doesn't sound very positive to me.

Two, if vapers are allowed to use e-cigarettes indoors they should be restricted to a "designated adults-only indoor area". Sound familiar?

Three, if vaping is only permitted outside PHE recommends a concurrent ban on smoking "in outdoor areas".

So whenever you hear or read Public Health England congratulated for their pro-vaping stance on the Use of e-cigarettes in public places and workplaces, don't forget that for smokers who don't want to quit it comes at a price because PHE "advice" could mean the smoking ban being extended to outdoor areas.

Vaping advocates are either ignorant of that or they choose to brush it under the carpet in the hope smokers won't notice.

Comments

[Vinny Gracchus]

The public health/tobacco control crowd is using limited support of vaping as an interim step to hasten the demise of smoking. Once vaping gains at the expense of smoking they will seek to ban vaping as well. Prohibition and a smoke-free (remember they largely equate vaping with smoking) world are their stated end state.

[Interested Observer]

I'd go with "deliberately, knowingly ignorant." What the pro-vaping groups want most of all is to convert smokers into vapers, and it's not about smokers' health but instead it's about increasing the numbers of vapers. Privately, they may say they care about smokers' rights, and some certainly do, but publicly these groups are content to toe the public health line, avoid challenging tobacco control dogma and worse, work the very same people who caused so much hatred against smokers. One UK-based group going as far as putting rabid tobacco controllers & public health advocates on their board or as associates. So deliberate, knowing ignorance, simply means abandoning smokers to their miserable fates, unless those smokers convert (dual-users do not count), all in pursuit of their born-again vaping crusade. This means that the pro-vaping group(s) cannot be trusted at present and should be viewed as tobacco control advocates full stop.

[pat nurse]

I entirely agree interested observer.

[Timothy Goodacre]

Most people who tried vaping in my town are now back on proper tobacco which they say they enjoy much more.

[DP]

Dear Mr Clark

"reasons other than the health risk to bystanders may exist for prohibiting e-cigarette use in all or part of a public place or workplace, such as commercial considerations and professional etiquette "

Public Health England are now advising businesses on professional etiquette.

What next? A full range of business advice? Marketing, tax etc?

Pity that they seem unable to grasp that the health risk to bystanders from vaping is about the same as breath.

Do people with asthma suffer from 'second hand breath'?

DP