The Freedom Association has published a report suggesting that "87 per cent of UK councils are ignoring advice from Public Health England" on vaping.
It's a diligent piece of work. According to their website:
In the first report of its kind, The Freedom Association has asked every council in the UK what its policies are on staff using e-cigarettes.
Using freedom of information requests, all UK councils (district, county, unitary, metropolitan, London boroughs, and the City of London Corporation) were asked if their policies on vaping differed from those on smoking; if they allowed vaping in the workplace; and if e-cigarette users were required to vape in designated smoking shelters.
In total, 386 councils responded - a successful response rate of over 92.5 per cent.
The key findings, say The Freedom Association, are:
All very interesting. However press coverage of the report leads with the extraordinary claim that:
Nearly one in three local authorities could be breaking the law by making e-cigarette users vape alongside smokers, a report warns.
This remarkable suggestion features in all three newspaper reports that mention the study. (Well, those I have seen anyway.)
The headline in The People reads 'E-cig ban 'illegal', the Mirror headline is 'Illegal' vaping bans mean a third of councils could be breaking the law, while the Sunday Express report begins:
Nearly a third of councils could be on the wrong side of the law by insisting e-cigarette users "vape" alongside smokers, claims a study.
Breaking the law? Wrong side of the law? 'Illegal' vaping bans? What are they talking about?
Well, it seems The Freedom Association has gone to the oracle (aka Public Health England) and translated PHE's advice about vaping in the hope councils will interpret it as follows:
By not allowing any form of indoor vaping, by ensuring that vapers stand with smokers in designated smoking areas, or by insisting that vapers leave the grounds in order to vape, the majority of councils are not encouraging those members of staff who have voluntarily chosen to quit smoking through the use of e-cigarettes, to stay smokefree.
By insisting that vapers use designated smoking areas, they are not complying with smokefree law and policies.
Incredibly The Freedom Association seems to believe that any council that ignores this interpretation of PHE's advice is "breaking the law". Or perhaps they thought this was the best way to spin the story.
Curiously The Freedom Association hasn't posted its press release on its website, only the report, but the only way the Mirror, People and Sunday Express could have published almost identical stories is with the help of a press release that began:
Nearly one in three local authorities could be breaking the law by making e-cigarette users vape alongside smokers, a report warns.
This morning, on Twitter, the campaign group denied that its report throws smokers under a bus by implying that smoking outside is a threat to anyone else's health, but that is exactly the effect it achieves because it plays to those who believe that smoking, even outdoors, is a risk to non-smokers.
Also, it's not first time The Freedom Association's Freedom To Vape campaign has suggested the health of vapers could be at risk if they are forced to stand outside with smokers.
Back in August I wrote:
Last week, following the launch of a new "vapers' rights" campaign, it was suggested it was wrong to make vapers stand outside in the cold with smokers, breathing in their smoke.
I read that to mean it might be bad for their health even though there is no evidence that smoking outside is harmful to anyone other than the smoker - and even that should be qualified because millions of smokers live long and healthy lives regardless of their habit.
Well, that interpretation was wrong, apparently. What the author and campaign manager meant was that the smell of tobacco smoke is alluring and might tempt vapers back to smoking (which is a terrible thought, obviously).
See Tempted by the smoking of another (Taking Liberties).
Let me be clear. I am strongly opposed to workplace vaping bans, just as I am opposed to excessive restrictions on smoking in the workplace, and given the opportunity Forest will continue to lobby and speak out against such policies.
But the idea that "forcing" vapers outside with smokers is a danger to their health or undermines their efforts to remain "smokefree" (sic) is utter bilge.
As for the suggestion that by ignoring PHE advice councils (and presumably other employers) may be breaking the law, I am speechless.
First rule of campaigning – get your facts right and avoid scaremongering. Did The Freedom Association learn nothing from the EU referendum campaign?
Anyway, I've just seen a couple of tweets from a vaper supporting the spin:
(1) PHE's advice may not be law "but it does render those councils liable to legal action".
(2) "A fully switched vaper is a non-smoker with the same rights."
For the benefit of this numbskull it's worth pointing out, again, that there is no evidence that smoking in the open air poses a threat to anyone.
Two, even before the smoking ban was introduced there were only a handful of legal cases where plaintiffs sought damages for the effect of 'passive' smoking.
Of those cases that went to court (I think there were four or five in the UK) not one was settled in the plaintiff's favour. If I remember correctly they all failed for lack of evidence.
A number of plaintiffs did win out-of-court settlements. The assumption at the time was that the defendants chose not to go to court because they didn't want to risk a large legal bill, especially if the plaintiffs didn't have the money to pay costs in the event of the defendant winning.
I'm no lawyer but my guess is that the chances of a vaper taking a council to court and winning the right to vape in the workplace on these grounds is very small indeed.
If anyone wants to try, good luck!
We love how vapers are desperate to be seen as anything but smokers. Our work in #tobaccocontrol making smokers pariahs is a total success.
— TobaccoTactics UK (@TobaccoTacticss) November 6, 2016