Public confusion should not drive vape policy, says Dr Marina Murphy
As the UK government considers extending smoke-free legislation to create new vape-free areas in England, experts are warning that vaping policy must be based on evidence—not public misunderstanding.
Proposals to restrict vaping in areas such as playgrounds, school grounds and outside hospitals are intended to protect the public from second-hand exposure. However, the scientific evidence does not support treating vaping like smoking.
Here, Dr. Marina Murphy, Director of Scientific Affairs at Northerner, sets out the current scientific understanding of “second-hand vaping” and highlights the need for policy to be based on evidence.
Is there such a thing as second-hand vapour?
While often described as “second-hand vapour,” passive exposure to vape aerosol is not comparable to second-hand smoke. Vapes do not contain tobacco, involve no combustion, and produce no side-stream smoke, which is the smoke produced when a cigarette is not being actively smoked, the primary source of harmful passive smoking exposure.
UK health authorities, including the NHS and Cancer Research UK, state there is no good evidence that passive vaping is harmful to bystanders.
What do the public think about second-hand vaping?
New research commissioned by Northerner highlights widespread public misunderstanding about vaping and health risks. The survey found that 43% of respondents believe exposure to vape aerosol is as harmful as exposure to cigarette smoke, despite this not being supported by the evidence. Only 32% correctly identified the statement as false, while 25% were unsure.
Almost half (46%) also incorrectly believe vaping involves exposure to more chemicals than smoking. These findings suggest public perceptions are increasingly out of step with the evidence.
Is secondhand vaping harmful?
When we talk about public exposure, it’s important to keep the science in perspective. Exhaled vape aerosol generally raises PM₂.₅ levels only slightly above background levels, often in the 1–10 µg/m³ range, and contains no carbon monoxide because there is no combustion. To put this into perspective, many everyday environments generate far higher air-quality impacts:
• Frying or gas cooking can produce particulate matter₂.₅ peaks above 500 µg/m³
• Nail salons and beauty products can push particulate levels above 200 µg/m³
• Urban roadside pollution often ranges 10–50 µg/m³
Does vaping expose users to more chemicals than smoking?
No. Cigarette smoke contains around 7,000 chemicals, many of them toxic or carcinogenic. Vape aerosol contains significantly fewer harmful substances and is widely recognised as substantially less harmful than smoking. Claims that vaping exposes users to more chemicals than cigarettes are simply false.
Should vaping be banned outdoors?
There is no clear evidence-based justification for broad outdoor vaping bans. Vaping is widely recognised as a lower-risk alternative to smoking and remains one of the most effective tools available to help adults quit cigarettes. Treating vaping like smoking risks sending the wrong message to smokers. If policymakers blur the distinction between the two, they risk reinforcing misinformation, discouraging switching, and undermining tobacco harm reduction. The evidence is clear: vaping is not smoking, and regulating it as though it were is neither scientific nor proportionate.
