Smoking in a car with anyone under 18 present was banned in October 2015. However, the Department of Health and Social Care wants to extend the existing “smoke‑free private vehicles” framework to include vapes and heated tobacco. Confusingly, their justification rests on claims about secondhand smoke, which these smoke-free products do not contain.
I was as concerned as any vaper when Labour won the general election. Wes Streeting’s comments about vaping and the parties' overall illiberalism didn’t bode well. Yet, I kept an open mind about how they’d govern nicotine. Sadly, things have turned out worse than I expected.
A few days ago, the UK government announced plans to ban vaping in cars carrying children. What’s more, they want to extend no‑smoking/no‑vaping rules to places like playgrounds and areas outside schools. These draft measures are being circulated for a 12‑week public consultation that runs until 8 May 2026, under the forthcoming Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
When the government banned smoking in these places, they leaned heavily on the idea of secondhand smoke. However, some large-scale studies struggled to find a link between lung cancer and secondhand smoke, with one suggesting that “the only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more”. Another paper, by James E Enstrom, suggests links between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and mortality are mere “Lysenko pseudoscience.”
While I wouldn’t say I supported the ban, I will readily admit it made bars and restaurants a nicer place for everyone. But the attempt to smuggle vapes and heated tobacco products into the framework is outrageous.
Lining up indoor rules
The government suggests that banning vaping in workplaces, public transport, private vehicles carrying under‑18s, and outside schools, play areas, and hospitals will lead to healthier outcomes for children and reduce the burden on the NHS.
However, if there is a barely statistically significant relationship between living with a smoker for 30 years and mortality, then what is the mechanism that links occasional outdoor exposure from a product that is 95% safer than cigarettes and harm? Where is the research to support such a claim?
Health charities such as the British Heart Foundation have welcomed the consultation and called for the measures to be implemented quickly. Again, what are their statements based on? Why are they so eager to push through totally speculative legislation that limits individual freedom?
Sadly, anti-nicotine propaganda has been so successful that the 12‑week public consultation likely won’t be enough to stop these absurd laws from being passed. Any pushback from vapers will likely be written off as industry interference or a bot campaign. Citizens who don’t have a dog in the fight will look on passively as our rights are infringed on, as usual.
The government can’t work like this. If they want to make these kinds of moves, they should be grounded in research. Once this nonsense goes through, it will be a short time before oddballs like Chris Whitty recommend banning vaping at home, in private outdoor spaces, and in general outdoor areas like forests or beaches.
Final thoughts
There is almost no area of human enjoyment that public health bodies and our rudderless government consider off-limits. Whether it's sweets, alcohol, gambling, or vaping, they want to dictate what we can do and where we can do it. We need to draw the line somewhere and make it clear that we’re not children.
