Britain’s bold stance on vaping and outdoor smoking

In Britain, the government of prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has made clear its desire to reduce the number of locations where people can smoke, starting with a ban on smoking in some outdoor locations, including pub beer gardens.¹ It was not long before the European Union followed suit with its own plan for outdoor smoking bans.²

Unfortunately, there are a number of fundamental flaws with these policies, especially around the fact that different types of products should be treated differently by regulators. The EU policy in particular lumps vaping in with smoking. Electronic cigarettes, also known as vapes, are not the same as traditional cigarettes. Vaping is considerably healthier than smoking.³ Millions of smokers around the world have successfully used vaping as a tool to quit smoking.⁴

To crack down on vaping is to make it more difficult to turn the tide on smoking. The European Union looks set to follow in the footsteps of the World Health Organisation⁵ in clumsily labelling e-cigarettes ‘tobacco products’ and then treating them identically in policymaking. That means they will be subject to the same harsh and stringent taxation and overregulation as ordinary cigarettes, as well as new blanket bans like the restrictions on outdoor smoking, even though this is counterproductive in reaching the goal of a ‘smoke-free Europe.’ ⁶

Being outside the European Union, Britain now has a chance to set itself apart from the rest of the continent on key issues like this related to public health. Specifically, the UK has the option to set an example for the rest of Europe and other countries around the world by unashamedly siding with science and common sense in allowing people to vape freely, especially when in outdoor locations.

Against the backdrop of squeezed household budgets thanks to the tail end of the cost of living crisis, now would be a very good time for the British government to set itself apart from the EU by taking a stand and publicly embracing vaping. As well as pointedly leaving it out of any outdoor smoking bans, it could also slash unnecessarily high taxes on vape-related purchases to make it easier for smokers to quit and show what can be achieved by tweaking financial incentives.

If the EU continues in its current direction of ever-increasing tax and regulatory scrutiny of vapes and other reduced-harm nicotine products, Britain’s forward-looking approach will shine brightly by comparison. If nothing else, in public relations terms, it would be a triumph. It may even remind Europe of Britain’s last great public health success: the British rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, which was considerably faster than the European Union’s attempt, and may have saved a huge number of lives as a result.⁷

And with regard to government money, it would cost very little, especially given the enormous cost savings it would bring in public healthcare services. That could go a long way to showing the public that Britain’s future is not all doom and gloom, as Labour prime minister Sir Keir Starmer sometimes makes it sound, but instead that there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful and positive about what is coming down the track towards us.

Moreover, even now, the Labour government is trying to find its feet and make its mark in key policy areas like healthcare, especially given what it describes as an abysmal inheritance on the NHS from the previous Conservative government. Taking a sensible stand for vaping would go a long way towards showing the British public that they have positive, forward-looking ideas on healthcare too, and it’s not all damage mitigation.

Crucially, this move would make a splash on the international level. It would force the EU to rethink its approach, to the relief of millions of European vapers. The EU has carved out something of a reputation for itself in recent years for setting the agenda on ‘world-first’ regulations. By using this issue, Britain might be able to get its nose in front in the regulation race, showing that there is more than one way to approach these issues and that it is often about the quality of the regulation, not the quantity.