In a move that aligns vaping with traditional smoking, last April, Western Australia updated its workplace health and safety laws to officially ban vaping inside enclosed workplaces. The newly amended Work Health and Safety Regulations now require employers to treat vaping the same way they treat smoking, effectively extending smoke-free policies to include all forms of nicotine delivery products—regardless of their risk profile.
Unlike tobacco smoke, which contains many harmful chemicals and carcinogens, vape emissions mainly consist of water vapour, nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, and flavourings
Supporters of this regulation, say that it closes a longstanding legal gap. While previous workplace safety laws called on employers to minimize exposure to hazardous substances, they did not address specific products. Moreover, they cite growing concerns over alleged health effects of second-hand exposure to vape aerosols. Industrial Relations Minister Simone McGurk underscored the government’s stance by stating that vapes contain substances linked to serious illnesses, including cancer, and that the updated regulations reinforce the Cook Government’s commitment to workplace safety.
The fact that someone in government would make such a false and alarming statement, once which could have such serious repurussions is beyong shocking. Infact, according to a growing body of independent research—including landmark reviews by Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians—vaping is estimated to be at least 95% less harmful than smoking, largely because it eliminates combustion, the primary cause of tobacco-related disease.
Moreover, studies indicate that second-hand exposure to e-cigarette vapour poses significantly lower health risks than exposure to traditional cigarette smoke. Unlike tobacco smoke, which contains many harmful chemicals and carcinogens, vape emissions mainly consist of water vapour, nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, and flavourings. A 2019 study published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research found that indoor air quality in vaping environments remained within safe limits, with minimal impact on harmful particle levels. These findings support the view that vaping has a much smaller effect on indoor air quality compared to smoking, though further research is needed to fully understand long-term exposure risks.
Public health or policy overreach?
With the rise of heated tobacco products (HTPs) and vapes, the updated rules now explicitly ban their indoor use and require the creation of designated outdoor areas where they can be used. However, from a tobacco harm reduction (THR) standpoint, the blanket approach raises important concerns. While it’s true that vapes emit aerosol containing chemicals, given that the level and type of emissions are markedly different from those found in tobacco smoke, and should never be treated equally.
Lumping vaping and smoking into the same regulatory category risks undermining the relative risk message, sending a misleading signal to the public: that all nicotine products are equally harmful. This could have unintended consequences, such as discouraging smokers from switching to lower-risk alternatives or pushing vapers back to cigarettes, particularly in workplace environments where smoking areas already exist, but vaping options may now be equally restricted.
Vaping breaks at work? Nearly half of vapers say yes
Such one-size-fits-all policies also overlook the social and behavioral dynamics of vaping in the workplace. A previous poll by Vape Superstore, which surveyed over 1,000 adults, had found that nearly half (49%) of vapers support designated vaping breaks at work. Only 10% opposed the idea, while 36% said the policy should be tailored based on job type. Crucially, the survey revealed that 32% of respondents said the availability of vaping breaks would make them more likely to accept a job offer, while another 38% said it could influence their decision.
This feedback reflects a broader cultural shift in how nicotine consumption is perceived. Many vapers use e-cigarettes as a means to quit smoking and maintain abstinence. For them, workplace policies that lump vaping with smoking may feel punitive rather than supportive. As David Phillips of Vape Superstore noted, employers who develop balanced policies that allow vaping in designated areas, during designated times, can support their staff’s quit attempts while also enhancing their appeal as progressive, health-conscious employers.
From smoke to support: the case for rethinking vape policies
The challenge then, lies in crafting regulations that protect non-users from exposure while still encouraging the transition away from smoking. Rather than restricting all forms of nicotine use equally, a more nuanced approach would recognize the role of harm reduction in public health. This could include permitting vaping in separate areas from smoking zones or allowing indoor use in well-ventilated rooms where risk is demonstrably minimal.
As vaping continues to replace smoking for millions worldwide, especially among those seeking to quit, policymakers and employers should be seeking to support this shift responsibly. While workplace safety must remain a priority, failing to differentiate between combustible and non-combustible nicotine products risks missing an important opportunity to promote a healthier, smoke-free future.
UK Workplace Survey Finds Most Vapers Are Bullied For Using E-Cigs
