New data from the UK's largest vaping consumer survey suggests proposed outdoor restrictions could push former smokers back towards cigarettes.
The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 cleared its final parliamentary hurdle earlier this year, marking a significant moment in the Government's public health agenda. Vape UK supports the Act's core objectives, particularly its measures to tackle youth vaping, which remains a genuine and urgent priority.
Protecting young people from nicotine addiction and preventing underage access to vaping products should be a shared goal across government, public health bodies and the vaping industry alike.
"Nobody wants to see children vaping. But if regulations designed to tackle youth vaping end up pushing former smokers back towards cigarettes, we risk solving one problem while creating another."
Chris Page, Founder of Vape UK
However, as secondary legislation begins to take shape, one aspect of the proposals deserves closer scrutiny: extending vaping restrictions to certain outdoor spaces, including outside workplaces, in pub gardens, and other settings where smoking is already restricted.
The question policymakers should ask is straightforward: if vaping is helping millions of former smokers stay smoke-free in these environments, what public health benefit is gained by removing that option?
To better understand how these proposals could affect adult vapers and former smokers, we surveyed more than 3,700 Vape UK customers. The findings suggest that, as currently proposed, outdoor vaping restrictions could produce the very outcome the Act is designed to prevent.
What we found.
In response to the Government's proposals, Vape UK commissioned what we believe to be the largest consumer survey ever undertaken in the UK vaping sector, gathering responses from 3,788 customers.
The vast majority of these respondents are former smokers who successfully used vaping as a tool to quit cigarettes. They are among the people most likely to be affected by any changes to vaping regulations, yet as far as we are aware, they have not been directly consulted on the impact these proposals could have on their ability to remain smoke-free.
The findings are difficult to ignore.
More than 90% of respondents told us they vape in outdoor public spaces. For most, this is not an occasional activity but a routine part of how they manage nicotine consumption throughout the day.
More importantly, 76% said that being able to vape outdoors actively helps them stay off cigarettes.
For millions of former smokers, outdoor vaping is not a lifestyle preference. It is a practical tool that helps prevent relapse. Whether it's during a lunch break at work, meeting friends in a pub garden, attending a sporting event, or walking the dog, vaping often replaces situations where a cigarette would once have been the default choice.
Who will be affected?
Public discussion around vaping policy understandably focuses heavily on preventing youth uptake. But the overwhelming majority of people affected by proposed outdoor vaping restrictions are adults who already vape and, in many cases, have done so specifically to quit smoking.
Among our respondents were people who have been smoke-free for months, years and, in some cases, over a decade. For these individuals, vaping is not a gateway into nicotine use; it is the mechanism by which they left cigarettes behind.
Public health policy works best when it distinguishes between these groups. Measures designed to reduce youth vaping should not inadvertently make life harder for adults who have successfully moved away from smoking.
For more than a decade, governments and public health organisations have encouraged smokers who cannot quit nicotine entirely to switch to vaping instead. The rationale is clear: while not risk-free, vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking and has helped millions of people move away from combustible tobacco.
Any policy that affects adult access to vaping should therefore be carefully assessed against one fundamental question: could it increase the likelihood of smoking relapse?
The risk of blanket restrictions
Our survey suggests that risk is real.
Nearly one-third (32%) of respondents said that if vaping were banned in the same outdoor spaces where smoking is already prohibited, staying smoke-free would become significantly harder.
45% said such restrictions could lead them to smoke cigarettes in situations where they currently vape.
Taken together, these findings point towards a potentially serious unintended consequence. Restrictions intended to support public health could end up making cigarettes more attractive, more convenient, or more likely to be used by people who have already quit smoking.
The risk appears particularly acute in social environments where smoking relapse pressures are already elevated. Pub gardens, outdoor dining areas, sporting venues and similar settings are places where cigarettes have traditionally been part of the social experience.
Our data suggests vaping plays an important role in helping former smokers navigate these situations without returning to tobacco. It is therefore unsurprising that 64% of respondents oppose extending vaping restrictions to these spaces.
The Government has rightly set ambitious targets to reduce smoking rates and create a smoke-free generation. However, achieving those ambitions requires recognising the practical role vaping continues to play in helping adult smokers move away from cigarettes.
If vaping is recognised as a harm reduction tool, policymakers should be cautious about removing the very advantages that make it an effective substitute for smoking in the first place.
Is the evidence for outdoor restrictions strong enough?
What remains unclear is the evidence base underpinning proposals to extend restrictions into outdoor environments.
Current public health guidance has consistently distinguished between smoking and vaping, particularly when it comes to risks posed to bystanders. Yet the proposed restrictions would increasingly treat the two activities in the same way, despite their very different risk profiles.
If policymakers believe additional outdoor restrictions are necessary, it is reasonable to ask what evidence demonstrates that such measures will improve public health outcomes without increasing the risk of smoking relapse among former smokers.
Our survey suggests that risk cannot simply be assumed away.
Before introducing restrictions that could affect millions of adults, the Government should be confident that the benefits outweigh the potential harms.
The public health case for treating vaping differently
The scientific basis for distinguishing between vaping and smoking in outdoor settings is well established. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), successor to Public Health England, has concluded that vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking. This difference exists largely because vaping does not involve combustion and therefore avoids many of the toxic chemicals and carcinogens produced when tobacco is burned.
Government-commissioned evidence reviews have also concluded that exposure to e-cigarette vapour presents a very low risk to bystanders.
This does not mean vaping should be entirely unregulated. Nor does it mean restrictions are never appropriate. Hospitals, schools and other sensitive environments may require different considerations.
However, there is a significant difference between targeted restrictions in specific settings and broad restrictions that treat outdoor vaping and smoking as functionally equivalent activities.
Doing so risks conflating the harmful with the far less harmful, potentially undermining public understanding of relative risk and creating barriers for people who have successfully switched away from cigarettes.
What we are asking for?
Vape UK's concerns are specific.
We are not challenging the Tobacco and Vapes Act, nor its wider ambitions. We support efforts to tackle youth vaping, strengthen enforcement and drive down smoking rates across the UK.
We are asking that the implementation of the legislation remain evidence-based and proportionate.
A one-size-fits-all approach to outdoor restrictions — one that treats a pub garden in the same way as a hospital ICU — risks undermining the very public health goals the Act is intended to achieve.
The Government has repeatedly recognised the role vaping can play in helping smokers quit. As secondary legislation is developed, it should ensure that regulations continue to support that objective rather than inadvertently weakening it.
The voices of former smokers deserve to be part of that conversation.
Our survey represents more than 3,700 people who have firsthand experience of using vaping to move away from cigarettes. Their message is clear: outdoor vaping restrictions could make staying smoke-free harder, not easier.
That evidence deserves careful consideration before any final decisions are made.
Vape UK is one of the UK's largest online vaping retailers. Full survey methodology and data tables are available on request.
About the author - Nicola King
Nicola King works as a researcher, consultant, and content creator for Vape UK. She holds a CIM Level 6 Diploma in Professional Marketing and has developed her skills and knowledge of analytics and research over a 15 year career in product marketing. Her research led approach to campaigns and content writing ensures the articles she writes for Vape UK always have a basis in fact and cut through the noise. A strong advocate for tobacco harm reduction, Nicola is an ex-smoker thanks to vaping and wants others to understand the benefits of vaping compared to smoking.