Date: 10/02/2025
The Essentials
Regulatory critique of Spain’s proposed ban on vaping in open public spaces, treating it as equivalent to tobacco smoke.
Key scientific studies show that passive exposure to vaping is minimal and chemically distinct from tobacco smoke.
Vaping generates far fewer and less toxic particles than combustible cigarettes, especially in outdoor environments.
No evidence supports the proportionality of outdoor vaping bans under harm reduction and public health frameworks.
The policy reinforces stigma, moral panic, and symbolic denormalization rather than evidence-based health protection.
Why It Matters
Spain’s proposed ban on vaping in open spaces reflects a growing global trend: the conflation of nicotine with tobacco, and the substitution of moral symbolism for scientific evidence in public health policymaking.
What should be a measured, differentiated approach grounded in harm reduction is instead flattened into a binary prohibition.
Beyond the particles and studies, the issue touches the very heart of public health ethics: can we justify banning something not because it harms others, but because it unsettles cultural norms? To legislate against a vapor that vanishes in seconds is to prioritize appearance over impact—and to deny smokers one of the few effective tools to reduce harm.
What Changes in Practice
Health/Regulation – Spain’s public health strategy should realign with evidence-based frameworks, distinguishing between smoke and vapor. Harm reduction must be included as a pillar of tobacco control policy.
Industry/Innovation – Clear regulatory separation between combustible and non-combustible nicotine products would foster innovation in safer alternatives and support risk-proportionate communication to consumers.
Society/Environment – Outdoor vaping bans, under the guise of public hygiene, reinforce stigma and social exclusion, particularly targeting marginalized populations in transition away from smoking.
Scenarios and Next Steps
Short term (1–2 years): Urgent need for public debate, media literacy campaigns, and counter-narratives to challenge misinformation about vapor exposure and relative risks.
Medium term (3–5 years): Integration of harm reduction into national health policies; revision of laws conflating all nicotine use with tobacco smoking.
Long term (5–10 years): Structural shift in public perception of nicotine; restoration of scientific legitimacy in regulatory discourse; recognition of former smokers as allies in public health progress—not hygienic pariahs.
The Takeaway
A wisp of vapor, gone in seconds, should not carry the weight of punishment that dense tobacco smoke once did.
For Further Reading:
The Dissolving Cloud
The Spanish government wants to ban vaping in open spaces as well. The Ministry of Health has proposed treating electronic cigarettes the same as conventional tobacco, prohibiting their use not only indoors but also on terraces, in plazas, and at outdoor cafés.
Meanwhile, in drought-torn Spain, which endures frequent forest and grass fires. Cigarettes will remain "sold everywhere." Unlike cigarettes, which can lead to accidental fires due to improper disposal. Nicotine vapes will remain "demonized" at every turn. Nicotine vapes do not contribute to fires, also they do not produce side-stream (clouds when not in use). With proper recycling points, vapes not only reduce pollution, but they are also healthier for the user, bystanders, and the environment. Again, with proper focus on recycling.