Or click and collect!
Or click and collect!
Our Leicester team hears the same misconceptions about vaping repeated week in, week out. Here is a clear, honest debunking of the claims that keep circulating, and what the evidence actually shows.
Misinformation about vaping has real consequences. It puts off smokers who could benefit from switching to a substantially less harmful alternative. It creates unnecessary fear in vapers who are doing the right thing by staying off cigarettes. And it makes our job, helping Leicester customers make informed decisions, harder than it needs to be. Here are the myths our Leicester team addresses most often, with the evidence behind each correction.
The evidence: This is the most persistent and most damaging myth in the vaping space. Public Health England's evidence review concluded that vaping is approximately 95% less harmful than smoking. The NHS actively recommends vaping to smokers as a cessation tool. The primary reason the harm reduction is so significant is the absence of combustion, tobacco smoke contains over 70 confirmed carcinogens that vaping simply does not produce. The claim that vaping is equally as harmful as smoking is not supported by any major health authority in the UK and contradicts the clinical consensus.
The evidence: Popcorn lung refers to bronchiolitis obliterans, a condition caused by exposure to diacetyl, a compound associated with artificial butter flavouring. Diacetyl was found in some US e-liquids and caused headlines around 2015–2016. However diacetyl has been banned from UK e-liquids under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations since 2016. There are no confirmed cases of popcorn lung caused by regulated UK vaping products. This claim, while it originated from a genuine concern, does not apply to regulated UK products purchased from compliant retailers.
The evidence: This is the overcorrection that goes too far in the other direction. Vapour from e-cigarettes is an aerosol containing propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine and flavouring compounds, it is not simply water. Vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking but it is not harmless. Claiming it is just water vapour overstates the safety case and is not accurate. The honest position is: substantially less harmful than smoking, not without risk, not well characterised for long-term effects.
The evidence: Secondhand tobacco smoke is a confirmed carcinogen and a well-established public health risk. Secondhand vapour carries substantially lower risk, it contains no combustion products, dissipates more rapidly and compound concentrations measured in secondhand vapour studies are generally well below established harm thresholds. These are not comparable risks. While we encourage courteous vaping around others and avoiding vaping around children and pregnant people as a precautionary measure, the claim that secondhand vapour is equivalent to secondhand smoke is not supported by evidence.
The evidence: Nicotine is genuinely addictive and stopping is genuinely difficult. But framing vaping as an unescapable trap is not accurate. Many vapers successfully step down their nicotine concentration progressively and reach zero. The key is approaching it as a managed pharmacological dependency rather than as a simple habit, using structured step-down approaches rather than willpower alone. Vaping's variable nicotine concentrations make it uniquely well-suited as a step-down tool compared to cigarettes.
The evidence: The gateway hypothesis, that young people who vape will subsequently take up smoking, is not supported by the UK evidence. Smoking rates among young people in the UK have continued to fall during the period of rising vaping prevalence. The causal relationship hypothesised runs counter to the observed data. Youth vaping is a legitimate concern for other reasons, nicotine addiction in young people who would otherwise not use nicotine, but the gateway to smoking framing is not well evidenced in the UK context.
"We address these myths in store every week. The most important one, and the one with the most serious consequences if believed, is the claim that vaping is as bad as smoking. It puts people off switching who could genuinely benefit."
Touch of Vape team, LeicesterThe NHS has a dedicated section on e-cigarettes and vaping. It is evidence-based, updated regularly and written without commercial interest in the outcome.
CRUK has a clear and regularly updated position on vaping and cancer risk, written by oncology experts with reference to the current research literature.
ASH publishes annual survey data on vaping in England and maintains evidence-based positions on both the benefits and risks of vaping.
We follow the evidence and give the same honest answer regardless of whether it results in a sale. If vaping is not right for you, we will tell you that too.
Come in for a conversation grounded in what the research and UK health bodies actually say, not in what either side of the debate wants you to believe.
To find our Leicester store, visit our Vape Shop Leicester page.
Our Leicester Vaping Guides give you the honest, evidence-based information we share in store every day.
Find more evidence-based guides in our Leicester Vaping Guides.
We give straight answers grounded in the evidence. Come in.