The 7 most common arguments against vaping – explained clearly and based on facts

Short answer

Many frequently heard anti-vaping arguments are based on misunderstandings, confusion with tobacco smoke or unsubstantiated assumptions. The scientific data – and especially the long-standing toxicological research of Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bernhard-Michael Mayer – show: e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than tobacco smoke, contain no tar and primarily generate an aerosol of liquid droplets, not combustion particles.

Introduction

Hardly any topic is as polarising as vaping. Between media reports, misinterpretations and outdated assumptions, many people find it difficult to separate facts from myths. This is exactly why Prof. Dr. Bernhard-Michael Mayer from the University of Graz put together a widely cited, objective overview: “Seven frequently raised arguments against vaping” (2019).

This article explains these seven points in an easy-to-understand way, up to date and adapted for today’s readers in Switzerland.

Who is Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bernhard-Michael Mayer?

Prof. Mayer is a pharmacologist and toxicologist at the University of Graz (Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences). He is one of the most renowned European scientists in the fields of nicotine pharmacology, aerosol physics, toxicological risk assessment and tobacco-free nicotine products.

• Field of expertise: Mechanisms of action of nicotine, toxicological assessment of substances
• Scientific role: Supporter of “harm reduction” – switching from smoking to significantly less harmful alternatives
• Known for: YouTube channel “Dampfen statt Rauchen” (“Vaping instead of smoking”) with study discussions
• Publications: Numerous contributions on the toxicological safety of e-cigarettes

He is regarded as one of the most important scientific voices against misinformation about vaping – independent, not industry-affiliated and technically precise.

The seven key arguments against vaping – explained

1. “Nicotine is a highly potent nerve poison and addictive drug.”

The reality is more nuanced:

• Nicotine acts similarly to the body’s own acetylcholine – as a stimulant, not as a blocker.
• Toxic effects occur only in cases of massive overdose (oral), not through inhalation.
• Addiction from smoking results from the combination of nicotine + substances in tobacco smoke + the ritual.
• Without tobacco smoke, the addiction potential of nicotine is significantly lower.
• Heart rate and blood pressure can briefly increase slightly – similar to caffeine.

For healthy adults, nicotine – outside of tobacco smoke – is toxicologically far less problematic than is often claimed.

2. “Particles in the vapour deposit in the lungs.”

E-cigarettes do not generate solid combustion particles, but rather liquid droplets that:

• dissolve in the respiratory tract
• are exhaled or absorbed
• do not remain permanently in the lungs

Studies show that in COPD or asthma patients, switching from smoking to vaping often improves lung function.

3. “The vapour contains carcinogenic substances – and there is no safe lower limit.”

When heated, very small amounts of aldehydes (e.g. formaldehyde) can be formed, but:

• in quantities similar to those in ambient air
• well below legal limit values
• comparable to concentrations in human breath

Basic pharmacological principle: Without a sufficient dose, there is no effect.

4. “Flavourings could be harmful when inhaled.”

Flavourings in e-liquids are food-grade flavourings. There is no evidence that they suddenly become toxic when inhaled. Of course, safety must be based on data – and the data so far do not indicate a relevant risk.

5. “There are no long-term studies yet.”

This is a frequently used rhetorical trick. No new product has 30-year studies available at market launch. What matters is:

• the chemistry of the aerosol is known
• there is no tar or combustion products
• risk profiles are toxicologically comprehensible
• 10–15 years of observational data already exist

Based on everything we know, e-cigarettes are considered a significantly less harmful alternative to smoking.

6. “Passive vaping is harmful to non-vapers.”

Air measurements from many studies show:

• Pollutant levels are far below occupational and indoor air limit values.
• Over 95% of inhaled nicotine remains in the body.
• Propylene glycol has not been classified as a respiratory irritant by ECHA.

From a toxicological perspective, passive vapour exposure is not comparable to passive smoke.

7. “E-cigarettes encourage young people to start smoking.”

The data situation: countries with many young vapers usually have significantly lower smoking rates. There is:

• no proof of a “gateway” effect
• clear indications that vaping tends rather to lead away from smoking
• a youth protection issue – not a product issue

Swiss perspective

• In Switzerland, vapes are available from the age of 18.
• The market is not regulated under the TPD – devices and liquids are very diverse.
• High smoking rate (compared to the EU) → great potential health benefit through harm reduction.

FAQ

Is vaping just as harmful as smoking?

No. There is no combustion and no tar – pollutant levels are drastically lower.

Can you become addicted to vaping?

Yes, but generally less strongly than to smoking. Without tobacco smoke, the addiction potential drops significantly.

Is passive vaping dangerous?

Data so far show no toxicologically relevant concentrations in indoor air.

Is nicotine dangerous for the heart and blood vessels?

Nicotine temporarily increases pulse and blood pressure, but is not a main cause of heart disease.

Conclusion

Many widespread anti-vaping claims do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The work of Prof. Dr. Bernhard-Michael Mayer and many other experts clearly shows: e-cigarettes are a drastically less harmful alternative to smoking. Any adult who does not smoke should not start using nicotine – but any smoker benefits from switching to harm-reduced products.

Note

Vaping products in Switzerland are intended for adults aged 18 and over only.

Here is the original document