The proposed Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill raises a very South African question:
When does your private vehicle stop being yours?
I give a colleague a lift to and from work every day. He does not smoke or vape. He also contributes nothing towards the diesel.
My drive can take up to an hour and a half. It is my time to unwind, prepare for the day or shake off the nonsense afterwards.
I choose the music.
I decide whether we stop at the shop.
I make the detours.
I pay the diesel.
If the police pull me over one day and say that I cannot vape because my non-smoking colleague is sitting in the passenger seat, he is welcome to climb out and ask them for a lift.
My car, my rules.
Before anybody mistakes that for denying the evidence, second-hand vape aerosol is not harmless.
A 2023 study inside vehicles measured PM2.5 around the passenger seat. Median readings rose from approximately 4.8 micrograms per cubic metre at baseline to 107.4 following a controlled vaping period.
A different controlled car-and-room study recorded median PM2.5 of only 16 micrograms per cubic metre inside the vehicle during vaping—roughly twice baseline. Most airborne-nicotine measurements and every biological marker tested were below the limit of quantification, although some bystanders experienced short-term irritation.
Another passenger-car investigation detected increased propylene glycol in five of seven vehicles.
That is enough evidence to say vaping affects cabin air. Passengers may be exposed to particles, PG and sometimes nicotine.
It is not enough to claim that second-hand vaping and second-hand cigarette smoke are scientifically identical.
The US National Academies found moderate evidence that second-hand nicotine and particulate exposure is lower from e-cigarettes than from combustible cigarettes.
A 2024 literature review likewise found that hazardous substances emitted by e-cigarettes were generally present at much lower levels than those from combustible cigarettes, while emphasising that vape aerosol was not completely benign.
That distinction must survive the legislative process.
Second-hand cigarette smoke has established links to cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and cancer. A systematic review of smoking inside vehicles reported PM2.5 levels ranging from 47 to 12,150 micrograms per cubic metre even where a window was partially open.
There is therefore an exceptionally strong case for prohibiting smoking around children inside vehicles.
I would apply the same practical protection to vaping around children. They cannot properly assess the risk, negotiate with the driver or arrange alternative transport.
But competent adults are different.
My colleague knows I vape before he accepts the lift. He can ask me not to vape. I can agree, wait, open a window or refuse. He can accept the arrangement or find another way to work.
That is how adult consent works.
“My car, my rules” does not excuse deliberately blowing vapour into somebody’s face. Courtesy still applies. If a passenger has asthma, is pregnant, feels ill or simply asks respectfully, a decent person takes that seriously.
But courtesy does not require pretending that my private vehicle has become a taxi because a non-paying passenger climbed aboard.
A free lift does not give somebody:
South African legislation should distinguish between children and adults, public and private transport, voluntary and unavoidable exposure, and smoking and vaping.
Recognising those distinctions is not denying risk. It is regulating proportionately.
Vaping is not the holy grail. It creates aerosol, and considerate vapers should admit that.
But “not harmless” does not mean “the same as combustion,” and measurable exposure does not automatically justify police intervention in an informed arrangement between adults.
Protect children.
Protect workers and passengers who have no meaningful choice.
Give the public accurate information about second-hand vape aerosol.
But if a grown man accepts a free ninety-minute lift in my Pajero and expects to dictate the conditions while contributing nothing towards the diesel, he can **** right off—and ask the police whether they have space in the back.
My Pajero is private transport, not a democratically governed mobile smoking area.
Should the legislation preserve an absolute prohibition when children are present while allowing competent adults to agree on the rules inside a private vehicle?
When does your private vehicle stop being yours?
I give a colleague a lift to and from work every day. He does not smoke or vape. He also contributes nothing towards the diesel.
My drive can take up to an hour and a half. It is my time to unwind, prepare for the day or shake off the nonsense afterwards.
I choose the music.
I decide whether we stop at the shop.
I make the detours.
I pay the diesel.
If the police pull me over one day and say that I cannot vape because my non-smoking colleague is sitting in the passenger seat, he is welcome to climb out and ask them for a lift.
My car, my rules.
Before anybody mistakes that for denying the evidence, second-hand vape aerosol is not harmless.
A 2023 study inside vehicles measured PM2.5 around the passenger seat. Median readings rose from approximately 4.8 micrograms per cubic metre at baseline to 107.4 following a controlled vaping period.
A different controlled car-and-room study recorded median PM2.5 of only 16 micrograms per cubic metre inside the vehicle during vaping—roughly twice baseline. Most airborne-nicotine measurements and every biological marker tested were below the limit of quantification, although some bystanders experienced short-term irritation.
Another passenger-car investigation detected increased propylene glycol in five of seven vehicles.
That is enough evidence to say vaping affects cabin air. Passengers may be exposed to particles, PG and sometimes nicotine.
It is not enough to claim that second-hand vaping and second-hand cigarette smoke are scientifically identical.
The US National Academies found moderate evidence that second-hand nicotine and particulate exposure is lower from e-cigarettes than from combustible cigarettes.
A 2024 literature review likewise found that hazardous substances emitted by e-cigarettes were generally present at much lower levels than those from combustible cigarettes, while emphasising that vape aerosol was not completely benign.
That distinction must survive the legislative process.
Second-hand cigarette smoke has established links to cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and cancer. A systematic review of smoking inside vehicles reported PM2.5 levels ranging from 47 to 12,150 micrograms per cubic metre even where a window was partially open.
There is therefore an exceptionally strong case for prohibiting smoking around children inside vehicles.
I would apply the same practical protection to vaping around children. They cannot properly assess the risk, negotiate with the driver or arrange alternative transport.
But competent adults are different.
My colleague knows I vape before he accepts the lift. He can ask me not to vape. I can agree, wait, open a window or refuse. He can accept the arrangement or find another way to work.
That is how adult consent works.
“My car, my rules” does not excuse deliberately blowing vapour into somebody’s face. Courtesy still applies. If a passenger has asthma, is pregnant, feels ill or simply asks respectfully, a decent person takes that seriously.
But courtesy does not require pretending that my private vehicle has become a taxi because a non-paying passenger climbed aboard.
A free lift does not give somebody:
- control of the music;
- authority over my errands and detours;
- the right to determine when I leave;
- ownership of my ninety minutes of decompression; or
- a statutory controlling interest in my vape.
South African legislation should distinguish between children and adults, public and private transport, voluntary and unavoidable exposure, and smoking and vaping.
Recognising those distinctions is not denying risk. It is regulating proportionately.
Vaping is not the holy grail. It creates aerosol, and considerate vapers should admit that.
But “not harmless” does not mean “the same as combustion,” and measurable exposure does not automatically justify police intervention in an informed arrangement between adults.
Protect children.
Protect workers and passengers who have no meaningful choice.
Give the public accurate information about second-hand vape aerosol.
But if a grown man accepts a free ninety-minute lift in my Pajero and expects to dictate the conditions while contributing nothing towards the diesel, he can **** right off—and ask the police whether they have space in the back.
My Pajero is private transport, not a democratically governed mobile smoking area.
Should the legislation preserve an absolute prohibition when children are present while allowing competent adults to agree on the rules inside a private vehicle?
