Australia’s growing illicit tobacco crisis is no longer a fringe issue—it is a stark illustration of what happens when tobacco control relies on prohibition rather than pragmatic harm reduction. Despite decades of public health leadership, the country now faces a multibillion-dollar illegal nicotine market, escalating violence, and worsening youth access to unregulated products. Tobacco harm reduction experts, have consistently highlighted that these outcomes are the predicted consequences of policy choices that removed regulated alternatives while leaving demand intact.
In a recent submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) delivered a blunt assessment: Australia’s illicit tobacco problem is not an enforcement failure but a policy failure. By shutting down legal, adult-only access to lower-risk nicotine products (particularly regulated vaping) Australia effectively handed control of nicotine supply to organised crime.
Prohibition creates criminal markets, not public health gains
Nancy Loucas, CAPHRA’s executive coordinator, told the Senate that removing legitimate vape retailers did not eliminate demand, it merely displaced it. “Australia shut down regulated adult-only retailers and replaced them with criminal networks selling unregulated products alongside tobacco,” she said. The result, Loucas argued, has been worse youth access, not better protection.
This outcome aligns with long-standing research on prohibition. When demand for any substance remains stable, removing legal supply does not reduce use, it removes oversight. Without regulation, age verification disappears, product standards collapse, and profit-driven criminal actors take control.
Western Australia: a case study in the ineffectivity of prohibition
Nowhere are these dynamics more visible than in Western Australia, where the illicit tobacco trade has escalated into open conflict. Burnt-out storefronts in Perth and regional centres such as Bunbury have become symbols of a market dispute fuelled by prohibition. Police have linked many of these arson attacks to organised crime groups competing for control of illegal tobacco distribution.
Importantly, experts stress that this violence is not caused by weak penalties but by inflated profits. As criminologist James Martin of Deakin University has observed, illicit tobacco violence is driven by competition and extortion, not regulatory leniency. When legal access is restricted and prices soar, criminal margins expand, and so does violence. Western Australia’s experience underscores a broader reality: when tobacco control policy ignores market dynamics, public safety becomes collateral damage.
Enforcement cannot fix what policy broke
Governments have responded with tougher enforcement, higher fines, and expanded powers to close suspected illicit retailers. South Australia now imposes fines of up to $6.6 million, while Western Australia has appointed an “illicit tobacco tsar” and pledged stronger laws. Yet despite these efforts, illicit markets persist.
The reason is simple. Enforcement can disrupt supply temporarily, but it cannot neutralise demand. Organised crime adapts faster than regulators, reopening shops under new names, shifting sales online, or exploiting jurisdictional gaps. Every crackdown raises risk, but also raises reward.
This pattern is well documented. Studies on illicit trade consistently show that when enforcement escalates without legal alternatives, markets become more violent, not smaller. Australia’s experience mirrors failures seen during alcohol prohibition and in contemporary drug policy.
High prices push consumers to the black market
Australia’s tobacco excise policy compounds the problem. While high cigarette prices were intended to discourage smoking, they have also widened the price gap between legal products and illegal alternatives. For smokers who cannot or will not quit, illicit tobacco becomes an increasingly rational choice.
At the same time, access to regulated vaping products has been curtailed. While Public Health England, the Cochrane Collaboration, and multiple independent reviews have concluded that vaping reduces exposure to toxicants and can help smokers quit. Yet Australia’s regulatory framework treats these products as a threat rather than an opportunity. The contradiction is stark: cigarettes remain widely available, while safer alternatives are driven underground.
CAPHRA’s submission draws on experience across 11 Asia-Pacific countries, highlighting similar failures in India and Thailand, where vaping bans have driven markets entirely underground. Despite prohibition, unregulated products are widely sold online and through informal retail channels, with no quality controls or age restrictions.
Academic evaluations of India’s vaping ban for instance, show enforcement is uneven and ineffective, while public health experts warn of increased risks from contaminated products. These outcomes directly contradict the goals of prohibition and demonstrate the dangers of removing regulation altogether.
Evidence that risk-proportionate regulations work
By contrast, countries that regulate rather than prohibit have seen far better outcomes. New Zealand’s regulated vaping framework, combining age restrictions, product standards, and consumer access, has coincided with record-low smoking rates. The Philippines has similarly adopted proportionate regulation, distinguishing adult harm reduction from youth prevention, without triggering widespread criminal activity. International evidence is clear: when safer alternatives are legal, affordable, and regulated, smoking declines and criminal markets shrink.
Australia’s new “Give Up For Good” campaign does reflect an understanding that nicotine dependence is complex and that many people want to quit but struggle to do so. Public education and cessation support are indeed essential components of tobacco control. However, these efforts are undermined when policy simultaneously removes effective harm reduction tools from the legal market.
Decades of tobacco control research show that information alone rarely leads to sustained cessation. Most smokers attempt to quit multiple times before succeeding, and many require substitutes that address both nicotine dependence and behavioural habits. By restricting access to safer alternatives while maintaining the most dangerous product—combustible cigarettes—Australia’s approach preserves smoking rather than accelerates its decline.
The real cost of getting tobacco control wrong
Australia’s illicit tobacco crisis reveals a fundamental truth: prohibition does not eliminate nicotine use, it eliminates control. It fuels organised crime, increases violence, undermines youth protection, throws standards out the window, and delays the decline of smoking, the country’s leading preventable cause of death.
As CAPHRA argues, meaningful reform requires shifting nicotine supply back under regulatory control. Legal, adult-only retail with clear product standards and enforcement is not a concession, it is essential to public health.
If the goal of tobacco control is to reduce harm (rather than ideology), then harm reduction must move from the margins to the centre of policy. Australia’s illicit tobacco crisis is not a warning about vaping, it is a warning about prohibition.
Vanished Report: Australia’s Smoking Reversal and the Quiet Cover-Up
