Prohibition is as old as governance itself. From alcohol bans in the United States during the 1920s, to the “war on drugs” that spanned continents in the late 20th century and even Singapore’s current stance on vaping — societies have repeatedly turned to prohibition in the hope of eradicating substances deemed harmful. But across history and geography, one truth emerges: prohibition almost never works.

The reason is simple: as long as demand exists, supply will find a way.

The Economics of Demand and Supply

In economic terms, demand is not erased by prohibition. Knowledge of a product and its effects ensures that curiosity, desire, or dependency continues to fuel interest.

prohibition then introduces a twist: it pushes supply underground. Sellers face higher risks, and with higher risks come higher costs. Products become more expensive, and those who remain in the game enjoy higher profits precisely because the market is now more dangerous and exclusive.

This creates a perverse incentive loop:

1. Authorities crack down → small pushers exit.
2. Market prices rise → surviving pushers earn more and grow.
3. Larger, more organized criminal networks fill the gap.

What prohibition creates, in other words, is not elimination — but a criminal Survival Of The Fittest.

The Sociological Fallout: How Criminal Networks Thrive

History is littered with examples. The U.S. alcohol prohibition of the 1920s gave birth to sprawling organized crime empires — Al Capone started selling alcohol underground and eventually became a guerilla-terrorist organisation that would continue to plague the continent for decades.

The “war on drugs” in Latin America empowered cartels that were better armed, better funded, and more ruthless than the states fighting them and continues to today.

In the Singaporean context, the ban on vapes has already produced a thriving black market. Enforcement agencies intercept shipments while suppliers adapt with stealthier methods. Prices climb, and with them profits. A disposable vape costing S$1.50 in China can sell for S$15–20 in Singapore — now imagine those margins in truckloads of shipment.

The caveat is, Criminal networks, motivated purely by profit, have no incentive to protect consumers. In fact, the opposite is more lucrative — be it cutting substances with harmful chemicals, exaggerating potency, and creating dependency loops to maximize sales — Consumers face not only the risks of the substance itself but also the unpredictable harms introduced by illicit production.

Why Harm Reduction Works

If prohibition fails, what’s the alternative? Public health experts have long argued for harm reduction — a three-pronged approach of legislation, regulation, and education.

1. Legislation
   Legislative frameworks hold producers and sellers accountable. Just as cigarette manufacturers must disclose tar and nicotine content, regulated markets ensure consumers are informed and protected from adulterated or unsafe products.
2. Regulation
   Regulative Standards and oversight create safety nets — including — restrictions on age of sale, bans on advertising, health warnings, and caps on potency. Regulation acknowledges that people will consume but ensures they do so under the safest conditions. Through regulation, teens essentially will stop being tempted into buying a vape because it tastes and is packaged like candy.
3. Education
   By openly discussing risks which works more like a conversation instead of indoctrination, governments can strip away the allure of taboo. Cigarettes and alcohol are still consumed in many developed nations, but widespread education campaigns post legislation have reduced substance abuse rates significantly.

The result is paradoxical but proven: legalization with regulation reduces harm more effectively than prohibition. At the same time, governments can tax consumption, converting prohibition which is a social burden into a revenue stream used for rehabilitation and public health programs.

The Mental Health Factor

Why, then, is prohibition so politically attractive? Often because policymakers have historically ignored the deeper reasons people consume. Substances — whether alcohol, nicotine, sugar, or even coffee — for many they act as mental health aids. They relieve stress, numb pain, and offer stimulation. They are not healthy, but they create a positive feedback loop of pleasure where users feel motivated to continue.

This is why prohibition struggles: it treats the symptom which is abuse but ignores the cause. If a society bans alcohol but provides no effective alternative for coping with anxiety, trauma or depression, consumption merely shifts underground as the illicit substance produces a pleasurable release for users.

The rabbit hole then leads us to the uncomfortable question: where does prohibition end?

If cigarettes, alcohol, sugar, and caffeine were discovered today, many experts have mentioned they might well be banned. Yet because they are culturally entrenched and prohibitions have failed, they are instead made into social profit through regulation and taxes. In this frame of thought, The line between “illegal” and “legal” is less about health and more about politics, economics, and history.

Harm reduction — legislation, regulation, and education — is not perfect, but it recognizes the socio-psychological reality of human behavior and economics. It transforms substances from taboo temptations into regulated risks, reducing harm both to individuals and to society at large.