From P Sundramoorthy

The health ministry’s recent proposal to raise the vape excise tax by a whopping 900% from 40 sen to RM4 per millilitre, before implementing a full ban, has sparked intense debate.

While the intention to protect public health and prevent youth addiction is commendable, such drastic measures carry serious criminological implications that deserve equal attention.

From a crime and policy standpoint, overregulation of a widely used product can generate unintended consequences, including the growth of black markets, declining public compliance, and higher enforcement costs.

Criminology offers an important warning through what scholars call the “Iron Law of Prohibition”; when a legal and in-demand product becomes unaffordable or banned, consumption rarely disappears, it simply moves underground.

History provides countless examples of this phenomenon, from the US’s failed alcohol prohibition in the 1920s to today’s thriving illicit tobacco trade.

If vaping becomes too expensive or illegal in Malaysia, demand will not vanish. Instead, users are likely to turn to unregulated suppliers, where quality and safety are uncertain and state oversight is lost.

The proposed tenfold tax increase would create a wide price gap between legal and illegal products, making the illicit market highly profitable. Such disparities encourage smuggling, counterfeiting, and the involvement of organised criminal networks.

Creating another lucrative black market?

Malaysia already faces a serious problem with illicit cigarettes, which make up a large portion of total consumption in some regions. Extending similar dynamics to vape products would risk creating yet another lucrative black market, one that is even harder to monitor.

Illicit non-duty-paid cigarettes are already widely available in local markets. They are often sold openly and at a fraction of the cost of duty-paid brands, making them attractive to lower-income smokers.

Their easy availability illustrates how high cigarette taxes have fuelled black-market demand. The country loses millions, possibly billions, of ringgit each year in unpaid duties.

If vape products are subjected to similar steep taxes, the same pattern will almost certainly repeat itself: expanding illicit trade, shrinking legal sales, and major losses in government revenue.

Policing prohibition also requires massive enforcement resources. Border inspections, raids, and prosecutions demand time, personnel, and funding that are already stretched thin. Limited enforcement capacity opens opportunities for corruption and collusion.

When illegal profits surge, the temptation for bribery and abuse of power increases. Over time, these conditions can entrench criminal networks that are costly to dismantle, diverting law enforcement attention from more urgent crimes such as drug trafficking and violent offences.

Loss of legitimacy

Beyond enforcement lies the issue of legitimacy. People obey laws not only because they fear punishment but because they perceive the law as fair and reasonable.

When regulations are seen as excessive or unfair, compliance weakens. Many adult vapers consider vaping a personal choice or a harm-reduction tool compared to traditional smoking.

If the government suddenly imposes extreme taxes or bans, users may view such policies as unjust, leading to quiet resistance and non-compliance. Once a law is widely ignored, it loses legitimacy and weakens trust in the legal system as a whole.

The economic implications are equally significant. Taxes on vape and cigarette products currently generate steady revenue for the government. Prohibiting or heavily restricting these sales would shrink this income while simultaneously raising enforcement costs.

Once consumption moves underground, recovering lost revenue becomes nearly impossible. The outcome is a double blow: reduced income for the state and rising profits for criminals.

Ironically, public health outcomes may also worsen. If vaping becomes inaccessible, some users could return to traditional cigarettes or attempt to make homemade vape liquids with unsafe ingredients.

Unregulated markets are notorious for adulterated or toxic products. In trying to remove one health risk, the state might unintentionally create another. Similar patterns have been observed globally.

The US’s alcohol ban of the 1920s empowered organised crime until it was repealed. In several Asian countries, high cigarette taxes and vape bans have fuelled smuggling and counterfeit trade.

India and Thailand, for instance, continue to face thriving underground vape markets despite outright bans. These examples underline a consistent criminological lesson: bans without strong enforcement capacity empower criminal actors rather than protect the public.

Balanced approach needed

A more balanced approach would pursue health goals while maintaining regulatory realism. Instead of an abrupt tenfold tax hike, the government could phase in moderate increases to bring vape taxes closer to cigarette levels while keeping the market legal and controlled.

Licensed sales, age restrictions, and strict quality standards could help ensure safety without pushing consumers toward illicit alternatives.

Enforcement should focus on smugglers and illegal manufacturers, not users, while public education campaigns could emphasise prevention and cessation. Regional cooperation with neighbouring countries would also strengthen enforcement and reduce smuggling routes.

The health ministry’s objective of protecting young people from nicotine addiction is undeniably noble. However, excessive control measures risk transferring power from regulators to criminals.

A balanced strategy, one that combines moderate taxation, firm regulation, and public education, would deliver far better outcomes for both public health and social stability.

In line with the principles of Malaysia Madani, the government must be prudent before taking drastic action to reduce vaping in society. We should avoid unnecessarily labelling fellow Malaysians and residents as deviant or criminal merely for their consumption choices.

Instead, careful review and consultation are needed before implementing a tenfold tax increase that could unintentionally strengthen the black market.

Rather than escalating enforcement and alienating citizens, Malaysia should adopt policies rooted in fairness, reason and balance, ensuring that our efforts to protect health do not undermine social trust or empower illegal trade.

P Sundramoorthy is a criminologist at the Centre for Policy Research in Universiti Sains Malaysia. He is also an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.