Australia and Thailand are often grouped together in arguments about strict vape policy, but their legal frameworks are not the same. Australia restricts lawful access to a pharmacy-only therapeutic pathway, while Thailand prohibits the sale, import and manufacture of electronic nicotine-delivery systems.
The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) argues that tight restrictions can push demand into illicit channels. Large seizures show that illegal supply remains a serious enforcement problem in both countries. They do not, by themselves, prove how much demand exists or that one policy caused the entire illicit market.
Why the Australia–Thailand comparison needs context
Calling both systems “prohibition” hides an important distinction. Under Australia’s current vape rules, non-therapeutic and disposable vapes cannot be sold through ordinary retailers. Therapeutic vapes may still be supplied through participating pharmacies for smoking cessation or the management of nicotine dependence.
Thailand takes a broader approach. Thai Customs says electronic cigarettes have been prohibited imports since a 2014 Ministry of Commerce notification. The WHO’s 2025 Thailand country profile records bans on the sale, import and manufacture of both nicotine and non-nicotine electronic delivery systems.
What Australia’s pharmacy model allows
Australia’s system does not create a general consumer market, but it does preserve a legal therapeutic channel. Adults aged 18 or over may obtain a therapeutic vape containing no more than 20 mg/mL of nicotine from a participating pharmacist without a prescription when clinically appropriate and permitted by state or territory law. A prescription is required in some cases, including for higher nicotine concentrations.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) also makes an important qualification: therapeutic vapes are unapproved goods, and no vape is currently included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Products supplied through the pathway must meet applicable standards, but they have not been individually assessed by the TGA for quality, safety, efficacy or performance. Australia’s federal vape laws target unlawful commercial supply rather than genuine personal possession.
For background on how the pharmacy model was introduced, see VAPEAST’s earlier Australia pharmacy-only vape law explainer.
What the Australian seizure data shows
The scale of attempted illegal supply is substantial. In July 2026, the Australian Border Force (ABF) reported that it had seized more than 13.2 million illicit vaping products at the border during the 2025–26 financial year, a 112% increase from the previous financial year.
ABF operations have also linked some illicit tobacco and vape supply chains to organised crime. That evidence supports targeted concern about criminal networks and commercial smuggling. It should not be stretched into a claim that every illicit seller, product or user belongs to organised crime.
Seizure totals are enforcement outputs, not a direct measure of consumption. They can rise because more products are being shipped, because enforcement has improved, or because both have changed. The TGA has separately warned that it does not hold a reliable estimate of the number of illicit vapes sold nationally each month.
Thailand’s ban and enforcement record
Thailand’s import prohibition dates to December 2014. Thai Customs continues to classify electronic cigarettes, devices and liquids as prohibited imports and has intensified enforcement against commercial quantities.
The Thai Customs annual report for fiscal year 2025 lists 697 electronic-cigarette enforcement cases. Its combined quantity field records 1,520,885 pieces, boxes or sets, with a seizure value of 154.78 million baht. These figures confirm a persistent illegal supply chain, but the mixed unit means the total should not be read as 1.52 million individual devices.
As in Australia, enforcement data alone cannot establish how the market would behave under a different regulatory model. Thailand’s user population, tourism, online sales, enforcement intensity and domestic policy all affect what authorities find.
What the evidence supports—and what it does not
- Supported: illegal vape supply persists under both systems, and authorities are seizing products at significant scale.
- Supported: Australia retains a tightly controlled legal pharmacy pathway; Thailand’s rules are a broader ban.
- Supported: some Australian investigations involve organised criminal networks trading illicit tobacco and vapes.
- Not established by seizures alone: the total size of either illicit market, the number of consumers, or the proportion of illegal supply caused specifically by regulation.
- Not established by a two-country comparison: that one regulatory model will produce the same outcomes in another legal, health-care or enforcement system.
Questions policymakers should track
A useful policy review needs more than seizure counts. It should measure youth use, smoking cessation, lawful access, product quality, retail compliance, consumer prices, illicit-market availability and enforcement costs over time. It should also distinguish nicotine products from non-nicotine devices and separate border interceptions from domestic retail seizures.
CAPHRA’s warning deserves to be presented as an advocacy position, not as a settled causal finding. The public evidence confirms a substantial enforcement challenge in both countries. It also shows why Australia’s regulated pharmacy channel and Thailand’s general ban should be analysed separately.
