No, Singapore's vape ban didn't cause the etomidate crisis

Regulating in lieu of banning vapes wouldn't have kept Singapore safe.

- Teo Yik Ying

Singapore is confronting what has been dubbed an "etomidate crisis".

In recent months, enforcement agencies have seized thousands of illicit vapes adulterated with etomidate. Laboratory tests found that roughly one in three confiscated vapes contained the drug, prompting the authorities to classify it as a controlled substance and impose severe penalties on traffickers.

Against this backdrop, a troubling narrative has taken shape on some social media platforms: that Singapore's strict anti-vape laws somehow triggered the etomidate crisis by pushing consumers into illicit markets for unregulated, drug-laced vapes.

This is not only misleading, but also dangerous. Such claims recycle half-truths and outdated science, while ignoring global evidence that vaping carries serious risks. They deserve a clear rebuttal.

INDISPUTABLE HARMS

Pro-vape advocates often cite a decade-old claim from Public Health England that vaping is "95 per cent less harmful" than smoking, and therefore a gateway to quitting. But no credible health authority stands by this figure today.

Harm has two sides: short-term acute harms that appear quickly, and long-term chronic harms that accumulate silently.

On the acute side, the 2019 to 2020 vaping lung illness outbreak in the United States showed what can happen when solvents and oils, including carcinogens like formaldehyde, are inhaled deep into the lungs.

Long-term harms of vaping are only beginning to emerge, but already show links to chronic lung diseases such as asthma and obstructive pulmonary disease—a progressive lung condition where breathing becomes increasingly more difficult.

It took decades to prove the dangers of smoking. Vaping has not had that time yet; the early findings are already worrying.

THE GATEWAY EFFECT