Regulation slows down the problem, but demand creates the solution so it doesn't really matter.
There’s zero demand for products that are hiding safety issues that nobody was seeking out (e.g., toys with lead paint, batteries that explode)
Demand for illegal things isn’t in a vacuum. It’s hard to enact prohibition on alcohol or cannabis (extremely easy to produce) versus prohibiting something more complicated to make, difficult to smuggle, or less desirable to buy.
If my government bans Crocs am I going to go through the engineering effort to make them myself? Plus, if I go outside the cops will see my illegal Crocs very quickly. I have plenty of alternatives to Crocs and most of them are better. Most likely, I won’t even think about the ban.
We have a good example with incandescent light bulbs. I don’t know anyone who has attempted to violate the ban on home incandescent light bulbs.
The whole “everything should be legal anyway because there will always be a black market” philosophy is not a universal truth and we need to stop assuming that it makes sense.
Funny, because I remember that when this ban was first introduced in my country there actually was a black market for incandescent light bulbs. Some stores would keep selling them as “special purpose” or “vibration-resistant”. It only ended when LED bulbs appeared on the market, because they are strictly superior product (not like fluorescent ones EU tried to promote earlier)
What would have happened to it when supply of incandescent bulbs dried up as manufacturers stopped making them?
Were there any homebrew incandescent lightbulbs?
You’re actually demonstrating my point here: when you ban or regulate something, there are a lot of things that go into whether a significant amount of people try to circumvent that ban. It’s not an automatic free for all thriving black market.
One reason not to circumvent a regulation is when it results in improvement of the status quo or when better alternatives to the banned item already existed.