Tembeling 2.0

Tag: harm reduction

  • Ban Vape Now to Protect Public Health in Malaysia

    Executive Summary

    Vaping has emerged as a growing public health and security crisis in Malaysia. Once promoted as a safer alternative to smoking, vaping is now strongly linked to nicotine addiction, youth uptake, serious health harms, and even drug abuse. The enforcement of the Akta Kawalan Produk Merokok Demi Kesihatan Awam 2024 (Act 852), effective 1 October 2024, is a positive step but its implementation has proven difficult. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is now burdened with too many roles including policymaking, regulation, licensing, monitoring, and enforcement. With limited resources, MOH cannot manage this growing threat effectively. An immediate ban on all vape products is necessary. In the longer term, stronger measures must be taken to restrict cigarette use and move toward a smoke-free future.

    Key Issues

    1. Act 852 is difficult to implement

    Act 852 requires comprehensive regulation of vape products, including licensing of all retailers, monitoring of product contents and marketing, control of online and physical sales, and enforcement of advertisement bans. MOH is expected to take full responsibility for these tasks while also managing other core public health functions. This regulatory and enforcement burden is unrealistic and unsustainable.

    2. Vaping is not harm reduction

    Peer-reviewed research in BMJ Open (2023) involving ASEAN tobacco control experts confirms that nicotine vaping products are not viewed as effective cessation tools and are instead considered a public health threat. Most adult vapers in Malaysia (75%) are dual users who continue smoking cigarettes, thus undermining the notion of risk reduction.

    3. Vaping causes serious health harms

    Published studies report that Malaysian vape users commonly experience dry mouth, cough, headaches, and dizziness. More severe outcomes include EVALI (e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury), which has been documented in Malaysia. Each case costs an estimated RM150,000 to treat, with a projected national healthcare burden of RM368 million annually by 2030 if left unregulated.

    4. Estimated cost burden for Malaysia

    With over 1 million adult daily users in Malaysia (based on 5.4% prevalence), even a 0.1% complication rate requiring hospitalisation would result in 1,000 EVALI cases annually. At RM150,000 per case, this would translate to RM150 million in direct inpatient costs alone, not accounting for outpatient care, productivity loss, or future chronic disease management. Meanwhile, vape tax revenue of RM500 million per year is unlikely to cover the rising health and enforcement costs.

    5. Vaping as a vehicle for drug abuse

    An increasingly alarming trend in Malaysia involves the misuse of vape devices as covert drug delivery tools. Law enforcement and the National Anti-Drugs Agency (AADK) have reported seizures of vape devices containing methamphetamine, ketamine, THC oil, and synthetic cannabinoids. These substances are often inhaled using modified pods or liquids indistinguishable from regular vape products. Students and youths are particularly vulnerable due to the discreet nature of vape use, making enforcement nearly impossible under current regulations. This trend represents both a public health emergency and a national drug control challenge.

    Policy Recommendations

    1. Ban all vape products immediately

    Enact a full ban on the manufacture, import, sale, promotion, and possession of all vape devices and liquids. Strengthen controls on online and cross-border purchases. Declare a national public health and security emergency linked to youth vaping and drug misuse.

    2. Reduce the burden on MOH

    MOH should focus on public health policy, surveillance, and prevention. Licensing, inspections, and enforcement functions should be delegated to other agencies, including municipal councils and the Ministry of Domestic Trade. MOH resources should be redirected toward cessation programmes and school-based health promotion.

    3. Begin long-term restrictions on cigarette sales

    Malaysia should adopt a structured roadmap toward a cigarette-free society. Immediate steps include increased tobacco taxation, plain packaging, limiting retail outlets, and expanding access to evidence-based cessation support. Stronger action is also needed against illicit tobacco trade.

    References

    Gravely, S., Yong, H. H., Reid, J. L., et al. (2022). The prevalence of e-cigarette use in Malaysia: Findings from the 2020 ITC Malaysia Survey. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 20(42). https://doi.org/10.18332/tid/146917 Wong, L. P., Alias, H., Aghamohammadi, N., et al. (2023). Self-reported side effects, dependence, and behaviour in e-cigarette users in Malaysia. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-023-00558-7 Hamilton, W. L., et al. (2022). E-cigarette markets and policy responses in Southeast Asia: A scoping review. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 11(10), 2236–2246. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.104 De Guia, M. C., et al. (2023). Implications of nicotine vaping products for tobacco control in ASEAN LMICs: In-depth interviews with experts. BMJ Open, 13(9): e073106. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073106 Ibrahim, N., et al. (2023). Emerging trends in drug delivery through vaping devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 11:1198763. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1198763 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2021). Synthetic Drugs and Novel Psychoactive Substances: A Global Threat. https://www.unodc.org Ministry of Health Malaysia. (2024). Cost estimation for EVALI treatment and projections. MOH official communications reported in multiple government briefings.

  • E-cigarettes as a Harm Reduction Strategy

    Introduction

    Amid growing concerns about long-term health impacts and youth uptake, over 33 countries, including Brazil, India, and Singapore, have instituted complete bans on e-cigarettes and vaping products. These bans underscore health concerns, especially regarding potential harms and unknown long-term effects (Ecigator, 2024; Statista, 2024; Global Issues, 2024). In contrast, around 87 nations regulate vaping through age restrictions, advertising bans, and usage limitations to control accessibility, especially among minors (Global Issues, 2024).

    Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, allow e-cigarettes as part of a harm reduction strategy, permitting regulated access to encourage adult smokers to transition away from traditional cigarettes. Australia has adopted a more conservative approach, requiring a prescription for e-cigarette access to balance harm reduction with health safety (Hawai‘i Public Health Institute, 2024). This global disparity highlights the ongoing debate surrounding vaping’s public health role, weighing its potential as a harm reduction tool against addiction risks and youth appeal. This article evaluates e-cigarettes using four established harm reduction criteria—reduction in harm, proven safety, efficacy, and accessibility—to determine whether they align with harm reduction standards.

    Harm Reduction Criteria

    For a product to qualify as a harm reduction tool, it must meet several key principles: demonstrate a reduction in health risks, provide conclusive evidence of short- and long-term safety, show effectiveness in reducing or eliminating harmful behaviours, and ensure accessibility without unintended consequences. This framework forms the basis for evaluating e-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy.

    Reduction in Harm

    Harm reduction tools are intended to lower health risks significantly compared to current harmful behaviours. For e-cigarettes, this means offering a lower risk profile than traditional smoking. Public Health England estimates that e-cigarettes are “95% less harmful than smoking” due to the absence of combustion, which is the source of many toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke (McNeill et al., 2015). Studies indicate that e-cigarette vapour contains fewer carcinogens and toxic compounds than cigarette smoke, potentially reducing respiratory and cardiovascular risks (Glantz & Bareham, 2018).

    However, e-cigarette vapour includes harmful substances such as formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds, and regular use has been associated with a 30% increased risk of respiratory issues like asthma and COPD (Bhatta & Glantz, 2020). The reduction in harm is further complicated by limited long-term data, leaving the full health impact uncertain. While e-cigarettes may reduce exposure to certain toxins, their overall health implications remain unclear, meeting this criterion only partially.

    Proven Safety

    Safety is fundamental for any harm reduction strategy, requiring thorough evaluation for short- and long-term impacts to avoid introducing new health risks. Current evidence on e-cigarette safety is limited due to their recent introduction, with most studies focusing on short-term effects. Research has raised concerns about increased cardiovascular and respiratory risks; for example, e-cigarette users have been found to have a 56% higher risk of myocardial infarction than non-users, underscoring cardiovascular safety concerns (Bhatta & Glantz, 2020).

    The history of tobacco emphasises the risks of adopting products without robust safety data. Although tobacco use dates back to 6000 BCE, its addictive and harmful properties were not widely recognised until the 16th century. Cigarettes were marketed as safe until serious health risks were confirmed in the 1950s, nearly a century after their mass production began. E-cigarettes, similarly promoted as safer alternatives without long-term data, risk repeating this historical error. Without comprehensive long-term data, e-cigarettes do not meet the safety criterion.

    Efficacy

    Harm reduction strategies should be effective in reducing or eliminating harmful behaviour. Some studies suggest that e-cigarettes may assist smokers who struggle with traditional cessation methods. A trial by Hajek et al. (2019) found e-cigarettes to be nearly twice as effective as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) when combined with behavioural support. Furthermore, widespread e-cigarette use could potentially prevent over 6.6 million premature deaths among American smokers (Levy et al., 2017).

    However, “dual use” — when individuals continue to smoke while using e-cigarettes — raises concerns, as it can increase overall nicotine exposure, potentially offsetting some of the harm reduction benefits. Evidence on long-term cessation is mixed, with some users returning to smoking or maintaining an e-cigarette dependency (Hartmann-Boyce et al., 2016). While e-cigarettes may offer a transitional tool for some smokers, dual use and sustained dependency challenge their efficacy as a full harm reduction strategy, meeting this criterion only partially.

    Accessibility and Acceptability

    A harm reduction tool should be widely accessible and acceptable to those who may benefit from it. E-cigarettes are widely available in numerous countries, accessible through online platforms and retail outlets. Their popularity, particularly among younger users, is often attributed to diverse flavours and appealing designs. In the UK, approximately 3.6 million adults reported using e-cigarettes in 2021, demonstrating significant accessibility and acceptance (ONS, 2021).

    However, the popularity of e-cigarettes among youth raises ethical concerns. In the United States, vaping among high school students surged from 1.5% in 2011 to 27.5% in 2019, driven by flavoured products and youth-oriented marketing (Cullen et al., 2018). This trend complicates the harm reduction goal, as increased nicotine addiction among youth poses a new public health risk. While e-cigarettes meet the accessibility criterion, ethical concerns about youth uptake remain significant.

    Conclusion

    Evaluating e-cigarettes against harm reduction criteria reveals only partial compliance. While e-cigarettes may reduce exposure to certain toxins compared to smoking, they lack conclusive long-term safety data and show mixed efficacy, especially given the potential for dual use. Although they are accessible and popular, especially among youth, this appeal introduces ethical challenges and potential health risks.

    The history of tobacco illustrates the risks of endorsing products without sufficient safety evidence. Healthcare professionals should avoid repeating these mistakes by endorsing e-cigarettes as a harm reduction tool prematurely. High standards of evidence are essential to protect public health and ensure that harm reduction strategies genuinely benefit those in need.

    Disclaimer: This article was drafted with the assistance of ChatGPT for research synthesis and writing. All information included is derived from reputable sources and cited in APA format.

    References

    Bhatta, D. N., & Glantz, S. A. (2020). Electronic cigarette use and myocardial infarction among adults in the US population assessment of tobacco and health. Journal of the American Heart Association, 8(12), e012317. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.012317

    Cullen, K. A., Ambrose, B. K., Gentzke, A. S., Apelberg, B. J., Jamal, A., & King, B. A. (2018). Notes from the field: Use of electronic cigarettes and any tobacco product among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2018. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(45), 1276–1277. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6745a5

    Ecigator. (2024). Overview of vaping regulations by country. Ecigator. Retrieved from https://www.ecigator.com/vaping-regulations-country/

    Glantz, S. A., & Bareham, D. W. (2018). E-cigarettes: Use, effects on smoking, risks, and policy implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013757

    Global Issues. (2024). Ban or restrict? Quandary facing governments as vaping entices teens worldwide. Global Issues. Retrieved from https://www.globalissues.org/

    Hajek, P., Phillips-Waller, A., Przulj, D., Pesola, F., Myers Smith, K., Bisal, N., … & McRobbie, H. J. (2019). A randomised trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(7), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

    Hawai‘i Public Health Institute. (2024). The countries where vaping is illegal, banned or restricted. Hawai‘i Public Health Institute. Retrieved from https://www.hiphi.org/

    Hartmann-Boyce, J., McRobbie, H., Bullen, C., Begh, R., Stead, L. F., & Hajek, P. (2016). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3

    Levy, D. T., Borland, R., Lindblom, E. N., Goniewicz, M. L., Meza, R., Holford, T. R., … & Warner, K. E. (2017). Potential deaths averted in the USA by replacing cigarettes with e-cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 27(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053759

    McNeill, A., Brose, L. S., Calder, R., Hitchman, S. C., Hajek, P., & McRobbie, H. (2015). E-cigarettes