Tembeling 2.0

Tag: vaping

  • Act 852 and the future of nicotine control in Malaysia

    Introduction

    The Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852) marks a decisive shift in Malaysia’s public health policy. It represents a progression from the previous regulatory framework, where smoking control was largely governed under the Food Act 1983 through the Control of Tobacco Product Regulations 2004. That earlier approach focused primarily on conventional cigarettes and treated tobacco as a regulated consumer product within a broader food and safety context.

    Act 852 moves beyond this limitation by establishing a dedicated public health law for smoking and nicotine control, recognising that the current landscape includes not only cigarettes but also vaping, substitute tobacco products and evolving nicotine delivery systems. The Act came into operation on 1 October 2024, marking the transition to this new regulatory framework.

    What distinguishes Act 852 is its recognition that nicotine use today is no longer confined to cigarettes. It therefore regulates not only products, but also delivery systems, access, environments and market behaviour.

    The strength of the Act

    A whole-system regulatory framework

    The strength of Act 852 lies in its integrated, system-level approach. It regulates access and availability, including prohibition of online sales, vending machines and sales near educational institutions (Control of Smoking Products for Public Health (Control of Sale) Regulations 2024, P.U. (A) 260). It also regulates public exposure through the declaration of no-smoking areas covering healthcare facilities, eating premises and transport hubs (Control of Smoking Products for Public Health (Declaration of Non-Smoking Area or Place) Order 2024, P.U. (A) 257).

    Risk perception is strengthened through packaging, labelling and the prohibition of misleading descriptors such as “light” or “mild” (Control of Smoking Products for Public Health (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 2024, P.U. (A) 261). Market control is introduced through product registration, laboratory analysis and traceability (Control of Smoking Products for Public Health (Registration of Tobacco Product, Smoking Substance and Substitute Tobacco Product) Regulations 2024, P.U. (A) 262). Enforcement mechanisms are also strengthened through compounding of offences and structured notice procedures (Control of Smoking Products for Public Health (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 2024, P.U. (A) 259).

    This multi-layered approach ensures that control is not limited to individual behaviour, but extends to the entire ecosystem.

    Controlling nicotine and addiction

    A defining feature of Act 852 is the direct regulation of nicotine, particularly for vape products. The law introduces measurable limits under the Packaging and Labelling Regulations 2024 (P.U. (A) 261, regulation 9):

    • Maximum nicotine concentration of 35 mg/ml, reduced to 20 mg/ml from 1 October 2025
    • Maximum cartridge or pod volume of 3 ml, reduced to 2 ml from 1 October 2026

    This shifts policy from simply discouraging smoking to actively controlling addiction potential.

    Regulating both cigarettes and vape

    Act 852 is unique in that it regulates both combustible and non-combustible nicotine products within the same legal framework. Cigarettes are addressed as established harmful products to be reduced, while vape is regulated as a system comprising both device and content.

    The content is tightly controlled through nicotine limits, packaging and product registration. The device is controlled indirectly through restrictions on sale, use and linkage to regulated substances.

    Progress of enforcement

    Scale of enforcement

    The early phase of implementation demonstrates strong nationwide enforcement. Reported figures include:

    • More than 25,000 enforcement operations conducted
    • Nearly 500,000 premises inspected
    • Over 140,000 notices issued
    • More than 20,000 compounds issued to premises owners
    • Thousands of products seized and investigation papers opened

    These figures indicate that Act 852 is already being implemented at scale, with enforcement extending beyond pilot phases to a national level.

    Enforcement across multiple domains

    Enforcement is not confined to smokers alone, but spans multiple levels. Public smoking control is implemented particularly in restaurants, healthcare settings and public places, reflecting enforcement of no-smoking areas (P.U. (A) 257). Premises accountability is strengthened where owners must display warning signs and ensure compliance (Control of Smoking Products for Public Health (Warning Sign of Prohibition of Smoking) Regulations 2024, P.U. (A) 258).

    Retail and supply control includes prohibition of online sales, vending machines and sales near educational institutions (P.U. (A) 260). Product regulation includes enforcement against non-compliant or unregistered products (P.U. (A) 262). Legal enforcement mechanisms include compounding and prosecution (P.U. (A) 259).

    The pattern of enforcement suggests that behavioural enforcement is already strong and visible, retail and premises compliance is actively enforced, and product and vape-related regulation is emerging and will require continued strengthening.

    Long-term impact and how to measure it

    A nicotine-free generation

    The most important long-term outcome is the prevention of nicotine dependence among future generations. This is supported by reduced access and restrictions on sales channels, especially online sales, vending machines and sales near educational institutions (P.U. (A) 260).

    Denormalisation of smoking and vaping

    The expansion of no-smoking areas and the requirement to display warning signs aim to reduce visibility and social acceptability of smoking and vaping (P.U. (A) 257; P.U. (A) 258).

    Reduction in nicotine dependence

    The explicit control of nicotine concentration and product volume is expected to reduce addiction intensity at the population level (P.U. (A) 261).

    Elimination of misleading product perception

    Strict packaging and labelling controls ensure that no product is perceived as safe or less harmful. This is particularly important for both cigarettes and vape, where descriptors and product design may create false reassurance (P.U. (A) 261).

    A controlled product ecosystem

    Registration and laboratory analysis ensure that products are traceable and regulated, reducing the presence of illegal or non-compliant products (P.U. (A) 262).

    Measuring success

    Success should be assessed through:

    • Reduction in smoking and vaping prevalence, especially among youth
    • Increase in age of initiation
    • Reduction in exposure to second-hand smoke and aerosol
    • Compliance with no-smoking areas and sales restrictions
    • Reduction in illegal or non-compliant products
    • Increase in quit attempts and utilisation of cessation services
    • Long-term decline in tobacco-related disease burden

    The role of other laws and organisations

    Act 852 does not operate in isolation. Vape regulation in Malaysia requires a coordinated legal and institutional ecosystem because vape is not only a public health issue, but also a chemical product, an electronic device, a traded commodity and a digitally marketed item. As such, multiple laws and agencies contribute to its regulation across different domains.

    Substance control

    The Poisons Act 1952 (Act 366) historically regulated nicotine in liquid form as a controlled substance. While nicotine used in vape liquids has since been exempted to allow regulation under Act 852, the Poisons Act remains relevant for broader chemical control and for situations where substances may fall within pharmaceutical or toxicological oversight.

    In addition, the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 and related regulations may apply if nicotine-containing products are positioned as therapeutic or smoking cessation aids. In such cases, these products would be subject to pharmaceutical standards and regulatory approval.

    Importation and border control

    The Customs Act 1967 (Act 235) plays a critical role in controlling the entry of vape devices and liquids into Malaysia. It enables enforcement authorities to:

    • monitor importation of vape products and components
    • seize undeclared, illegal or non-compliant products
    • prevent smuggling and illicit trade

    This is essential because a significant proportion of vape products are imported and may bypass domestic regulatory requirements without effective border control.

    Consumer safety and product liability

    The Consumer Protection Act 1999 (Act 599) governs product safety and liability. Vape devices, being electronic consumer products, fall within its scope. This Act is particularly relevant for:

    • defective or unsafe devices
    • battery failures, overheating or explosion risks
    • consumer rights and compensation

    While Act 852 regulates how vape is used and sold, the Consumer Protection Act ensures that the products themselves do not pose undue risk to users.

    Trade, pricing and affordability

    The Sales Tax Act 2018 (Act 806) and excise duty frameworks influence the pricing of vape products and tobacco. Pricing remains one of the most effective public health tools, particularly in reducing youth access and consumption.

    In addition, the Trade Descriptions Act 2011 (Act 730) addresses false or misleading commercial claims. While Act 852 already prohibits misleading labelling for smoking products, this Act extends protection to broader marketing practices across commercial platforms.

    Digital marketing and online content

    The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) regulates online content, advertising and digital communications. This is particularly relevant for vape products, which are often promoted through:

    • social media platforms
    • influencer marketing
    • online retail channels

    Control of digital exposure is essential, especially in protecting adolescents and young adults from targeted marketing.

    Retail environment and local enforcement

    Under the Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171), local authorities have powers over licensing and business premises. This allows them to:

    • regulate the location and density of vape and tobacco retailers
    • enforce local compliance with no-smoking areas
    • support on-the-ground enforcement of Act 852

    Local authorities therefore play a key role in translating national policy into community-level implementation.

    Device safety and technical standards

    Vape devices are electrical and electronic products, and their safety is not fully addressed under Act 852. This is where technical agencies play an important role.

    The Standards of Malaysia Act 1996 (Act 549), through SIRIM, provides the framework for developing and enforcing technical standards. SIRIM can contribute by establishing standards for:

    • battery safety and charging systems
    • device construction and material safety
    • quality assurance and manufacturing consistency

    In addition, the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (Act 447), enforced by the Energy Commission, ensures compliance with electrical safety requirements for devices.

    This technical layer is especially important for open-system devices, which are more variable and modifiable, and therefore present greater safety and regulatory challenges.

    Integrated regulatory ecosystem

    Taken together, these laws form a coordinated system:

    • Act 852 – public health, access, use and nicotine control
    • Poisons Act and Sale of Drugs Act – substance and therapeutic regulation
    • Customs Act – importation and border control
    • Consumer Protection Act – device safety and liability
    • Trade and tax laws – pricing and commercial conduct
    • Communications and Multimedia Act – digital marketing and exposure
    • Local Government Act – retail environment and local enforcement
    • SIRIM and technical laws – device standards and safety

    The effectiveness of Act 852 therefore depends not only on its own provisions, but on how well these complementary laws and agencies work together to regulate the full spectrum of nicotine products.

    In this context, vape regulation is best understood not as a single law issue, but as a multi-sector public health system requiring coordinated governance across health, trade, technology and enforcement domains.

    Conclusion

    Act 852 represents Malaysia’s transition from tobacco control under the Food Act framework to a dedicated, comprehensive nicotine control law. Its strength lies in regulating both products and systems, including measurable limits on nicotine exposure and comprehensive control of access, environment and market behaviour.

    Its success will depend on sustained enforcement, coordination across agencies and complementary roles from technical bodies such as SIRIM. Over time, the impact will be reflected in reduced initiation, lower dependence, declining prevalence and ultimately a reduction in the burden of tobacco-related disease.

  • 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