As Malaysia considers a nationwide vape ban, industry leaders and public health experts warn of unintended consequences, rising black markets, and threats to tobacco harm reduction (THR) efforts.
In Malaysia, the heated debate over a proposed national ban on vaping products continues to intensify. What appears on the surface to be a public health measure, is according to THR advocates, a move heavily influenced by pharmaceutical interests. They argue that the push to outlaw vaping is less about protecting public health and more about protecting the market for nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) like gums and patches.
The president of the Malaysian Organisation of Vape Entity (MOVE), Samsul Kamal Ariffin, has voiced strong concerns that pharmaceutical companies—”Big Pharma“—are behind the push to ban vaping. In line with what has happened in other sectors of “medicine”, he believes these companies view the vape industry as a threat to their traditional nicotine replacement products and are leveraging concerns about youth usage and product misuse to sway policymakers. Rather than adopting evidence-based regulations, he claims the narrative is shifting toward prohibition.
Samsul warned that banning legal vape products would likely worsen the situation. Instead of solving problems, it would drive consumers to seek out black market alternatives that are neither regulated nor safe. He emphasized that history has shown prohibition doesn’t eliminate demand, it just displaces it to illegal and more dangerous sources. Supporting his arguments, countries such as Singapore, India, and Australia, which have implemented bans, have still experienced high rates of vape use—mainly through unregulated channels, and increased criminal activity as a result.
Taxed, regulated, then banned?
Under Malaysia’s current regulatory framework—established through the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852)—nicotine-containing vape liquids must be registered, and sales to those under 18 are prohibited. But enforcement remains patchy. Open-system devices, which can be easily refilled and modified, continue to be widely accessible and prone to abuse.
The sweeping ban is being considered despite the fact that the government is setting up registration requirements and collecting taxes (over RM600 million in vape-related revenue expected this year alone). The Malaysian Vape Chamber of Commerce (MVCC), specified that the legal vape industry has made significant economic contributions by generating RM3.48 billion in 2023, supporting over 7,500 general and specialty retailers, and employing more than 31,500 Malaysians—many of them Bumiputera entrepreneurs.
The Malaysia Retail Electronic Cigarette Association (MRECA) also voiced concern. President Datuk Adzwan Ab Manas stated that many of its members have invested in regulatory compliance, training, and infrastructure – to what end? Shutting them down, he argued, would punish responsible operators without effectively tackling the root causes of misuse—namely poor enforcement and the presence of illegal sellers.
The dual-track approach of local authorities has naturally drawn criticism from the legal vape industry, which questions the logic of taxing and registering products that might soon be outlawed. Amongst other things, this sends mixed signals that undermine confidence among consumers and legitimate businesses.
The policy inconsistencies have triggered concern not only among vape retailers but also among consumers and public health advocates. THR groups and experts have long highlighted that vaping, when properly regulated, serves as a harm reduction tool. Citing international studies and data from the likes of Public Health England and MUSC Hollings Cancer Cente, they assert that vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking and has already helped many Malaysians quit cigarettes.
Public Health or Market Protection? None!
In line with these arguments, Samsul believes the solution lies in better enforcement—not prohibition. He suggests restricting sales to licensed vape shops staffed by trained professionals, cracking down on illegal online sales, and enhancing public education. Simply banning vape products, he rightly argues, punishes compliant businesses while doing little to curb misuse.
This perspective is echoed by the MVCC. Secretary-General Ridhwan Rosli pointed out that even during periods when vaping was banned, such as before Act 852 came into effect, millions of Malaysians still used vaping products—most of them unregulated. He cited regions like Johor and Kelantan, where bans were already in place, yet tens of thousands of users still access products through the black market.
Ridhwan reiterated that pushing consumers away from legal products only encourages illegal trade, which is harder to control and monitor. Similarly, the Consumer Choice Centre (CCC) argued that a ban would reduce safe access to vaping, forcing many adult smokers either back to cigarettes or toward unregulated products. They referenced a 2021 global meta-analysis that found former smokers without access to safer alternatives were up to twice as likely to relapse into cigarette smoking.
CCC also highlighted a growing stigma surrounding vape users. They criticized public messaging that lumps adult harm-reduction users together with irresponsible underage users, suggesting that this undermines informed consumer choices and fails to differentiate between use and misuse.
Regulate, don’t eliminate
MRECA, like MOVE and MVCC, supports regulation rather than prohibition. It called on the government to work collaboratively with the legal industry and other stakeholders, such as harm reduction experts and law enforcement, to design practical policies. They urged the government to focus on stricter enforcement measures, better monitoring of online sales, and tougher penalties for illegal operators.
As the Health Ministry continues to evaluate the situation, it faces growing pressure to consider the broader consequences of a ban. THR advocates, as well as consumer groups, argue that real progress lies in responsible regulation, enforcement, and collaboration—not in sweeping bans that risk driving everything underground and putting public health at even greater risk.