A Changing Legal Landscape

The regulation of nicotine in Malaysia has reached an important juncture. On 15 May 2026, the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled on the legality of the 2023 exemption of liquid and gel nicotine used in electronic cigarettes and vaping devices from the Poisons Act 1952. The Government initially appealed against the decision but discontinued its appeal on 18 August 2026. The immediate issue now is not to revisit the political circumstances surrounding the original decision, but to determine how Malaysia should establish a clear and coherent legal framework for nicotine moving forward.

Nicotine has historically been regulated under the Poisons Act 1952 (Act 366), which provides controls over substances included within the Poisons List. Nicotine has legitimate therapeutic applications, particularly through nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation, but its pharmacological activity, dependence potential and toxicity justify regulatory control.

Section 6 of the Poisons Act permits the Minister to amend the Poisons List after consultation with the Poisons Board (Poisons Act 1952). At its 97th meeting on 29 March 2023, the Board considered a proposal to exempt nicotine in liquid or gel preparations used in electronic cigarettes and electronic vaporising devices. The Board did not agree with the proposed exemption (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2023).

Nevertheless, the Poisons (Amendment of Poisons List) Order 2023, P.U.(A) 93/2023, was made on 31 March 2023 and came into operation on 1 April 2023. The amendment did not remove nicotine entirely from the Poisons List. It created a specific exemption for nicotine in liquid or gel preparations intended for electronic cigarettes and electric vaporising devices.

The regulatory landscape subsequently changed with the enactment of the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852). The Act was gazetted on 2 February 2024 and came into operation on 1 October 2024. It established a dedicated framework for tobacco products, smoking substances and substitute tobacco products. Importantly, nicotine is expressly included within the statutory definition of a “smoking substance” (Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024).

The High Court Decision

The 2023 exemption was subsequently challenged through judicial review. On 15 May 2026, the High Court held that the Minister’s 2023 decision to create the exemption for liquid and gel nicotine in P.U.(A) 93/2023 was irrational and was made without the proper and meaningful consultation with the Poisons Board required under section 6 of the Poisons Act 1952.

The Government initially exercised its right to appeal but discontinued the appeal in its entirety on 18 August 2026 (Boo, 2026). The High Court judgment therefore stands without a continuing Government appeal.

There is little value now in treating this development simply as a contest over whether particular decisions made in 2023 were right or wrong. The more useful question is what Malaysia should do next.

The Current Legal Question

The immediate legal issue concerns the relationship between the Poisons Act and Act 852. Nicotine remains within the regulatory architecture of the Poisons Act, while the specific exemption for liquid and gel nicotine used for vaping has been successfully challenged. At the same time, Act 852 remains in force and expressly regulates nicotine-containing smoking products.

The coexistence of these statutes is not necessarily contradictory. Different legislation may regulate the same substance for different purposes. Nevertheless, the current situation raises practical questions regarding the manufacture, importation, distribution and retail supply of nicotine-containing vaping products, as well as the requirements applicable to retailers and consumers.

The present situation therefore provides an opportunity to clarify the legal position and further harmonise the operation of the Poisons Act and Act 852. This is understandably a complex regulatory task, particularly following the High Court decision and the subsequent withdrawal of the appeal. Moving forward, clear guidance would be valuable to the public, healthcare professionals, enforcement agencies and businesses alike. The wider professional and public-health community should support the Government in this process by contributing relevant evidence, expertise and perspectives towards a coherent regulatory framework that is legally sound, practical to implement and firmly grounded in public health.

Streamlining the Law

The present situation is not legally insurmountable. Parliament can amend the Poisons Act, Act 852 or both, while subsidiary legislation can be revised to establish a clear relationship between the respective regulatory regimes.

The important issue is the principle that should guide such reform.

Different forms of nicotine need not necessarily be regulated identically. Therapeutic nicotine, including nicotine patches and other medicinal nicotine replacement products, has a defined clinical purpose in assisting smoking cessation. Recreational nicotine products represent a different regulatory proposition. The law can recognise distinctions based on purpose, formulation, mode of delivery and risk.

However, the appropriate sequence should be public-health objective, policy, and then legislation. Malaysia should first determine what it wants nicotine regulation to achieve and subsequently design the legal framework around that objective. Existing commercial arrangements should not, by themselves, determine the direction of legislative reform.

Commercial Interests and Public Costs

The process of reform will inevitably involve competing interests. Businesses that have invested in the vaping industry may legitimately argue that regulatory uncertainty creates financial losses, threatens employment and investment, and disadvantages enterprises that operated within the framework previously established by the Government. These concerns deserve consideration.

However, commercial losses represent only one component of the economic equation. Smoking, nicotine dependence and diseases associated with smoking products also impose costs on individuals, families, employers, the healthcare system and society. These include healthcare expenditure, productivity losses, disability and premature mortality. The economic consequences of dependence may persist for decades.

A balanced economic assessment should therefore consider not only the immediate effect of regulation on businesses and government revenue, but also the longer-term costs that effective prevention may avoid. The economic value of a disease that does not occur or an addiction that never develops is less visible than current business turnover, but it is nevertheless real.

The relevant economic question is therefore not simply how much value a nicotine market generates, but whether the overall balance of benefits and costs advances the welfare of the population.

The Community’s Responsibility

Industry will understandably advocate for its commercial interests. This is a legitimate part of policymaking in a democratic society. However, industry should not be the only organised voice influencing the direction of reform.

Parents, healthcare professionals, professional societies, educators, universities, civil-society organisations and the wider community also have a legitimate interest in the outcome. They should participate actively in the policy discussion and advocate for the protection of population health.

This is particularly important in relation to children and adolescents. A child who has never smoked has no therapeutic need to initiate nicotine use. Preventing the establishment of nicotine dependence among young people should therefore carry substantial weight when regulatory choices are made.

The public-health community should also make the economic case for prevention more clearly. Avoided healthcare expenditure, reduced disability, greater productivity and fewer years lived with nicotine dependence are economic benefits, even if they are not immediately reflected in government revenue or commercial accounts.

The Moral Basis for Reform

Ultimately, streamlining the law is a technical task. Determining the values that should guide that law is not.

Commercial interests, employment, investment and government revenue are legitimate considerations. They cannot simply be ignored. However, government also carries a responsibility to prevent avoidable disease and dependence, particularly among those who are least able to assess their long-term consequences.

This is where the wider community has an important role. Political will is influenced by the voices that policymakers hear. If commercial stakeholders strongly advocate for their interests, parents, professional organisations, healthcare workers and civil society should be equally prepared to articulate the public-health interest.

The objective should not be to demonise an industry or those who use nicotine products. Nor should it be to assume that every form of nicotine must be treated identically. It should be to ensure that when Malaysia redesigns its nicotine laws, the protection of health remains the principal consideration.

Moving Forward

The withdrawal of the Government’s appeal provides an opportunity to move beyond the legal dispute of 2023. The immediate priority is to clarify how the Poisons Act and Act 852 presently apply to nicotine-containing vaping products. The subsequent task is to streamline the legislation so that the regulatory framework is clear, coherent and aligned with an explicit public-health objective.

That process will inevitably involve commercial, legal and economic considerations. All deserve attention. However, society should ensure that the health consequences of nicotine dependence and smoking-related disease are given equal, if not greater, weight.

The law is not cast in stone. With sufficient political will, Parliament can amend it and the Government can develop a more coherent regulatory framework.

The community therefore has a role beyond waiting for government to decide. Parents, healthcare professionals, professional societies and civil society should participate in shaping that political will.

The fundamental question is not merely how Malaysia can reconcile the Poisons Act with Act 852. It is what principles should guide that reconciliation.

The answer should be grounded in evidence, but it should also have a clear moral compass: protecting health, preventing avoidable dependence and disease, and safeguarding future generations.

References

Boo, S.-L. (2026, August 18). Government drops appeal against liquid nicotine court ruling. CodeBlue.

Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852) (Malaysia).

Hamdan, N. (2026, May 15). Govt decision to de-list liquid nicotine from Poisons Act ‘irrational’, rules High Court. The Star.

Ministry of Health Malaysia. (2023). Pharmaceutical Services Programme annual report 2023. Pharmaceutical Services Programme.

Poisons (Amendment of Poisons List) Order 2023, P.U.(A) 93/2023 (Malaysia).

Poisons Act 1952 (Act 366) (Malaysia).