JUNE 10 — The recent calls for a nationwide vape ban have been hogging the headlines. Just recently, Segamat MP R. Yuneswaran urged the Federal government to impose a blanket ban, citing rising healthcare costs and increasing youth vaping rates. Meanwhile, states such as Selangor, Kelantan, Johor, Negeri Sembilan and Terengganu have already moved ahead with bans of their own or are debating similar measures.
These moves are driven by understandable public health concerns. No one is questioning the motivations behind such calls. After all, nothing is more important than public health. However, are we approaching this issue in a consistent and coherent way?
If we are banning vape to protect public health, why are cigarettes — a product known to cause cancer, heart disease, and countless other illnesses — still legally sold and taxed? According to the Ministry of Health, tobacco use remains one of the most preventable causes of death in Malaysia. Yet, while vape is being banned or restricted in piecemeal fashion, cigarettes remain a fixture in convenience stores nationwide.
The recent calls for a nationwide vape ban have been hogging the headlines. — Picture by Raymond Manuel
This inconsistency becomes even more troubling when one considers the fragmented nature of the current policy response. Some states are imposing their own bans, others are not. The Federal government has yet to adopt a clear, unified stance. The result is a patchwork of differing rules across the country. This is bound to create confusion for the public, enforcement challenges for authorities, and opportunities for an illicit market to flourish.
There is also the risk of setting a questionable policy precedent. If the principle is that we should ban products that can harm public health, where do we draw the line? Should we also move to ban junk food, sugary drinks, or alcohol, all of which contribute to non-communicable diseases and healthcare costs? I am not suggesting that we ignore the risks associated with vaping. But we should be wary of making selective, reactive policy decisions that are not grounded in a consistent framework.
Rather than imposing outright bans in an uneven and fragmented way, there is a case for a more balanced and coherent approach. Stronger public education campaigns, tighter regulation of marketing and sales (especially to minors), and consistent enforcement across states may ultimately prove more effective than prohibition alone.
Above all, public health policy should be seen as fair, rational, and consistent. A strategy that appears to single out certain products while ignoring others with well-documented harms, risks undermining public trust. It may also distract from the broader effort to build a healthier society.
Public health must always come first. But in pursuing that goal, we should avoid the temptation to adopt inconsistent or populist measures that may generate headlines, but not necessarily better outcomes.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
