Malaysia’s decision to drop its appeal has raised fresh questions over nicotine regulation. Photo credit: Matheus Bertelli, Pexels.
Malaysia’s decision not to pursue its appeal against a High Court ruling on liquid nicotine has left the government facing calls to clarify the legal framework governing nicotine-containing vape products.
The government filed a notice of discontinuance with the Court of Appeal on August 18, leaving the High Court’s May 15 ruling in place. The court had ruled that the 2023 decision to remove liquid and gel nicotine from the Poisons List was unlawful, finding that the then health minister had not properly consulted the Poisons Board.
The ruling has since prompted calls from the Malaysian Organization of Vape Entity (MOVE) for immediate clarification of the relationship between the Poisons Act 1952 and the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852).
MOVE said Act 852 should remain the regulatory framework for vaping products and urged the government and Health Ministry to provide clarity on the legal position of nicotine-containing products. The group represents more than 55,000 members.
The dispute centers on the government’s 2023 decision to remove liquid nicotine from the Poisons List before Act 852 came into force on October 1, 2024. The High Court found that the exemption created a regulatory gap and that economic considerations, including taxation, played a significant role in the decision.
The government’s decision to abandon the appeal means the High Court judgment now stands. The development has raised questions over whether nicotine-containing vape products can continue operating under Act 852 or whether their status under the Poisons Act requires further legislative action.
MOVE has argued that the existing framework should provide a basis for regulating the legal market rather than creating uncertainty for businesses and consumers. It said a regulated market allows authorities to apply requirements such as age verification, operating procedures, and enforcement oversight.
MOVE president Samsul K. Arrifin said, "Prohibition does not automatically remove demand. It removes the regulated channel. If the objective is to protect youth and consumers, the stronger approach is to keep the market visible, accountable and enforceable.”
The group also warned that uncertainty could push consumers toward illicit channels, making product standards, traceability, ingredient transparency, and tax collection more difficult to enforce.
The issue also has financial implications. CodeBlue reported that the government could face more than MYR354 million (US$88.5 million) in tax refunds following the court ruling, while putting the value of Malaysia’s vape industry at MYR3.48 billion (US$870 million).
The government has also faced questions over which ministry should oversee tobacco and nicotine products. CodeBlue reported that the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN) could potentially assume responsibility if Parliament classifies tobacco and nicotine products as ordinary trade commodities. KPDN has previously maintained that nicotine vape products fall under the Health Ministry because nicotine remains classified as a poison.