With inconsistent federal regulation continuing to plague the industry, multiple Malaysian states have moved to ban the sale of e-cigarettes and other vaping products. The move marks a significant regional pushback against the rapidly expanding nicotine delivery systems market.
To date, four Malaysian states — Johor, Terengganu, Kelantan, and Perlis — have either enacted or will soon enact policies that effectively ban retail vape sales by refusing to issue business licenses, according to media reports. Meanwhile, three other states — Kedah, Penang, and Selangor — are currently considering similar measures. The state bans stop short of criminalizing possession or use; however they severely limit legal retail access to vaping products.
Public health officials and anti-tobacco advocates are applauding the initiative as a “bold response” to what they say are critical gaps in the federal government’s regulatory framework. “Although the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852) has been enforced, enforcement is rather challenging,” the Malaysian Public Health Physicians’ Association (PPPKAM) said in a statement. “It’s difficult to monitor and control the actual content of vape liquids that are sold. Such products can have prohibited ingredients or hidden poisons that are difficult to trace.”
At issue is that the state-level bans function as a de facto prohibition by denying operating licenses to physical vape retailers, which could eventually clash with federal goals of generating tax revenue from nicotine liquids. In May 2023, the Ministry of Finance began collecting excise duties on vape liquids containing nicotine — but the government later admitted in Parliament it would not allocate half of this revenue to the Ministry of Health, citing constitutional limitations on earmarking federal funds.
This reversal undermined earlier assurances and has raised questions about the government’s commitment to reinvesting in smoking cessation and public health programs. It also highlights a growing disconnect between federal and state authorities.
While states like Terengganu and Kedah are proceeding with bans, it remains unclear how Kuala Lumpur’s city council (DBKL) or other federal territories will proceed. If more urban centers join the movement, the impact on retail availability and tax collections could be significant, according to industry stakeholders.
The tension stems largely from the federal government’s decision in March 2023 to declassify nicotine liquids from the Poisons Act — a move that legalized nicotine vape sales and allowed the imposition of excise taxes on them. This deregulation created what PPPKAM termed a “regulatory vacuum” that lasted until Act 852 took effect in October 2024.
Even now, many provisions of Act 852 — such as the 20mg/ml nicotine cap and graphic health warning requirements — are only scheduled to be enforced starting October 1, 2025. Meanwhile, retail display bans implemented on April 1, 2025, appear to be inconsistently followed, with major convenience chains still showcasing vape products.
The Malaysian vape market has flourished, despite the uncertain environment. A recent survey by Milieu Insight found that 12.2% of Malaysians reported using “alternative nicotine” products — a higher rate than both the Philippines (9.5%) and Singapore (5.4%). Usage is especially pronounced among those aged 20 to 29, where there’s a 15% prevalence rate.
The Smoke-Free Malaysia Initiative, under the Federation of Malaysian Consumer Associations (FOMCA), also supported the bans, calling them “a progressive step” toward fulfilling Malaysia’s commitments under the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). “We urge all state governments to remain steadfast in upholding the principles of the WHO FCTC,” the group said, framing the moves as aligned with the global Tobacco Endgame strategy, which targets reducing smoking rates to below 5% by 2040.
Malaysia’s vape market is split between domestically produced open-system vapes, which use refillable liquids, and imported closed systems like pod-based products and disposable vapes. However, federal regulations do not currently differentiate between the formats in enforcement, leading to a patchwork of policies and confusion for both businesses and consumers.
Public health experts argue that partial regulations are insufficient. “Regrettably, even with the enactment of Act 852, questions remain about the effectiveness of these standards in ensuring user safety,” FOMCA’s statement noted.
