We can discuss about how the law enforcement going to be, that we could have more room for agreement.
The law enforcement part, the KKM just copied from the Akta Makanan 1983. KJ already told repeatedly it is not for criminalising young smokers / minors, no criminal records been given. I also do not agree to punish the smokers, would support more to educate and help the person to quit smoking. Instead of compound fine, it would be better to put the first time offender to the mQuit programme.
It is also agreeable that the legal text should make distinction between minor and adult smokers.
However, on the supply side, if the Act is going to be effective, the law has to be deterrent so that more retailers would want to keep their licence and sell only licit cigarettes and vapes according to the licence conditions. The enforcement team has to crack down hard on the illciit market with legal binding power conferred to them, as in dealing with other commercial crime.
***
On harm reduction vs GEG. There is a fundamental aspect you do not distinguish, harm reduction is for the current addicts to reduce harm from using safer ways to practice their habit (such as needle exchange), or getting them signing up on the recovery or quitting pathway (such as methadone treatment…this thing doesn’t get one high on drug but merely helping them soothing the withdrawal effects).
But harm reduction is not helping in any way to PREVENT people from picking up harmful habits. The prevention need has to be enhanced by law and send the message right. Thus, even for Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA), sale, possession and consumption of dangerous drugs are still prohibitive by law, even though there is a harm reduction method to help the current addicts.
So, why not do the same, given that the GEG policy is an even softer landing approach by allowing the current addicts to continue the habit, but preventing the future generations to become new smokers? In my opinion, the real harm reduction for smoking is using nicotine substitute products such as nicotine patches and screwing gums, those have to be prescribed by the doctors and pharmacists, with the intention to quit smoking.
***
Referring to the Akta Makanan 1983 on conferring the officers enforcement power to carry out their duty, of course it is not the same but similar provisions, if you compare both. You already know that the current law prohibits under-18 from smoking and purchasing tobacco products, by right they could similarly act according to the Akta Makanan 1983. Anyone made noise about the law? This has nothing to do with GEG but enforcement power you show concern about
***
Liberty cannot be absolute. Even ‘On Liberty’ by John Stuart Mill, the core principle is the Harm Principle. "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Smoking presents harm to not only oneself but also to the family members, colleagues and the general public. The harm between smoking/nicotine addiction and health outcomes is indisputable. Why does one not object to DDA or the authority of NPRA to safeguard people’s health from known harms? What if we don’t have DDA, Poisons Act and regulations, Sales of Drugs Act, and allow people the liberty to do whatever they please? Is the government or authority not taking responsibility to protect the communities from known harmful substances? Do you want to send a message to the future generations that it is alright for them to pick up the smoking habit and nicotine addiction although you know there is ascertained harm? Generation post 2007 are not allowed legally to smoke now also.
***
If you read my long article on Contemporary Review, that was the time when the Bill text was not yet available to all of us. I stand by all the main concepts known to us before the Bill was tabled: i) GEG, ii) Regulation of vapes and e-cigarettes, iii) Licensing and Regulation of the retailers. It is a good development that the MPs took interest in the bill, and the bill is passed to the PSSC stage to scrutinise with the intention to improve the bill further about the enforcement and penalties. To me, I have no issue with the improvements and acknowledging that there could be parts where they can demarcate/specify clearly/explicitly not to be punitive to the minor smokers and abused by the officers. However, I maintain that the officers need the legal mandate to tackle the illegal supply issues, and those power should be granted to the similar level of investigating commercial organised crime.
If the enforcement and penalties are your concerned areas, and if the PSSC has made substantial safeguards to address your concerns, would you support the revised bill?
The (i) , (ii) , (iii) components are a must in this bill to make things work though. On GEG policy, there are quite a number of surveys showing overwhelming large popular support for the policy, even among the current smokers.
***
You can view my record and speaking in public, I am all for decriminalisation of drug addicts, and I also do not want the laws to be punitive to young smokers , so tobacco control advocates are usually hard on the retailers and supply side but want soft approach to the minor smokers, the goal is to help them quitting the smoking habit. I defend drug addicts not to be criminalised, doesn’t mean that I do not want a drug control policy to help prevent the society being accessible to many drug supplies.
I must say that decriminisalisation is not equal to legalisation of hard drug use. There are people could be more liberal for the latter, but i would like to achieve the former then study the latter.
***
Public opinion and public survey, when the public are given enough information and make informed opinion, these are democratic voices. Still the government needs to decide for the best public benefits and public interest for the policy, this process would have the legitimacy on the ground and rationale of the policy. I would say GEG has both. It would be true, if the world would know the causative factors for smoking linking to the detrimental health outcomes, the health authorities across the world would have banned and put tobacco and nicotine-containing products to the DDA or different categories in the Poisons Act.
Not many would complain right now about opium ban, correct? Do you think now that people should have liberty to buy and smoke opium? We do not have the ‘right’ to begin with during our generation to buy opium unlike our grandfathers, is this historically not quite like GEG to us? I would feel safer to have opium ban rather than thinking about whether I should have a choice to smoke opium.
***
18 year old age smoking restriction rule can only work thus far (without lowering much the smoking prevalence in Malaysia for the past 3 decades), coz it sends out opposite signals to the youngsters that, once they reach legal age it is legally and socially acceptable and OK to smoke. They may perceive that smoking is an adult behaviour, so they want to be like that or associated with that ‘maturity’. GEG changes the whole narrative and sends out a definite message that smoking and nicotine addiction is NOT OK, and the government takes steps to protect the society from harm while recognising the current smokers are victims of nicotine-addiction, thus needing time to change behaviour (or not).
