First vape, next cake? The slippery slope of selective bans — Sim Tian Hong
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Serdang Hospital gives PM Anwar clean bill of health after annual check-up
KUALA LUMPUR, June 21 — An annual medical check-up shows that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is in very good health, said Sultan Idris Shah Hospital director Dr Farique Rizal Abdul Hamid. He said the Prime Minister underwent his annual check-up at the hospital in Serdang today. 'Alhamdulillah, the results show that the Prime Minister is in very good health and is able to carry out his official duties as usual,' he said in a statement. Dr Farique Rizal said the health check-up was part of the Prime Minister's commitment to staying fit and ready to lead the country's administration and to carry out his responsibilities to the people with full dedication. — Bernama
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Serdang Hospital gives PM Anwar clean bill of health
KUALA LUMPUR, June 21 — An annual medical check-up shows that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is in very good health, said Sultan Idris Shah Hospital director Dr Farique Rizal Abdul Hamid. He said the Prime Minister underwent his annual check-up at the hospital in Serdang today. 'Alhamdulillah, the results show that the Prime Minister is in very good health and is able to carry out his official duties as usual,' he said in a statement. Dr Farique Rizal said the health check-up was part of the Prime Minister's commitment to staying fit and ready to lead the country's administration and to carry out his responsibilities to the people with full dedication. — Bernama
Free Malaysia Today
6 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Sacking of teacher for refusing Covid-19 vaccine upheld
The Kuala Lumpur Industrial Court said the teacher's refusal to take the Covid-19 vaccine was not supported by sound medical justification. ( Facebook pic) PETALING JAYA : The Industrial Court has ruled that a private school in Shah Alam was entitled to sack a teacher who refused to take the Covid-19 vaccine as ordered by her employer in 2021. Kuala Lumpur Industrial Court chairman S Vanithamany said the claimant's job required interaction with parents, school staff and children, which was why the school ordered all its employees to take the jab. While the teacher has a legitimate right to be concerned about the side effects of any medication or vaccines prescribed, she said, it must be reasonable and supported by sound medical justification. 'She is not a medical expert. Her refusal to take the vaccine without any medical justification is unreasonable and unfounded,' Vanithamany said in the award handed down two weeks ago. The teacher, a foreign national identified as Tifu, was employed by Peninsula Education (Setia Alam) Sdn Bhd from Jan 18, 2021, with a monthly salary of RM15,500. She said she had performed her duties diligently until she was dismissed from the job in December that year. Tifu said she was given an exceptional performance appraisal from the school's principal in June 2021, and was also awarded the prestigious 'Malaysia Outstanding Teacher Award 2021' by the Malaysian and Asia Pacific Arts Festival. In several emails and Zoom meetings with school authorities, she had maintained that there was no law stating that she must be vaccinated. She also said the mandatory vaccine policy was not in her employment contract although Covid-19 was already an issue and the Movement Control Order (MCO) was in place when she was offered the job. The claimant claimed she had allergies that made it impossible for her to take any Covid-19 vaccine, and also argued there was no law that made the vaccination mandatory for her to continue working at the school. Despite the six months' notice required or salary in lieu as stated in her contract, she said, the company only gave her nine days and cancelled her visa, forcing her to leave the country. In its reply, Peninsula Education said it had adhered strictly to the MCO and lockdown restrictions in Malaysia and bore the cost of vaccination for the staff, which was RM190 a person at the time. The company said the claimant gave numerous 'flimsy, unreasonable and unsubstantiated' excuses for her refusal to get vaccinated. 'The claimant's refusal to get the vaccination was in breach of Clause 6.4 of the employment contract, where she explicitly agreed to all lawful and reasonable directions of the company and not to act in any way contrary to its policies and any laws of Malaysia,' it said. Peninsula Education said it had urged the claimant to reconsider her decision, repeatedly reminding her that it owed its employees and customers a high duty of care. In her award, Vanithamany said the company had a statutory duty under Section 15 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 to ensure the safety, health and welfare of all its employees. 'It is apparent to this court that the company had taken all reasonable steps, including having several virtual meetings to explain the vaccination policy to the claimant. 'These steps were taken as part of the company's broader responsibility to ensure the welfare and safety of all its employees, as required by law and also its corporate duty,' she said. She added that the claimant was working in an environment that required her to have contact and dealings with other employees. Vanithamany said the claimant could not perform her duties remotely, as it was impractical for the employer to create special arrangements, especially given that she was the only employee refusing to be vaccinated. 'It is this court's view that the claimant's conduct in refusing to be vaccinated for Covid-19 was totally unreasonable. Based on all the evidence, this court is convinced that the claimant was in breach of her employment contract,' she said.
