Does Section 39C truly curb drug use or entrench poverty?

Question

Accepted Answer

Section 39C of Malaysia's Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 does not curb drug use but instead entrenches poverty and criminalizes drug dependence.

Section 39C of Malaysia's Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 mandates prison sentences of five to seven years for individuals repeatedly charged for drug use, a provision intended for those perceived as unwilling to reform. However, recent court data indicates thousands of individuals were charged under this section between January 2024 and November 2025, demonstrating its routine application. The outcomes of these sentences, which include lengthy imprisonment, corporal punishment, and post-release supervision, show little regard for the reasons behind continued drug use or the effectiveness of incarceration for recovery, instead prioritizing repeat arrests and convictions. This approach disproportionately affects individuals from low-income and marginalized backgrounds who often struggle with untreated drug dependence, unstable employment, and social exclusion.
Section 39C Criminalizes Drug Dependence as Stubborn Criminality

The application of Section 39C treats drug dependence, a condition recognized globally as chronic and relapsing, as stubborn criminality that warrants escalating punishment. A former drug user convicted under this section described how prior convictions, some dating back over a decade, were used to justify a harsher charge, leading to a five-year sentence without any form of treatment. Upon release, this individual faced significant challenges, including unemployment and lack of housing, with a criminal record barring access to legitimate work, ultimately pushing them back towards drug distribution for survival. This illustrates how the law punishes relapse rather than criminal intent, failing to address the underlying issues that contribute to repeated drug use.
Inconsistent Enforcement and Disproportionate Penalties

There is a notable inconsistency in Malaysia's drug enforcement framework, where individuals arrested by the police are more likely to face prosecution and imprisonment, while those apprehended by the National Anti-Drug Agency (AADK) may be diverted to rehabilitation. This disparity means outcomes often depend less on an individual's needs and more on the arresting authority. Senior criminal lawyers, such as Mr. Charan Singh, argue that Section 39C imposes disproportionately harsh penalties on repeat offenders, many of whom originate from low-income and marginalized backgrounds. He highlights that factors like poverty, unemployment, and limited educational opportunities often contribute to repeated contact with the criminal justice system, and imprisonment alone does not address these fundamental challenges, thus increasing the likelihood of reoffending.
Incarceration Worsens Drug Dependence and Fails to Deter Use

Non-governmental organizations working in harm reduction emphasize that imprisonment does not effectively address drug dependence; in fact, it often exacerbates it. Incarceration can expose individuals to unsafe drug use practices, health risks, and deeper stigma, with drugs remaining accessible even within prisons. This undermines the notion that confinement leads to recovery. Despite some legislative amendments and discussions around expunging criminal records, Section 39C remains untouched. As long as repeat drug use is criminalized under this provision, individuals will continue to be imprisoned based on past records, regardless of their efforts towards recovery, suggesting that reforms leaving Section 39C intact may be superficial rather than transformative.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does Section 39C truly curb drug use or entrench poverty?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends