Does Section 39C truly deter drug use or foster crime?

Question

Accepted Answer

Section 39C Fails to Deter Drug Use and Exacerbates Crime

Section 39C of Malaysia's Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 does not effectively deter drug use and instead contributes to fostering crime, particularly among vulnerable populations. The provision mandates prison sentences of five to seven years for individuals repeatedly charged with drug use, operating under the premise of targeting those unwilling to reform. However, in practice, it disproportionately impacts individuals from low-income and marginalised backgrounds who often grapple with untreated drug dependence, unstable employment, and social exclusion. Court data from January 2024 to November 2025 indicates thousands of individuals have been charged under this section, demonstrating its routine application rather than its use as an exceptional measure. This punitive approach focuses on repeat arrests and convictions without adequately addressing the underlying reasons for continued drug use or the effectiveness of incarceration for genuine recovery.
Criminalising Dependence Over Addressing Health Issues

The application of Section 39C treats drug dependence as a criminal issue rather than a chronic health condition. This is evidenced by the experiences of individuals convicted under the section, where prior convictions, sometimes from over a decade ago, are used to justify harsher sentences. One individual, after serving a five-year sentence under Section 39C without receiving treatment, was released with no employment, housing, or support, leading to a return to drug distribution for survival. This outcome highlights how the law punishes relapse and fails to provide pathways for rehabilitation, instead pushing individuals further into criminal activity due to exacerbated economic hardship and social exclusion.
Disparities in Enforcement and Incarceration's Negative Impact

Malaysia's drug enforcement framework presents inconsistencies, with individuals arrested by the police facing a higher likelihood of prosecution and imprisonment compared to those apprehended by the National Anti-Drug Agency (AADK), who may be diverted to rehabilitation. Lawyers, such as Mr. Charan Singh, argue that Section 39C imposes excessively severe penalties on repeat offenders, many of whom originate from disadvantaged backgrounds. Imprisonment alone does not address the root challenges of poverty and unemployment that often contribute to repeated contact with the criminal justice system. Furthermore, incarceration can worsen drug dependence due to exposure to unsafe practices, increased health risks, and heightened stigma, with drugs remaining accessible even within penal institutions.
Limited Reform and Societal Costs

While Malaysia has acknowledged the limitations of punitive drug policies, with discussions around legislative amendments and record expungement, Section 39C remains unchanged. This suggests that reforms may be superficial, failing to address the core of the issue. The continued criminalisation of repeat drug use under Section 39C funnels individuals into prisons based on past records, irrespective of their efforts towards recovery. This approach incurs significant societal costs, including the draining of public resources, the fracturing of families, and the perpetuation of cycles of poverty and crime, without effectively deterring drug use. The evidence indicates that harsher punishments have not led to a reduction in drug use but have disproportionately affected the poorest and most marginalised segments of the population.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does Section 39C truly deter drug use or foster crime?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends