Why do drug laws criminalise dependence rather than treat it?

Question

Accepted Answer

Section 39C of Malaysia's Dangerous Drugs Act criminalises drug dependence rather than treating it by focusing on repeat arrests and convictions, imposing mandatory prison sentences without addressing underlying socio-economic issues.

Malaysia's Section 39C of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 mandates prison sentences of five to seven years for individuals repeatedly charged with drug use. This provision, despite its punitive nature, disproportionately impacts individuals from low-income and marginalised communities who often grapple with untreated drug dependence, unstable employment, and social exclusion. Recent court data indicates the routine application of Section 39C, with thousands charged between January 2024 and November 2025, underscoring its broad reach rather than its exceptional use. The law's emphasis on repeated legal entanglements, rather than the underlying causes of drug use or the potential for rehabilitation, ensnares vulnerable individuals in a cycle of incarceration.
Focus on Recidivism Over Underlying Issues

Section 39C centres on punishing individuals for multiple encounters with the justice system, irrespective of the circumstances that contribute to their drug use. This approach fails to acknowledge drug dependence as a chronic health condition, instead treating it as a sign of persistent criminality. A former drug user's experience highlights this deficiency, where past convictions were used to justify a harsher sentence under Section 39C, with no treatment provided during incarceration. Upon release, lacking support and facing barriers to employment, she resorted to drug distribution for survival, demonstrating how the law perpetuates a cycle of reoffending.
Inconsistent Enforcement and Punitive Outcomes

A significant inconsistency exists within Malaysia's drug enforcement framework, where the outcome for an individual often depends on the arresting authority. Those apprehended by the police are more likely to face prosecution, while individuals caught by the National Anti-Drug Agency may be diverted to rehabilitation programmes. This disparity means that the path to either punishment or treatment can be arbitrary. Lawyers argue that Section 39C imposes excessively severe penalties on repeat offenders, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, as imprisonment does not address the root causes of their struggles, such as poverty and unemployment, thereby increasing the likelihood of further legal troubles.
Incarceration Exacerbates Dependence and Stigma

Imprisonment is not a solution for drug dependence and can, in fact, worsen the condition. Within correctional facilities, individuals are exposed to increased health risks and deeper social stigma. Furthermore, the accessibility of drugs within prisons undermines any rehabilitative intent of confinement. While Malaysia has initiated some reforms, such as amendments to the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act and discussions on expunging criminal records, Section 39C remains unchanged. This continuation of a punitive approach, without addressing the systemic issues that lead to repeated drug use, ensures that the most vulnerable segments of society bear the brunt of the policy, without achieving a reduction in drug use.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why do drug laws criminalise dependence rather than treat it?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends