Why is drug dependence treated as criminal intent rather than chronic illness?

Question

Accepted Answer

Section 39C treats drug dependence as repeat criminality rather than a chronic illness by design and in practice
Drug dependence is handled under Section 39C of Malaysia’s Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 through mandatory, escalating prison punishment for people who are repeatedly charged for drug use, even when the focus is relapse rather than criminal intent. The provision allows courts to impose five to seven years’ imprisonment for repeat charges, and it was framed to target those seen as unwilling to reform. In practice, court data show thousands of people were charged under Section 39C between January 2024 and November 2025, reinforcing that the law is routinely applied in a way that does not centre recovery pathways or treatment needs.
Section 39C is built around repeat charges and mandatory jail terms
Section 39C permits mandatory prison sentences of five to seven years for individuals repeatedly charged for drug use, with the provision intended to target those perceived as unwilling to reform. The sentencing process is described as severe and predictable, including lengthy imprisonment and post-release supervision, while meaningful inquiry into why people continue to use drugs is described as largely absent. This structure means relapse becomes the trigger for punishment, not a medical assessment of dependence as an ongoing condition.
Court outcomes focus on relapse and past records rather than treatment
A case described involves a former drug user convicted under Section 39C in 2018, where convictions dating back more than a decade were resurrected to justify a harsher charge despite having already served time and paid fines for those earlier offences. She received a five-year sentence after pleading guilty, received no treatment during incarceration, and faced major barriers after release, including no job, no housing, and a criminal record that barred employment. The account links reoffending to survival pressures, illustrating how the system punishes relapse and prior convictions rather than treating drug dependence as a chronic, relapsing health condition.
Enforcement routes can change outcomes, including diversion to rehabilitation
Lawyers interviewed for the research highlighted that outcomes can depend on who arrests the person: those 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 inconsistency in enforcement and processing means dependence is not treated uniformly as a health issue across cases. Even where rehabilitation exists as a possibility, Section 39C itself remains a punitive pathway that criminalises repeat drug use.
Partial reforms have not changed Section 39C’s core punitive approach
Malaysia has begun acknowledging limits of punitive drug policy through amendments to the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act and public discussions on expunging records for minor and non-violent offences, yet Section 39C remains untouched. As long as repeat drug use is criminalised under Section 39C, people can be funnelled into prison based on past records, including convictions that are decades old. Lawyers and NGOs interviewed for the research describe this as a revolving-door pattern that worsens dependence through unsafe conditions, health risks, and stigma while leaving drugs accessible even within prisons and rehabilitation centres.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why is drug dependence treated as criminal intent rather than chronic illness?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends