Is Benzodiazepines legal in Malaysia?

Legal status

The benzodiazepines are split across the two Acts, and the split is the difference between a four year maximum and the death penalty. TWO of them are dangerous drugs: «Flunitrazepam» and «Nimetazepam» are both named in Part III of the First Schedule to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and the Poisons List marks each of them «(DD)». Every other benzodiazepine is caught only by the Poisons Act 1952, through the Poisons List formula «Diazepam and other substances structurally derived from 1, 4-benzodiazepine; their salts, unless specified elsewhere» and the matching Third Schedule entry. Etizolam, a thienodiazepine, is named separately in the Third Schedule. So a single answer for the family is wrong in both directions.

Consequences if caught

Capital and life exposure. The benzodiazepines is in the First Schedule, so section 39B reaches it and the death penalty is available. The chain is short and it does not pass through any weight: section 2 defines «dangerous drug» as «any drug or substance which is for the time being comprised in the First Schedule», section 39B(1) prohibits trafficking in «a dangerous drug», and section 39B(2) sets the penalty. And «trafficking» is defined in section 2 and it is far wider than selling: it «includes the doing of any of the following acts, that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping, concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing, administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering, procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the regulations made under the Act». Keeping, carrying and storing are on that list. This substance has NO section 37(da) presumption weight, and that is the thing most readers get backwards. Section 37(da) runs to twenty seven subparagraphs and names twenty three substances in all: nine opiate, cocaine, cannabis and opium entries at (i) to (x), fourteen amphetamine-type substances at (xi) to (xxiv), and four combination clauses. It does one thing: it presumes trafficking «until the contrary is proved» once a person is found in possession of at least the stated weight. It does NOT create the capital offence and it is not a threshold below which section 39B stops applying. Section 39B(1) prohibits trafficking in «a dangerous drug», full stop. So the absence of a weight means the prosecution has to prove trafficking rather than presume it from the quantity alone, and nothing more than that. Death is no longer mandatory and the change has two dates. Section 39B(2) once read simply «on conviction with death». The Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017, Act A1558, in force 15 March 2018, opened a narrow gate out of it. The Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, Act 846, in force 4 July 2023, then took the gate away by deleting subsections (2A) and (2B), because the discretion no longer needed a gate. Section 39B(2) now reads, in full: «Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be punished on conviction with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, be punished with whipping of not less than twelve strokes.» So the court chooses between death and imprisonment for life, with no precondition, and whipping of at least twelve strokes follows any sentence that is not death. The twelve is itself new: Act 846 substituted it for fifteen. The alternative to death is imprisonment for life, and it is worth being exact about that because Act 846 is widely described as replacing life with a term of thirty to forty years. It did that in the Penal Code, the Firearms Act, the Arms Act, the Kidnapping Act, the Strategic Trade Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. It did NOT do it in the Dangerous Drugs Act. Section 54 of Act 846 is the whole of what it does here: it substitutes twelve strokes for fifteen in section 39B(2) and deletes subsections (2A) and (2B). The words «imprisonment for life» in section 39B(2) are untouched, and no definition of that phrase appears anywhere in the Dangerous Drugs Act, so no year figure is stated in this cell. Two procedural consequences follow automatically. Section 41 removes a section 39B charge from the Sessions and Magistrates' Courts, so it is tried in the High Court. Section 41B(1) provides that bail «shall not be granted» where the offence is punishable with death, and also where it is punishable with more than five years. Section 39C escalates for a person with prior admissions or convictions under the consumption and possession provisions, to five to seven years with up to three strokes for the first escalation.

If prescribed or medical

The prescription answer for the benzodiazepines is two answers, and a single one would be wrong whichever way it went. Two of them are dangerous drugs and the rest are not. «Flunitrazepam» and «Nimetazepam» are named in Part III of the First Schedule to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Every other benzodiazepine is reached only by the Poisons Act 1952, through the Third Schedule entry «Diazepam and other subtances structurally derivated from 1,4-benzodiazepine except flumazenil and pirenzepine» and the matching Poisons List entry «Diazepam and other substances structurally derived from 1, 4-benzodiazepine; their salts, unless specified elsewhere». Etizolam, a thienodiazepine rather than a 1,4-benzodiazepine, is named separately in the Third Schedule. For flunitrazepam and nimetazepam the Dangerous Drugs Act governs. Every prohibition in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and the definition of trafficking in section 2, is qualified by the words «otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the regulations made under the Act», so a lawful holding is one that sits inside an authority granted under the Act. A supply dispensed inside that authority is outside the offence. For every other benzodiazepine the Poisons Act governs. Section 30(3) prohibits possessing a psychotropic substance «otherwise than in accordance with any regulations applicable thereto made under this Act». Those regulations are the Poisons (Psychotropic Substances) Regulations 1989, and regulation 3 is the one a patient stands on: possession is prohibited unless «he is authorised to be in possession of such psychotropic substance under these Regulations» and the substance is for a lawful purpose and obtained under them. Regulation 3(2)(l) places a person lawfully supplied «in accordance with a prescription lawfully given by a registered medical practitioner, registered dentist Division I of a veterinary surgeon» inside that authority, the wording of that paragraph being the publisher's.

Documentation

Carry the prescription and the dispensing label with the medicine, in its original packaging, and know which benzodiazepine it is, because the answer differs between them. The entry decides it: «Flunitrazepam» and «Nimetazepam» in Part III of the First Schedule on one side, and «Diazepam and other subtances structurally derivated from 1,4-benzodiazepine except flumazenil and pirenzepine» in the Third Schedule on the other. For flunitrazepam and nimetazepam the Dangerous Drugs Act applies. Section 25 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is the only personal traveller provision the Act contains, and its reach is narrower than it looks. It sits in Part V, which is the external trade Part, and it opens by providing that nothing in that Part applies to a quantity of a dangerous drug in the form of a medicinal preparation in the «possession of any person arriving in Malaysia by land, air or water from any place outside Malaysia as is reasonably required for the use of such person and which has been supplied to such person bona fide by or on the prescription of a medical practitioner residing outside Malaysia in accordance with the law of the country in which such drug was so supplied». Because the words are nothing in this Part, it answers the import control and it does not touch the possession and trafficking provisions that sit in Part IV of the Act. It is also conditional: the person «shall, as soon as possible on arrival, declare his possession of such dangerous drug to an officer having authority under this Act to search such person and shall submit to such medical examination as may be required of him». Getting the paperwork wrong is not a paperwork penalty. Section 37(d) provides that «any person who is found to have had in his custody or under his control anything whatsoever containing any dangerous drug shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been in possession of such drug and shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have known the nature of such drug», and section 37(da) can then presume trafficking from the weight of the material alone. For every other benzodiazepine the Poisons Act applies. Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Poisons (Psychotropic Substances) Regulations 1989 is the traveller provision and it fixes a figure the Dangerous Drugs Act never does: a person arriving in or leaving Malaysia who carries, as part of personal luggage and solely for personal or family use, a prepared or packaged medicine containing a psychotropic substance is outside the import authorisation requirement, provided the quantity is «not exceeding such quantities as may be reasonably required for one month's use by one person» and it has been lawfully supplied by or on the prescription of a qualified medical practitioner. Section 30(4) presumes possession and knowledge from custody or control: a person found with the substance «shall be deemed to have been in possession of the substance and to have known the nature of the substance, until he proves to the contrary». The prescription is what rebuts it. The penalty under section 30(5) is «a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years or both». A traveller who cannot name the molecule cannot tell which of those two paragraphs governs.

Drug laws and enforcement change and vary within a country. This is not legal advice. Always confirm with Malaysia’s embassy or official drug authority before traveling; penalties can be severe, including imprisonment.