Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing Cannabis here in Thailand. I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Cannabis restricted to five Medical Uses, Health Authorities say. 

The first thing I would say on that is, based on what law? I have talked about this repeatedly. There is no underlying law that says that they can do this and frankly this is as arbitrary and capricious is going to florists and saying, “hey you can't sell these flowers because we say so, and we are the Ministry of Public Health.” There's not an underlying law that says Cannabis is anything other than just some plant okay. I have discussed this at length in other videos. The doctrine of codification is one of the fundamental principles of a Civil Law country and it is just kind of being flouted because you know this Ministry says so. Meanwhile, we are not even under a government now, we are under a caretaker government because the Cabinet has been vacated and the Prime Minister was adjudicated to have been acting unethically and was removed from office by the Constitutional Court. So on what authority are they making these rules? I have really issues with this because it is just all we don't like Cannabis so therefore we are just going to say whatever we want; you have to go along with it. It's arbitrary and capricious to say the least. Quoting directly: "Cannabis buds may legally be used" - who says “legally” as I will get into in another citation. Quoting further: "be used only by patients with five categories of symptoms and must be obtained with a doctor's prescription, the Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine announced on Monday." Again, based on what law that says that Cannabis can be regulated in this way? You came up with the regulations before that basically just said you have got to be over 20; no selling to pregnant women, which was baseline. I mean where is all this coming from? These regulations are apropos of what promulgated law through Parliament that they said they would promulgate some 18 months ago, that nobody has ever gotten around to but now we are just doing this stuff because we say so. Quoting further: "Director-general Dr. Somlerk Jeungsmarn said the permitted conditions are insomnia, chronic pain, migraine, Parkinson's disease and anorexia. Patients must present prescriptions from licensed doctors or pharmacists, and Cannabis buds can be sold only in licensed shops." Well you always had to have a license which by the way the roughly 20,000 people who went out and got licenses to sell, they are supposed to now forever be dictated to in an arbitrary and capricious manner based on no passage of any underlying law? That said, and I mean on top of all of this so what? What gives them the right to say that "oh, you can only have it under these conditions? You have to have a license to sell alcohol in Thailand. Where is anybody saying, "oh well you need a doctor to say that you can have two beers a day because your foot hurts or something." I mean again, this is arbitrary and capricious to say the least.

That said, quoting from a different citation, Pattaya Mail, pattayamail.com, the article is titled: Government describes the latest rules to reign in green-rush Cannabis. Again “rules”. I put rules in quotes in the title because it's like rules based on what? Based on what authority? What law was passed in Parliament that says that previously licensed Cannabis shops licensed under the terms they were licensed under can be regulated in this way? Quoting directly: "Cannabis was decriminalized in Thailand in 2022." No it was not, it was legalized. I know people don't like the procedure it was legalized under, but I didn't like living under the COVID Emergency Decree either. It just so happens that Mr. Anutin utilized that same Emergency Decree to use his powers to pull Cannabis off the narcotics list. The Emergency Decree ended, and it requires an act of Parliament to change it back. Nobody likes it, but it is what it is, and it wasn't decriminalized, that's a non-word. Decriminalized is cops not doing their job, which is enforcing the law. It was legalized. Quoting directly: "Cannabis was decriminalized in Thailand in 2022 but there was no legislative follow-up." - Yeah, meaning nothing changed legally speaking - "which has resulted in confusion ever since." No, there is no confusion. There is a movement by certain I would argue in some cases foreign interests but big interests that don't like Cannabis being legal. I can think of two off the top of my head: Big Alcohol, Big Pharma. They don't like it; they just don't like it. It is cutting into their profits I imagine, but you want to do something about it, pass a law. That's the way the system works. We have got to take all kinds of criticism from foreigners all the time about how Thailand doesn't do this right or do that right. Well here we are doing it actually right, where this is legal, and if you want to change it you can pass a law, and yet these foreign interests, "oh no, just do whatever you want, do it on some arbitrary and capricious just because "I say so" nonsense" it's pretty ridiculous. Quoting further: "A long-promised Parliamentary Act is still awaited." Yeah. They haven't passed an Act through Parliament so in a Civil Law System, it is inherent upon the government to affirmatively make a law. Barring that, the people are free to do as they want. That's how Civil Law maintains freedom in Constitutional systems. Be they of any ilk; that's how it works.

Quoting further: "So it is currently not an offense to be in possession of Cannabis which remains a controlled herb and absolutely not an illegal narcotic." Yeah, this was written by Barry Kenyon, tip of the hat to you sir. Good pointing that out. It is not an illegal narcotic; you need to pass a law to make it so and frankly all of this is nonsense without legislation. Quoting further: "Whether existing retail Cannabis outlets will now implement the new system, or close down, or carry on regardless, will likely depend on local police forces up and down the country." Well why? What are they enforcing? If they're enforcing the law, I am all for it from the Police but if it's just some arbitrary and capricious rule by some, at this point coming from a Ministry that's in a caretaker capacity, that isn't really the government anyway in any permanent sense, what would that enforcement be based on? This needs to stop.

And frankly the Press coverage of this in certain ways needs to stop as well. I think Barry Kenyon, and I urge those who are watching this video, go check out pattayamail.com to read that article in detail, I think he does a good job of covering it. But a lot of the mainstream press is talking about this like there has been some promulgated law and this is business as usual in terms of law enforcement but it's not. Cannabis was legalized; people went out and got licenses built businesses and detrimentally relied on Government action to undertake making a living for themselves and they have been just thrown under the bus and treated arbitrarily and capriciously and frankly really badly if you look at it from the standpoint that this could all be based on the impetus of foreign interests or Big Interests designed to destroy little shop owners. Again, really this needs to stop, hopefully it will. We will certainly be keeping you updated on this channel as the situation evolves.