Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing issues pertaining to Cannabis Policy moving forward and whether or not this might in a sort of "politics makes strange bedfellows" sort of way, we might see an intersection here between policy goals of both Bhumjaithai Party i.e. with regard to Cannabis - for those who are unaware, the Bhumjaithai Party led by Mr. Anutin Charnvirakul which currently is governing Thailand through the current coalition in this current Parliament - its stated goals going back nearly a decade now in virtually all of the elections we have had since 2014 where Bhumjaithai was at the hustings, basically they have been espousing a pro-Cannabis policy, now with some nuances regarding exactly what that meant. But for the most part I think it's safe to say Bhumjaithai has been pro-Cannabis. Meanwhile there have been these issues of localities have different views on it, different people have different views on it, I get it, reasonable people can disagree. One thing I think is clear, it is legal now. I don't think that we are reasonably going to see it go back onto the Narcotics List; there's a lot of talk about that. It looks to me like you would need an actual promulgated law to get that done and I don't know that the political will is there. Meanwhile, there are 19,000 licenced businesses that have set up and have detrimentally relied on Government licenses to sell this product. I don't see that going away, but yeah, I don't think anybody would disagree that a more streamlined and more elucidated legal framework might be better. 

Now as I have discussed in other videos, through the procedural mechanism that Anutin used when he was Minister of Public Health to make Cannabis legal utilizing emergency powers to pull it off of the Narcotics list, and then in the aftermath of the Emergency Decree ending, basically that just being the de facto state of play with regard to Cannabis and the 2022 Ministerial Announcements associated therewith, again as they were promulgated under the auspices of the emergency powers of the Communicable Diseases Act. Subsequent to that, that's the standing rule if you will pertaining to Cannabis as the Ministry of Public Health is concerned. So it's the same as like alcohol licencing if you will. You have got to be over 20 here in Thailand which is the age of majority and in the case of Cannabis, no service to pregnant women, which I think is presumptive with alcohol as well effectively. But that said, those are the two rules and again this occurred under emergency powers stemming from the Communicable Diseases Act that was promulgated by Parliament in the past. It was and is what it is; that's the state of play for Cannabis now in Thailand. There has been talk in the interim that they could change it just sort of willy-nilly. As I have discussed in other videos, I don't think that's the case. That said, there is serious call for, in my opinion it would be a good idea to get a law passed through Parliament. I don't know if it's possible in this Parliament. It might happen in the aftermath of the upcoming elections, who knows. But that said, there seems to be a curious confluence of interest, political at least ideological in a sense, that may actually converge when it comes to the issue of Cannabis and its interaction between something that came up and sort of got placed on the back burner when Move Forward was running their campaign and then we went through the process of forming a Government in August 2023. One issue, the issue of what they refer to as decentralization, was kind of put on the back burner. 

And just to give some context on the issue of decentralization, let's go over here to Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Progress through decentralization. Quoting directly: "Mr. Pita told CNN he would move Thailand forward through his work to "demilitarise, demonopolise, and decentralise." Framing his work with the three Ds is conceptually sound, as it has long been recognised that, in Thailand, business tycoons thrive through business protection and connections with the military generals, who ruled the country for most of Thailand's modern political history..." - I don't know that that is exactly the most accurate statement to describe the way Thailand has always worked - That said, quoting further: "...supported by a highly centralised administrative system", - now that is a different situation altogether and this kind of centralised administrative system that flows from Bangkok outward is I guess the way to look at it. That said, quoting further: "Recognising these structural problems, which have existed for centuries, is one thing; tackling them is another." Well I don't know that these are structural problems. I don't necessarily agree with that. Quite frankly, I don't necessarily agree with a lot of things Mr. Pita espoused, but I do have to say, the issue of what one would call decentralisation, what you might refer to in the United Kingdom as devolution, as it pertains to places like Scotland. Basically, and look, in the American system what we call federalism - the so-called layer cake versus marble cake - never ending debate between whose sovereignty trumps under what circumstances? Is it the 50 sovereign states, or is it one of those instances where the federal sovereign overcomes via whatever enumerated power is at issue? But it stems from something that I think speaks to many and resonates on a core level with many, which is the best decisions are done locally. Local populations know best how to handle certain things; I'm not saying everything. In the nation-state system, national priorities are there and there are sometimes things that local governments, whatever you want to call them, local public opinion might not understand in the grander scheme of international relations, for example. But that said, on certain issues, local governance is oftentimes a pretty good way to handle things because the locality knows what's best for themselves, basically. And I thought of that issue, that whole decentralization issue when I was recently reading an article, again in the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, under the title: Whiffy Phuket urges Cannabis blitz. Quoting directly: "He also urged the government to reconsider its Cannabis Policy similar to the approach under former Minister Somsak Thepsutin" - well I couldn't disagree more with that - "who once established a committee to study whether Cannabis should again be listed as a narcotic." And to be clear to foreigners who are watching this, Cannabis has not been relisted as a narcotic here in Thailand; it is legal. Again we are kind of going through the birth pangs if you will of the regulatory structure but have no fear, it's not, there has been a lot of hyperbole or hyperbolic talk on this topic. It is legal here in Thailand. That said, quoting further, and this is the salient point here as it sort of pertains to that issue of decentralisation. "Chalermpong Saengdee, Phuket MP of the People's Party," - so this is a Member of Parliament. I've actually cited him in some past videos where he was talking about possibly rethinking Visa policy here in Thailand. He's with People's Party. Now if you understand and have been watching the politics of Thailand play out the last few months or in the last 2 years, there have been sort of these legacy parties if you will. There was Future Forward, which became Move Forward, which now there's People's Party and Mr. Saengdee seems to hail from the People's Party which is sort of the legacy to again I brought up Pita and this whole issue of decentralisation, I would imagine again decentralisation would seem to be an issue for People's Party going into the upcoming presumptive election likely to be held sometime between January and March 2026 after Prime Minister Anutin dissolves the House basically. One would think in the election, the issue of decentralisation might pop up and then in the aftermath when passing laws, that might also be a running theme. And the point is, Cannabis might be a good place to get this whole notion of decentralisation started. Quoting further though, let me just get through this: "Chalermpong Saengdee, Phuket MP of People's Party, echoed these concerns, proposing a zoning approach to regulate Cannabis use. He suggested smoking be permitted only in designated areas such as Patong, while prohibiting Cannabis shops in Old Phuket Town, where the odour disrupts the areas historic and cultural ambience." You know what? He probably knows best, he's the MP from down there in Phuket. I'm not saying best; better than I would know, better than somebody up here in Bangkok might know or somebody out in the provinces or anywhere else might know what the best type of policy for Cannabis would be for Phuket. As there's probably going to be folks down on the City Council in Pattaya that are going to have a better idea what Cannabis policy should be in Pattaya versus perhaps up here the City Council in Bangkok or folks out in the provinces for that matter. Over in Hua Hin, Prachuab Kiri Khan or something of that nature. Samui, where is Samui located? I am forgetting it off the top of my head, Surat Thani down there. That province may have a different idea of what would be best for Cannabis policy in their local jurisdiction. I think this might be a good place where People's Party and Bhumjaithai Party can find some common ground, ideologically perhaps, on the issue of decentralization and that perhaps, Cannabis could be dealt with at local levels. Look, I recently was up at the border near Laos over this past weekend and I'm out in E-San, I am seeing sort of the hinterland if you will - I don't like calling it that but I'm from the country - I like going out and seeing folks and just seeing what folks are doing, going out to the Border, seeing stuff like that. One thing I noticed, there wasn't a lot of coverage of Cannabis shops if any. In those areas they are probably taking the position much like I suspect people from where I am from back home in Kansas, they are pretty conservative folks up there, they just have a different view of that. Again what we used to call county option back in Kansas, which was counties could vote whether or not they were wet or dry with regard to alcohol. I'm not saying that's necessarily the model, but something along those lines were hey, Pattaya might have a different policy toward Cannabis than Phuket and they both might have a different policy, maybe in only nuanced ways, than Bangkok and there may be different provinces that take totally different positions with regard to that, and that could be okay, that could be workable. And it might be in line with some of the ideology that we have seen coming from the let's call it political movement that now is currently manifesting itself in the form of People's Party and meanwhile, Bhumjaithai Party might find itself benefiting I think therefrom as well. 

That said, the issue of Cannabis and how this plays out remains to be seen. We will certainly be keeping you updated on this channel as the situation evolves.