Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing Thai Cannabis Laws, specifically legalization and this misnomer I have been reading where people keep calling it a "loophole", it's not a "loophole"; let's just sort of go to the sources here. 

I thought of making this video after reading this first article from the Pattaya Mail, that's pattayamail.com, the article is titled: Cannabis businesses policy rolling, says Anutin. Quoting directly: "Minister Anutin said," - and that is Anutin Charnvirakul, if you recall formerly Minister of Public Health, now Minister of Interior who was the one that really got the ball rolling. If you go back and you look at it, we did all the videos on this going quite a ways back, a number of the former government, I think it even goes back to the NCPO days, they used Section 44 power on some of this stuff to sort of the ball rolling on Cannabis but it was actually Anutin in the Parliament specifically last year in 2022, in his capacity as Minister of Public Health pulled Cannabis from the narcotics list. Then when the Emergency Decree ended it just sort of was what it was so now Cannabis is not on the narcotics list. It is regulated as we have discussed in other videos. No one under 20 can purchase it here in Thailand; it can't be sold to certain folks with certain medical conditions, for example pregnant women, obviously no children etc. but again it is legal. It is not on the narcotics list anymore and it is now legal. Quoting again from Pattaya Mail, pattayamail.com, the article is titled: Cannabis businesses policy rolling, says Anutin. Quote: "Minister Anutin said the discourse surrounding Cannabis legalization has become muddied with debates over unregulated usage. He has therefore asked all sides to stop spreading this misconception." Well interesting. What misconceptions could he be talking about? 

Well going over here to the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, Cannabis regulation back on agenda as outlets soar. Quoting directly: "The Government removed the plant from the prohibited narcotic list last year but still left a loophole due to insufficient regulations." What does that mean? Honestly, what does that mean? That's meaningless language. It's not a “loophole”. This is a Civil Law jurisdiction. There either is law on something or there isn't, and there isn't in this situation. Now you can say all right, there is lack of regulation. I've said that. I want it regulated. I think a regulatory act being promulgated is a really a good idea but it really gets kind of infuriating when you know the background of all of this to read, I don't know if it's sloppy language or it's intentional, I'm presuming it's not intentional to be sort of misdirecting people's thoughts on the legal posture of this but it's not a “loophole”. The law is clear on it. He pulled it off the narcotics list. It's not on there anymore, therefore it's legal, that's the way the Thai legal system work; that's the way the Doctrine of Codification Works in Civil Law jurisdictions. Now again, I view this from sort of a comparative law standpoint but it's pretty simple stuff when you just understand sort of the basics of the way a Civil Law jurisdiction operates. You have to make a law to make something illegal. That does not exist here and it's not correct to call it a "loophole". A “loophole” occurs in complex regulation or statutory schemes wherein internal discrepancies or internal conflicts within the language itself creates a situation that allows for a certain fact pattern to emerge. It's not a situation where it is just clearly one thing or the other and in this case Cannabis is clearly legal in Thailand, it is not a loophole. So I hope folks sort of understand that, I get kind of passionate about this for a number of different reasons mostly because I have watched the evolution of this very closely and again I find it concerning that we see language used out there that is just not specifically correct regarding the legal posture of Cannabis here in the Kingdom of Thailand.