Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing the prognostications and thoughts and ponderances of "Top" Medical leaders here in Thailand and whether or not they truly do have Thailand's best interests at heart when discussing the issue of Cannabis here in Thailand that we have been discussing at length for a number of weeks, months, years now in fact I've been discussing this topic. And recently we have just had a massive spate of hyperbole especially in the press and quite honestly just a lot of word-vomit about the problems with Cannabis and ‘oh my gosh, Cannabis is the scourge of the nation and reefer madness, just dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria’ to quote Ghostbusters the original Peter Venkman. Everything about Cannabis is just going to destroy everything notwithstanding the fact that we can look back now on a couple of years of this being in place and by and large I think that the benefits substantially outweigh the costs, but let's dig in here. 

I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Thai Examiner, that is thaiexaminer.com, the article is titled: Cannabis slammed by top medical leaders and academics and Ministry of Public Health civil forum. Well as I said in a prior video, I'm just really not overly interested in listening to the bloviations of the 'medical leaders' and the 'medical experts', and the medical establishment. You know why? Because those people told us a bunch of nonsense that caused us to shut down for years and give up all of our inherent rights and liberties as Thais because there was some external existential threat that we all had to deal with and they knew better, and they knew everything and their information was Top Notch and everything they said was right, except it wasn't. It wasn't. Now whether they were acting in good faith and they were just straight-up wrong or whether they had nefarious motives and they were deceiving all of us I don't know, but at the end of the day they were wrong, and I'm not interested in this logical fallacy of appeal to expertise especially when the experts being cited have been demonstrably proven to not just have been wrong, but just wrong on such a level that it was so detrimental to the economy, to the basic social fabric of Thailand specifically but also other places around the rest of the world. The USA is dealing with the aftermath of these people; we just saw the Fauci, what do you want to call it the Fauci Testimony that he was brought forward again and said a bunch of gobbledygook and it turns out nothing that he said was based on any medical data. He just basically made it up. I've read the testimony, that's what he said. Now I can't conflate that with what's going on here in Thailand but I have got to tell you, the whole notion of medical experts just doesn't ring with the same authority that it once rung with. So let's get into this. Again, Cannabis slammed by top medical leaders and academics in Ministry of Public Health civil forum, thaiexaminer.com. Quoting directly: "Cannabis slammed by top medical leaders at a Ministry of Public Health forum." Now first of all, let's be clear. I like this how "oh we're going to hold a forum and then we are just going to tell you what we decide." That seems to be the narrative right now is forget about the fact that this was delisted by Anutin some years back, utilizing Emergency Powers which don't exist at this time. So first of all that's a big question that I have had from jump-street. And again, for years they said we need to pass a law, then when certain interests couldn't get the law passed that they wanted to see, now they say, "oh we can just change the rules on a whim. We can just do it ourselves. We can change the Ministerial Regulations and list something that right now is just considered a controlled herb, a plant and list it as a narcotic because we say so." Again, I'm perfectly in favour of a promulgated law, even if it's a promulgated law that does say recreational use is no longer allowed. If it was a law that went through Parliament, not just some people that got together and had a forum and then told us all that this is how it's going to be, especially in light of the fact that many people have detrimentally relied on the controlled herb licenses that have already been issued, set up businesses, invested money, put in sweat equity to those businesses, upon that detrimental reliance which by the way it's my understanding, that if those folks have their privileges under their licenses abrogated during the time period that those licenses are valid, that in and of itself is a cause of action in the Administrative Courts. Which my question to these people who are just saying "we are going to change it on a whim" is why would you want to clog up the Administrative Courts with a bunch of these cases that are unnecessary when you could just do your job and pass a law in Parliament? Quoting further: "Costs for mental health treatment soared from B3.2 billion to B20 billion." You know I have gone over this with folks here in the office; I've gone over this with the staff that helps me produce these videos; we have all gone through all this stuff in English and in Thai, I don't even know where they are getting this data from. Let's put this into a little bit of context. Some years back, when certain officials decided to promulgate some rules regarding foreign nationals needing insurance coverage in order to remain in Thailand in Retirement Visa status, when they were talking about people or getting seriously sick and dying in Thailand that were foreign nationals, and the cost of that to the medical infrastructure here, that was only in the neighbourhood of about a billion Baht. So you are telling me that since Cannabis has been passed, we have seen 20 orders of magnitude past people dying in Thailand that is costing the medical infrastructure here? Come on. Come on. And where's your data for this? You just came up with "oh it was 3.2 now it's 20 billion; there was one place that said it was 18 and it just kind of fudged it back to 20 billion. What is it? And beyond even that, where's the data points that show that money was spent? That show that there were those treatments that were undergone? Because I really, really and again it harkens back to the beginning of COVID when they came up with all these numbers and just threw them at us and inundated us with numbers and data that all turned out to be at best, over exaggeration. A lot of it just turned out to be nonsense. Things like "oh well you need to distance a certain amount, even outside." Well where's the data for that? There wasn't any. There never was. And again I question honestly the veracity of this statement that “we have gone from 3.2 billion to 20 billion now in treatments for psychiatric stuff." So let me get further into it, quoting further: "Medical experts warn of a devastating impact and urged that Cannabis again be relisted as a narcotic." Again "Medical experts". Next question is are they financially incentivized to come to this conclusion? I am going to throw this meme up on here, it says: "97% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them." Just put that up there; it's a guy with a microscope looking at a big bag of money or a big pile of money. Come on. The question is valid, okay? Again, 3.2 billion to 20 billion in mental health treatment in Thailand, really? I would very much like to see the receipts for this 20 billion. Where is that? Because it looks to me like we've read through this stuff and it just looks at me like this is just a bold assertion without anything backing it up, which again is par for the course for medical experts the last few years. They used to just make bold assertions regarding COVID and then would just tell us "oh well, we know better!" It sounds a lot like that's what's going on here. Quoting further: "A Civic hearing at the Ministry of Public Health on Saturday heard that Thai Government expenditure on mental health treatment costs has soared since marijuana was legalized." Again, where are the data points? Have we had enough time to really see that this has occurred? Where's the data, honestly? And again this, "well we had a Civic hearing!" I can see the narrative that is being set up: "Well we had a Civic hearing!" Was there anybody that was talking against this narrative, that it needs to be banned? Was there a debate? Again, I thought that's what we had Parliament for. Why don't we have some debates on this in Parliament? Why don't the people of Thailand who have sweat equity investments in this business; farmers who have allocated time and resources to farming this, why don't they have a hand in making the laws regarding how this is going to be regulated in the long term? And as part of having a hand in that, why don't their representatives in Parliament get to have a debate on an actual law? Why are we having a public forum where just a bunch of people show up and just make bold assertions, not based on any data points I can see that or that have been published that I have seen, happy to stand corrected on that, if there's data out there I would be happy to see it. But that being said, isn't this the wrong Forum? Shouldn't this be talked about in Parliament? Why is this just happening in some, "oh the Ministry of Public Health had a forum; doesn't look like anybody that was in opposition to their plan to relist this as a narcotic was allowed to speak, but we had a few people tell us that "oh mental health costs have gone off the charts!" Meanwhile, let's look back on this narrative. In the beginning it was "people are dying", except they weren't. Then it was "well people are injuring each other", except that they really weren't, or where they were or it was causing a problem, the question posed was "well what kind of problems are caused by alcohol? What kind of injuries out there are caused by alcohol?" That question never gets answered, and then, now after all of those narratives are just sort of thrown aside because they are spurious, now it's "oh mental health problems are off the charts. It's up to B20 billion,” except I can't see any data that supports that that's actually true. Quoting further: "Funding has risen from B3.2 billion to upwards of B20 billion." Again, where? Where's your data that shows, where are the receipts for B20 billion spent in the past roughly 18 to 24 months that are directly attributable to this change in policy? Where are the receipts for that money? You say there's 20 billion spent, where is it? I shouldn't say "where is it", if it has been spent, it is gone. Where are the receipts? Where are the records of that B20 billion expenditure? Quoting further: "At the same time, medical leaders and academics," - medical leaders and academics - again the same people that told us all to lock down; same people that told us all masks worked; same people that all said safe and effective -  "medical leaders and academics" - "warned of its devastating mental health impact." Reefer madness. What about the mental health impact of booze? How many people have had serious mental problems over the years because of Booze, to say nothing of physical problems? Now I'm not making this comparison in order to say one is good and one is bad. No my point is they have pros and cons: alcohol and cannabis have pros and cons but we're adults and we're free people and we can make our own decisions about how we utilize those things. Quoting further: "The Forum also heard that pot was a gateway drug for 40% of eventual heroin addicts." What about booze? How many people start on booze and then end up in a really bad place? Again are Cannabis and alcohol particularly good things? No, per se they are not. They have certain benefits: alcohol has medicinal benefits; cannabis has medicinal benefits. One thing that has bothered me in this whole debate regarding recreational use versus medicinal, is I don't like the notion that free people have to engage in either a charade or have to state that they have some kind of issue in order to use this product. I mean why don't people have to say that they have a mental issue or some kind of physical issue in order to use alcohol? It's arbitrarily different. There's no good reason why one should be pilloried and one is sort of just ignored from a public health perspective. That doesn't make any sense if you really break it down and think it through. Yes Cannabis has negative consequences, negative side effects. It also has certain positive side effects. Alcohol, the same can be said for that. But let's set aside alcohol for a moment. Cannabis is presently legal and is presently just a plant; it's a controlled herb. Yes it has certain licensing associated with that but if the Government can just unilaterally say "oh, it's a narcotic now because we say so", where does that begin and where does that end? Again it was delisted under Emergency Powers. If this relisting was occurring under Emergency Powers, I wouldn't really love it, but I could at least understand the argument. Again I have asked before, isn't that a question for the Constitutional Court, because again it was delisted in a certain way and now they just say on a whim, we can put it back on and I fail to see the legal basis for being able to do that. Again I am a layman when it comes to the Thai Legal System but again I fail to see the legal basis. Again, it was delisted under Emergency Powers, there's no Emergency Powers here. Again and Emergency Powers that specifically authorize certain powers to the Minister of Public Health at the time and the Minister of Public Health at the time delisted it. There are no Emergency Powers here conferred to the Minister of Public Health, so where does he get the authority to unilaterally relist it? I don't get it, I don't get the argument that he can even do that. Again, totally in favour of a Parliamentary Bill; let's put this thing through due legislative process and yes let's have a debate. And if it turns out that more people are in favour of really restricting this thing down, okay then we'll deal with the aftermath of a promulgated law but I really this just stating that we are going to just unilaterally relist this thing because we say we can, and now we put on a forum where we bandied out a bunch of Potemkin medical experts and they have all said "oh well mental health costs have gone up B20 billion or by B17 billion.  Where is the data for that? Again, I go back to the first few weeks of so-called COVID where there were, especially in the United States, there were reports of putting COVID on death certificates where really it wasn't exactly warranted. Then over here I remember, the numbers were always rather weird, and going back to this it just seems like they're making these bold assertions without anything backing it up. 

Then going over here to a Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Weed treatment cost jump to 20bn: Ministry. Again they just say it, but again I'm looking around for the data where it shows the receipts for this B20 billion, where is it? I haven't found it. It's not out there on the internet; I haven't seen it cited by anybody; I've just seen quotes from somebody saying "oh it's gone up to B20 billion. Well I'm sorry. In the aftermath of COVID, I'm going to need a little bit more than that to be satisfied on the veracity of that claim. Quoting further: "In addition, research in the US found the IQ of children dropped 8 to 9 points after they used Cannabis." Well like immediately after use? Of course, they were inebriated. I mean again much like alcohol, this product causes inebriation. So yes, you are going to lose some mental capability as a result of that. Quoting further: "As the plant affects brain development in children." Nobody wants this for children. What's the point of that statement? I have said this since the get-go and I think anybody else in the Cannabis Industry if you will, the Cannabis space would agree. This isn't supposed to go to children. You want to put criminal penalties on people that sell to children? So be it. I'll be on board with that one from the get-go, but pass it through Parliament as a promulgated law. And again there are already restrictions on selling to anybody under 20, and there should be penalties for those who do. Nobody's not claiming that. What are you bringing up the children out of context for? Quoting further: "The findings concern the Government." Well I'm sure they are real concerned. They weren't concerned about any of us when they shut down our economy for years. Just told us a bunch of platitudinous nonsense; told us we were all in this together. Do they care about the people who are going to lose businesses and jobs and livelihoods? Do they care about the people who may have quit their job after years of having to work for somebody else and now have their own business that they get to run on their own? Does anybody care about that? Does that cause any concern to anybody in the Government? Quoting further: "The current regulation only lists Cannabis extracts with more than 0.2% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of total weight as a narcotic." This has been my point since the get-go. We have a regime in place. The controlled herb licenses which operate for anything under that 0.2% threshold, leave them be. You want to make new rules, make new rules that go up over that threshold. We have a system in place to deal with things as they stand. Moving forward, Ministerial Regulations, maybe you could do that and say "okay anything over 0.2% under Ministerial Regulations we are going to say that cannot be sold for 'recreational use'. Whatever you want to call it. Fair enough. I'd be okay with that. These initial controlled herb licenses were listed with those terms, that makes a lot of sense. But to come in and just upend all of that first of all, I think you are just begging for problems in the Administrative Courts and all kinds of wasted resources in that forum. Meanwhile I don't think you can do it. Again I think there's a Constitutional Court question in there on that particular topic. Okay, leaving all of that aside though, we already have a framework. Okay. If you want to regulate more, regulate beyond the framework that already exists. Makes sense to me. High levels of THC, those kind of products should be regulated, heavily, that makes a lot of sense. But stop getting into people's lives; stop trying to nanny mind everybody; and stop with this nonsense about 'recreational use' and 'medicinal’, and trying to tell everybody what to do and get involved and interject just ‘nanny state’ nonsense into private people's lives and small businesses that detrimentally relied upon the government licensing system that has heretofore existed. Meanwhile, it's really disconcerting to see people just throwing around, numbers and dollar numbers and things in much the same way that we saw such nonsense to be candid, bandied about in the lead-in to the COVID debacle that caused such an economic detriment to everybody involved to begin with.