Transcript of the above video: 

So I have been talking about Cannabis a lot lately. Part of the reason is it is kind of a niche topic, also people seem to be interested in it; it's kind of a Thailand specific thing also, especially out here in Asia. But the biggest issue I have with it now is something that goes a little bit deeper and something that I have noticed over the years is something quite honestly Thailand could use some self-reflection on when it comes to the issue of lawmaking and policy making. And that is, and I totally understand that in the Thai mind, it can move very quickly and it can change. The sort of the Thai zeitgeist can change; the Thai paradigm can shift in a lot more quicker of a way than I think most Westerners actually give it credit for. And so if you have lived here a long time, you have sort of assimilated a little bit to how Thailand works, it doesn't really bother you in the long run that they can make these major like policy shifts just seemingly at the drop of a hat and then just sort of keep on moving. Again for Westerners this is very problematic. But again for those who are unaware of the Cannabis situation, it was delisted as a narcotic and it was legalized in 2022 and then now they are looking to rescind all of that and just sort of in one fell swoop, sort of pull the rug out from under a lot of entrepreneurs, a lot of people who detrimentally relied on the law change and it has brought up the fundamental issue of consistency in law and policy. 

I really got to thinking of this after reading a recent comment on one of the prior videos. Quoting directly: "So Thailand changes to a 99-year lease for a property and I buy a property." (I think they mean I engage in a 99-year-lease) Quoting further: "Will they take my land away a year or two later? Is any law stable there? What is going on over there?" So the point being made is, and we have discussed in prior videos, there has been some talk about changing the law on the duration of leases here in Thailand. So for the time being, duration of leases maxes out at 30-year leasing in the vast majority of cases. That said, there has been discussion about going up to 50-year or even 99-year leases. And as this commenter pointed out, what happens if they do go to that, they do go to 99-year leases and then two years later, a new Government comes in and rescinds that, do those 99-year leases get aggregated back to 30 years? Do they get "grandfathered" in and then moving forward it's just a different regime after that? All of these are good questions and they are the exact reason for consistency in Law and Policy and this is one of the major problems I think that we could see resulting from this Cannabis situation. As I have discussed in other videos, the notion that foreign investors could be looking at Thailand seeing this issue and saying "Wow that's really arbitrary and capricious. We don't really want to invest there because of that's the way their legal system works." 

All of these are good questions and just generally speaking I think it is worth pointing out that consistency unlike what I believe it was Justice Hugo Black pointed out in a prior Supreme Court opinion in the United States, I believe he said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I think he was quoting Emerson, (corrected from Thoreau), but basically there is the argument in some cases where consistency can be a bad thing; it's sort of almost a very narrow-minded way of looking at the law. But in terms of like major shifts that can happen like overnight and detrimentally impact an entire industry and also will be looked at by possible foreign direct investors into Thailand, I don't think "a consistency is the Hobgoblin of little minds", I think it is something that in and of itself is laudable.