Transcript of the above video: 

The title of this video probably does not give a great deal of a clue as to what we're talking about in here. Yet again we are talking about Cannabis here in Thailand which has been a major hot button issue especially politically here in Thailand because we have seen draft legislation be brought forward for promulgation through Parliament. I have been discussing this whole topic for quite some time now but it has kind of come to the foreground in terms of sort of the situation here in Thailand in the last year. As we have seen, there was an effort to try to “re-criminalize” it that didn't really end up going anywhere and they decided to go ahead and hand it off to Parliament which quite honestly is the right place for it to be. This was legalized - I will get into that here in a minute - going back a couple of years ago now and we still don't have a draft Law from Parliament. So people have called it sort of "limbo, whatever. No it's just legal and we are dealing with the possibility of regulating it. 

That said, there seem to be some out there who I don't know, have a problem with having a liberty I guess. I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, that is bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Thailand unveils new Bill to regulate Cannabis while keeping it legal. The title is pretty spot on with regard to this; that is what's going on. I have been a proponent of regulating Cannabis at this point. That said, over-regulation or regulation to the point of completely terminating its effect in the economy if you will, is not a good idea to my mind.  That said, quoting directly: "Such rules," and these would be the possible proposals and I urge those who are watching this video, go read that article in detail, get some further insight. Quoting directly: "Such rules may hamper free use of Cannabis in the Southeast Asian nation which was the first in Asia to decriminalize the plant in 2022." De-criminalize is a nonsensical word. It's not de-criminalized, it's legalized. Now it was legalized through an unorthodox methodology whereby utilizing Emergency Powers, the then Minister of Public Health, Anutin Charnvirakul, pulled it off of the list of narcotics but then when the Emergency Decree ended, it basically can't just unilaterally be put back on there due to what we have discussed in many other videos in my opinion, due to what is called the Doctrine of Codification which is a major pillar of the Civil Law System. You have got to pass a law and that is what they are trying to do with regard to Parliament and getting this law passed through. But I do think it's worth pointing out, this is not semantic language we are talking about. There is a difference between de-criminalization which in my mind is just non-enforcement of the law; it's like where the police just ignore things. They de-criminalize it because they are not enforcing a law and there's a difference between that and something being legal. In the case of Cannabis, from the way I understand the Civil Law System here in Thailand and albeit as a lay person with regard to that - I'm an American Attorney, I'm not a Thai Attorney - but as a lay person, it's my understanding this is legal and that's the correct terminology to use. Quoting further: "A legal vacuum has allowed more than 9,400 Cannabis dispensaries to open nationwide, with many in popular tourist areas and business districts in Bangkok and beyond." A legal vacuum? No, liberty is not a legal vacuum, that's silliness. 9,400 stores opened, small businesses opened because a new product was brought on to the market, and quite honestly this is a massive possible cash crop for Thailand. And Thailand has first-mover advantage and will end up in my opinion - if she makes good moves with regards to the issue of legalization of Cannabis - will end up with substantial comparative advantage down the road economically in terms of this product. But again, that will come from thinking logically and from operating in a dispassionate legal manner. What am I talking about here? I'm talking about not walking around saying that just something being legal is some sort of "legal vacuum". A liberty is not a legal vacuum. Thais have the ability now to partake in Cannabis; that's just the way it is. That's not a legal vacuum, there's no vacuum here. Where does this propensity for constant nanny-mindering come from quite frankly? I don't understand the people that think this way frankly, that having a freedom is somehow a legal vacuum, that is silliness to me. Quoting directly: Quote: "The Bill provides for wider uses of Cannabis to be in line with reality, but it still requires the supervision of licensed medical practitioners." Prasitchai Nunual, a pro-cannabis activist said in a Facebook post. Yeah and that's a good point. I have thought this before too. I thought the whole recreational versus medicinal dialectic was nonsensical; this should be handled the same way alcohol and tobacco is handled. You don't ever hear anybody talking about having a medicinal beer, but alcohol has medicinal properties just like nicotine in certain instances has certain medicinal properties as does tobacco, but you never hear anybody talking about usage of medicinal tobacco. No they just say "look, these are products, they do have an intoxicating effect if you will, an inebriating effect if you will. Reasonable people, consenting adults can partake in it but it needs to be regulated, most especially regulated so as children don't get involved with it, but I think, let's just be grown-ups here and it's a good point. Why do we need a “medical practitioner”? Why do we need to frame it that way? I find it disingenuous and I don't like it. It's what I don't like about the “medicinal jurisdictions” in the United States; the various states that do it under a medicinal rubric. It's largely a pretense, really. Quoting further: "That's exclusionary and subjects an individual's rights to the permission of practitioners." Yeah, good point. Yes it does. Quoting further: "What it should say instead is that users must not infringe on others' rights." Well put. 

Again I have said this since the get-go. For example foreigners who are smoking this outside and causing a nuisance to people, the police talked about it some years back they said “look we don't want you smoking outside”. I did the video on it, "the Dude abides, keep it inside." I was referencing, I think it was a newspaper article from Seattle where they came up with that sort of slogan, "the dude abides, keep it inside." Similar situation here. Yes it's legal, but don't cause a nuisance to people. I think that's well put. And again, we deal with the same thing with regard to alcohol. You can drink alcohol but if you get behind the wheel of a car and you're intoxicated, well that's criminal; that infringes on others rights. Again I think that's a very commonsensical approach to take and I just wonder who these people are that look at liberties as a legal vacuum.