Transcript of the above video:

So the title of this video might not be overly clear but I expect the thumbnail will make it clear. Yeah, we are talking about Cannabis yet again and as the title suggests, I am asking "where's the outcry over "recreational" wheat and grapes?" These are both agricultural products that through a series of processes can be turned into something that can be used to imbibe and get people into an intoxicated state, i.e. the colloquial term ‘give you a little bit of a buzz’, and there is no hue and cry out there for criminalizing the recreational use of these agricultural products. Meanwhile, the issue of Cannabis is something that everyone is clutching their pearls and gasping for air that "oh my gosh, we have allowed the recreational usage of this"! 

I will get into my citations here in a moment but a quick preface here. I did not ever intend to end up becoming some sort of I don't know how you want, pundit on the issue of Cannabis in Thailand. That said, I think I am passionate about this because I have watched it organically grow, no pun intended, in the past two years economically and I would say the preponderance of the impact to society, to the economy, to Thailand generally, to the nation, to the Thai people has been beneficial including recreational use, whatever that means at the end of the day. And as we discussed in a prior video, there was a prior article in the Bangkok Post where they were interviewing somebody involved in the industry and they brought up the fact that ‘where do you delineate medicinal and recreational’ and why has the Government taken it upon themselves to get in the business of "separating black pepper from fly poop" for lack of a better term, in terms of that issue. That they are going to get into our personal lives about "well did you use that for a headache? or did you get a little enjoyment out of it?" therefore you were engaging in recreation. Come on, this is just ridiculous. Then meanwhile, as we discussed in that prior video, there seems to be something of an argument to be made that the fundamental result of this will be a regime for lack of a better term, wherein people get "shaken down" as a result of trying to do something that prior to a given point in time was perfectly legal in Thailand. Another thing, again perfectly happy to see it in the comments, show me the person who overdosed on Cannabis; show me where this is a lethal product. I can show you people who have died from alcohol; I know them personally. I've had clients who have over the years. You can die from alcohol, let's not ever forget that. Least of all to forget, things like drunk driving, but again okay, I can understand people could get intoxicated on Cannabis, they could imbibe on cannabis and they can they can drive, they can make an error and they can kill somebody. Sure there should be penalties for that just like there are penalties for drunk driving, but there are no penalties for people who are of age to engage in getting drunk. Why is that okay for recreational purposes? 

Another question that has come up and folks, again this is a lot of anecdotal evidence that I have heard through comments and things from people on this topic which is at first I have had people tell me privately, in comments on this channel, in correspondence that "I think the alcohol industry may be behind some of this!" I suspect that that is probably true. There has been some for lack of a better term, lobbying to try to change the laws because the alcohol industry doesn't particularly like it. It might be affecting their bottom line. I didn't initially think of it but a friend of mine brought up the fact that yeah the pharmaceutical industry could also be involved in pushing back against this or pushing for the illegalization of recreational usage. Again I never really intended to be some proponent of that but I don't really see the benefit, the great benefit to Thailand and the massive cost, the great benefit to Thailand of making recreational use illegal and the massive cost to this country and the people in it that currently exist as a result of it being okay to undertake recreational use; being legal, as we have discussed and I really hate the verbiage being used out in the ether. It is interesting because again we have a proposed Bill out there but I have noticed, I saw the South China Morning Post this morning, other publications are now saying "oh yeah it's set to be criminalized". Well we don't know that; that's not a foregone conclusion. I really get get tired of the media out there sort of nudging the narrative, whatever you want to call it and I don't understand why they do it because it is not really all that factual if you will, reporting of what's actually going on here. This is being debated just the way that any Bill would be discussed and debated prior to even proposing it officially in a Parliamentary setting. So I don't really understand why the media is out there sort of pushing the narrative that this is some sort of foregone conclusion. It's not! It’s not! 

That said, the other problem I have had in all of this, the tone of the folks that are pushing against recreational or pushing to make recreational use illegal, the tone sounds a lot like COVID where it's "we know better than you and we are going to just tell you what to do". And my question is, well if people are of age and they can make their own decisions, again what is the difference between somebody making the decision "hey I'm going to sit at home tonight and watch a movie and smoke some cannabis and go to sleep." What's the difference between that and the person who says "hey I'm going to stay home tonight, I am going to watch a movie, drink a bottle of wine and go to sleep." What's the big difference there, other than it is my understanding, you don't get a hangover from one and you do from another? Again I don't really see where the impetus is for this other than are their special interests involved? Because again I don't see how this greatly benefits the people of Thailand as a whole. 

I want to dive into this. I read a recent article, I am going to go through a lot of this article because the whole thing just I was reading it and kind of gnashing my teeth at just some of the narrative technique here; I found some of it quite galling frankly. The article is titled: New Cannabis Bill ready for Cabinet and this is Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, quoting directly: "Health Minister says revisions will clearly spell out prohibitions on recreational use." Again just starting off, why? Has there been some hue and cry for that at the grassroots level from anyone? Quoting further: "A new version of the Cannabis and Hemp Control Bill will be proposed at the Cabinet meeting next week Public Health Minister Cholnan Srikaew said on Tuesday." So this will be brought up next week. Quoting further: "The revised Bill preserves the key point that Cannabis is to be used for medical treatment only, but it will also state clearly that," - "but it will also", - like the way that this is even written, it's written as if there's point/counterpoint but there is no counterpoint. So again quoting directly: "The revised Bill preserves the key point that Cannabis is to be used for medical treatment only," (and then I would have said "and" but instead it says), "but it will also state clearly that any use for recreational purposes will not be allowed, the Minister says." Well thanks. So you are taking away rights; you're taking away liberties that Thais have at this moment who are of age and wish to engage in imbibing on this substance, that by the way doesn't kill anybody, and has created a massive boon to the economy. Yeah you're going to restrict that and you are just kind of doing it with it with the tone of "this is what is better for you, we know better." I will get into that further. Quoting further: "The Government has yet to clarify what will happen to thousands of businesses that have sprung up in the legal vacuum," I love that - legal vacuum – no, it is legal, there's no vacuum. We have discussed this already, it is on this channel. It is the Doctrine of Codification; that's the way the Civil Law works. If it is not specifically prohibited per a law through a promulgated statute, the Civil Law dictates it's legal, it's not a legal vacuum. Again the verbiage used in this just kind of infuriates me. Again let me quote again: "The government has yet to clarify what will happen to thousands of businesses that have sprung up in the legal vacuum that has existed since Cannabis was removed from the list of controlled narcotics in 2022." Yeah this has been an interesting one.

I'm going to move over for a quick minute here to another article, again from the Bangkok Post, this was back in December. Quoting directly, the article is titled: Are high times over for weed users? This is actually a quote from the Minister of Public Health so quoting directly: "We will not shut down all Cannabis shops but they need to comply with the Law. The new regulations will not allow them to sell Cannabis buds for people to smoke or even have for sale equipment for customers to smoke at their shops. In the past we did not control usage but with the new Law, using Cannabis for recreational purposes will be prohibited." So they say we won't shut down their shops but we are just going to take basically the one thing they are selling in any kind of volume, away from them. There was also, and I don't have the citation here, I also read at one point there was some back and forth with the Minister of Public Health, the new Minister of Public Health I might add, that people were asking "what about people's businesses? what about people who have invested money and time and resources to set up entrepreneurial enterprises I might add?" These are not big going concerns which makes me wonder if they were big going concerns, would this even be an issue right now because there would be enough pushback at a high enough level or with enough financial resources perhaps behind it, to basically mitigate this in a legislative sense, to basically forestall this from happening but apparently that is not the case because it involves the little guy. But I have really disliked the tone of especially in the case, I believe was the Minister of Public Health he was interviewed, people asked him, they said, "hey what about these people's businesses?" Oh it is no problem. Maybe some businesses might close." I think that was said at one point, "well maybe some might close, we need the change" whatever. Well, that same kind of cavalier attitude towards people's businesses is the same nonsense that we saw going into COVID where they shut down people's businesses and they just didn't care and I think it is born of the fact the politicians don't set up businesses; they don't have to work and earn their money by setting up a small business and putting in time and resources and sweat equity into that business to then see a return. They get a check no matter what. We saw that during COVID across the board, both in the United States and here in Thailand folks who were working for the government it was happy days. They didn't have to show up and work very much and they got a salary, everything was hunky dory. I know that doesn't seem like it is overly connected but herein it is. It is this cavalier attitude toward the small businesses here in Thailand set up by people who probably don't have a great fortune, they are not Cannabis Barons or something, they are just people that want to run their own business, kind of be semi-autonomous make their own money. The other question I have is again who is going to tell the commercial real estate sector especially in the tourism areas that, "hey sorry, you are seeing all these Cannabis shops close down" because you are taking away the one product that was their main seller that gave them the reason for being there, their raison d'être for being on that location and renting out that shop or stall. What are you going to tell those real estate owners when those renters are gone? These things have a knock on effect. And again this cavalier attitude “well we may lose some businesses!” No, we won't, the people who you impose this rule upon will. You are not going to lose anything, that's why you don't care. Quoting further: "The Bhumjaithai Party, which is also a member of the current coalition Government, earlier championed the liberalisation of Cannabis but its Bill to regulate the plant failed to pass last year while the previous Government was in office." It is my understanding that the very people that are pushing this Bill are the ones that didn't allow that one to pass which would have regulated this entire industry. Okay, that's a political question, I won't go too deep into that but again it's sort of again framed within the context of this article as if "Well there wasn't major popular support for it." No, it was basically bottled up through parliamentary wrangling and not allowed to pass; that's why it didn't pass. There was no great outcry among the masses of Thais to not allow this thing or to not allow that Bill to go through, especially when it was already at that point legal. Quoting further: "Dr Cholnan said the revised Bill would regulate which parts of the Cannabis plant can be used, the manner in which they can be consumed as well as acceptable quantities for possession." Oh, great! Nanny state! Quoting further: "Under the new Bill, the stem, roots leaves and buds of the Cannabis plant would be re-categorized as a narcotic because of their tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content." So let me ask this. Why isn't there a hue and cry in Parliament or among these politicians, to go after grapes the moment they have passed through the fermentation process, or wheat after it has done the same thing or honey for that matter; you can make mead that way. Where is that big outcry? But no we are focusing on this, again something that doesn't kill anybody! I get it, yes it does induce a, what do you want to call it "a high" if you will, but again so does alcohol. We are not restricting that. Quoting further: "The Minister said earlier that smoking Cannabis was likely to require a permit from a doctor." Great, more nanny state! "and that the Bill would be very clear on how to use the plant for medical treatment." Neat, so we get to be told how to use plants by the Government. Quoting further: "He noted the Bill was different from the version proposed by Bhumjaithai," yeah, it's different, "which only set out to limit the amount that can be consumed by individuals." Yeah, I said this before. If this was a regulatory Bill that said "look you can't sell more than X number of grams to a person that comes into your store", I would have said yeah that's pretty reasonable, but this whole, "No, no, we are going to dictate that it can't be for recreational; we are going to delineate what recreational is down to picking the fine points of stems versus roots versus branches versus leaves," come on! Quoting further: "That said, the Minister insisted the revision does not mean the Government is now opposed to the medicinal use of the Cannabis plant, saying the Bill reflects "a different approach" to the issue." Yeah different approach in that we had liberty before the Bill; I don't presume this will be enacted by the way. I want to be clear, I am not certain that there is a great deal of support running around for this. There may be. Again a fine point to get onto here is, I see people, "oh it is going to be illegalized." That is not what they are saying, but they are saying recreational use will be, and as we have pointed out to this point, that will have a massive detrimental impact on this industry. Again regulation is fine, but this whole notion that we need to take three steps back into the dark ages where this stuff was illegal and resulted in people going to jail over it, again presumably there would be criminal penalties associated with these changes. Are we really going to start locking people back up over Cannabis violations. And meanwhile wasn't part of the proposed Bill also to legalize people having up to like five Ya Ba tablets? Five pills of methamphetamine? So meth is all right but we are going to criminalize Cannabis use?" Come on! Quoting further, yeah again “a different approach!” Quoting further: "He said that the new Bill was meant to protect citizens from Cannabis abuse that has taken place since the plant was delisted from the Narcotic Drug List two years ago." Reefer Madness! Oh my gosh we got to protect the citizenry. From who? Themselves? and where are you protecting the citizenry from alcohol? It is my understanding you are dropping the taxes on alcohol; you are looking at changing the rules to allow more wide usage or more ability to purchase it. I haven't done the videos on this, I may do it, but supposedly they are going to take away the 2-5 sales prohibition rule which I can see the argument in favour of that, I think that is probably good idea. That said, no problem with booze that kills people but let's really hammer down Cannabis. If this had been an Act that said “look we are going to regulate” we get it. People use this product to gain some kind of buzz, some kind of high, we get that, the same way they use alcohol for the same purposes. Yeah there is medicinal alcohol and then there is non-medicinal alcohol; pretty sure consumer non-medicinal alcohol is where the money in alcohol is more than medicinal alcohol, but nobody is going after that. Meanwhile that does kill people as we have said previously. Alcohol, I have known clients who have died from alcohol poisoning basically; they drank too much and died. I haven't known anybody from Cannabis that that has ever happened to. Again there is this push to regulate the citizens from their own behaviour, protect them from their own decisions, again consenting adults. I am in favour of criminal penalties for selling to children. I have made that clear many, many times but among consenting adults, "oh no we have got to regulate that, we have got to protect them from themselves", but there's no one running out to protect the public from itself when it comes to alcohol, so how does that make any sense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Quoting further: "Dr Cholnan's comments came after the numerous complaints about Cannabis use among concertgoers at the Coldplay concert at Rajamangala National Stadium over the weekend." So people who went to a music concert smelled weed. Hasn't that been happening since the dawn of time, since it was illegal too? I can tell you the first music concert I went to back in Kansas where Cannabis was illegal and remains illegal, we smelled it there too. And by the way, that isn't good evidence of why this should be regulated: "oh some people smelled it at a concert!" What does that mean? What is that supposed to tell? Again the narrative behind these techniques of using these examples as some kind of clear evidence that we need to regulate, it doesn't make any sense. Quoting again, quote: "Dr Cholnan's comments came after numerous complaints about Cannabis use among concertgoers at the Coldplay concert at Rajmangala National Stadium over the weekend. Many patrons said the pervasive smell of marijuana smoke affected their experience." Well boo hoo! I get it and I am on board with the notion that this should be consumed in private, I do actually believe that or some sort of designated clubs or something. That's what they were initially talking about but then when this thing is coming down to the wire now it's just "oh no, restriction of recreational use." Again it's been disingenuous; what they said they were going to do when they were campaigning and things and before they formed a Government and now it's "nope, no recreational use!" Very different, very different what they were all talking about at that time.

Again and going back to this point on the techniques used in the narrative here, "oh some people at a concert smelled it and it affected their experience!" What does that mean? How is that data point supposed to be useful? That's not citing a study that said "oh look test scores are adversely impacted in the schools since Cannabis was legalized" or "people are getting violent on the streets in front of Cannabis shops and beating people up", no it's their evidence in favour of massively restricting something that hasn't been restricted lo these past two years is "some people smelled something at a concert", that's supposed to be the underlying reason, a good underlying reason for massively, not regulating, restricting this. Quoting further: "Dr Cholnan said the use of Cannabis at concerts is prohibited." Yeah exactly, it's already illegal so use the laws we have on the books. What are you talking about? Quoting further: "In the same way that smoking cigarettes is prohibited in public venues." Well yeah and you enforce that law; I have watched you do it over the years, ever since you imposed it. Quoting further: "The problem he said was that there were currently no legally enforceable rules that could be applied to punish concertgoers who smoke pot." Yes there can be. We've done the videos on that; we did the videos when it came out. Thai Police said "look we can use our powers under the Nuisance Laws to detain and fine and possibly get people to stop engaging in that behaviour." That is already there and they are acting like it isn't because they want to pass this and they want to take away liberties that currently exist for Thai people. Quoting further: "It is believed that under the new Bill, all Cannabis plantations will require a permit from Authorities and must adopt advanced agricultural practice," what does that mean? "advanced agricultural practices" - most of this stuff you stick it in dirt it grows. I mean yes there are advanced agricultural practices associated with hybridization and things of this nature, I get it, but what does that even mean, "to ensure the plants will be medical grade." Okay. "Plantations at home, as championed by Bhumjaithai, are not likely to continue." Oh well thanks so much. That was a godsend to people, especially little, small farmers, it was an extra piece of income. Now again I suspect a lot of people engaged in it and one wonders if maybe the laws of diminishing returns have come in to play but that said, it doesn't mean we take away their ability to engage in that activity. I mean again this has benefited, what I find fascinating in all of this, this benefits a wide swath of for lack of a better term, little guys, little guy Thais, the little people, not big companies, not big concerns, not big agribusiness corporations, just little people. They have a few rai of land and they usually farm rice or whatever they farm on it and then they have a little section cordoned off to grow Cannabis. I thought that was a good idea, or little people, again little shop owners, little shopkeepers, again spending their own money, expending their own resources, using their own sweat equity to create these little businesses to support themselves without being a burden on society and I am pretty sure they gladly paid taxes.

Here's another one nobody is talking about. This is a tax cash cow and you are looking to kill it. As I said in the other video, are we in the business of executing golden geese in Thailand? and again I know the argument "well medicinal, we can regulate it more, blah blah blah." Well this is one of those things where it looks like an exercise of trying to close the barn after the horse has already gotten out. Okay now I know there are those who don't like the position we are now in but this isn't going to change it. You are not going to magically turn the business into something more profitable by restricting the liberties of people to use that product. It's not going to work. I have seen it in other contexts, in other places and read about it in history. It always turns out badly. What? Are we going to create a giant bureaucracy that is going to do nothing but create stagnance in this particular field? Again Thailand made a good move on this and look at it from an international context, look at it in terms of like geo-economics or even geopolitics. Thailand has first mover advantage on a cash crop that no one else has legalized. There are massive benefits that can come from this long term, not least of which comes from we have jumped the gun on R&D; we can do Research and Development where other countries can't; there is also, it is a cash crop and you can't tell me this hasn't affected tourism. I don't know how we study it because it's primarily anecdotal, but I'm here to say a number of young tourists are coming to Thailand - I won't say this is the only reason they're coming, obviously Thailand is great; it's always going to have demand in the tourism sector. Seeing the beaches, seeing the islands, seeing the city here in Bangkok, seeing the palaces, seeing all this cool stuff; it's a great tourism destination but this is just one more point in Thailand's favour when people are deciding from overseas where to spend their tourist dollars. I don't see a lot of people out there who are going to say "Well Cannabis is legal in Thailand, therefore we had better not go there because God knows we might go to a Coldplay concert and smell something we don't want to smell." No, nobody says that. That's not how people think. People think, "Hey, I'm going to Thailand." "Hey cannabis is legal there." "Well I don't like cannabis, I'll just stay away from that". That is what most people are going to say or people who do like cannabis are going to say "hey one more reason to go". Quoting further: "Meanwhile, many dispensaries that sell Cannabis products for medicinal as well as recreational use are anxiously awaiting clarity about their futures." No, they are anxiously awaiting to not have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them in terms of their business, by a bunch of politicians who I would love to know what business they ever started and kept going and maintained and built up. I am sure there are some of them in Parliament that have, but what I am saying is the vast majority of politicians in my experience, and this is both in the United States, here in Thailand, wherever, they haven't built their own businesses and they are not in the mindset of somebody who has sweated blood into their business to get it up and going and then to just have somebody arbitrarily tell them, "oh yeah you can't sell that product anymore", and that product was probably 60% of your gross sales. Yeah your business is dead. I love that this is just sort of glossed over in this whole narrative this "oh well the businesses are going to be fine, it is just a change in regulations." No, they are not going to be fine. They are going to be adversely impacted by this course of action. Quoting further: "The number of Cannabis shops nationwide is estimated to total more than 7,000." "7,000" of these shops. Okay if you even knock out a thousand of those, let's say you take out one seventh by these changes, that's 1,000 commercial, rental likely retail real estate spaces that are now going to go vacant, okay and what's coming into to pick up the slack on that? Have you noticed the trends in the global economy? It's not in favour of commercial real estate. Have a look at the West, it's collapsing! I get Thailand is different. There are malls and things but we are talking about like the shop house, street level, retail, real estate model. Tell me what goes back in there to replace these Cannabis shops and you will be replacing them and I suspect it is going to be more than one seventh, it's going to be a lot more than one seventh if you make these really drastic in my opinion changes. Quoting further: "They sell everything from Cannabis buds to oil extracts containing less than 0.2% tetrahydrocannabinol, - the psychoactive compound that gives the users a "high" sensation." Again yes, they sell other stuff but that is put in there as sort of a sop if you will to say "well they sell other things." I am here to tell you, the people that are flying in from Michigan that have never been to Thailand before and they may, I don't know what the legality of Michigan is, let's not use Michigan, the people flying in here from Kansas where it is illegal that want to partake in this, they are going to buy the stuff that is being used for recreational use. They are not coming over here because they said "oh, I have got a sore knee, I am going rub CBD oil on it or something." No, they are coming in to use that, that is what they are doing. Again this is all anecdotal; I don't have some grand statistical layout that can show you exactly and precisely how this is going to detrimentally impact Thailand but I can tell you it will. I mean common sense just dictates. You get rid of a product that is currently creating a great deal of demand, for not only tourism but also real estate in Thailand, commercial real estate specifically, that is going to have an impact on the real estate sector. On top of that and the one that just really I find galling more than anything, is this complete dismissal of small business owners here in Thailand who have started up these businesses and have put in time and resources to get them going and to have folks that are supposedly there representing their interest just say "don't worry about that, it's no big deal!" That is galling, that is galling to the n^th degree.

On top of the rest of it, not to go too far down this rabbit hole, but over the past couple of years I have just wandered into various jobs just to kind of the layout. As we discussed in prior videos, I've been kind of dabbling with getting into this myself. Haven't gone very far into it for kind of the uncertainty that we are still kind of dealing with in it. I haven't wanted to really go too deep down that path and quite honestly my duties here at the firm take up far more time than I would ever like; anytime I ever try to do something on the side it seems like it eventually just gets overtaken by my work here. That said, I have kind of dabbled around in it so I have been in these businesses and just kind of looked around. Another thing, I don't know if people are thinking about this, but there are a lot of young people working in these shops. What happens when they lose their jobs or they lose their businesses and now they are shut down? What? They go back to selling this stuff illegally? Is that good policy? Meanwhile what happens if they take to the streets? Is that something any of us want? I don't want that. I have been through that, more than once here in Thailand. I love Thailand and I have in certain instances been somewhat sympathetic depending on who was talking about what at given times. But that said No, it's bad, it's a bad thing and long story short all of this can be forestalled if we didn't have a bunch of nanny minders trying to just tell us what to do. The adults of Thailand have figured this out; we have had two years to figure it out. It's okay. So sorry to you concert goers for smelling something you didn't want to smell; nobody has ever said that that was okay by the way. I am perfectly in favour of the Thai Police walking up and saying: "hey you are in violation of the Nuisance Laws. We are going to detain you; we're going to actually leave the concert; and we're going to ask you to stop doing that; we're going to fine you." Whatever, I'm perfectly okay with that. Never said I wasn't. Enforce the laws we've already got on the books because we do have them. We did the videos on this years back now already. So again the thing that worries me here is just this cavalier attitude toward an industry that I would argue helped save Thailand's economy coming off the shutdown. The tone of this desire to restrict recreational use sounds a lot like the tone we heard during COVID: "we know better than you, we are going to shut down your business because we know better than you!" That's terrible, so I hope people will take, I get it, reasonable people can disagree over some of these issues but I really hope people just take a breath and not rush in to this because I think you are making a terrible, terrible mistake.