Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing Cannabis this yet again. I haven't been talking about this very much but it's kind of one of those, what was it Lenin said, "there are decades where nothing happens and then there are weeks when decades happen"; or something like that. This is kind of similar with this Cannabis situation. In the past couple months I haven't really seen a lot to discuss, and then here recently, there has been a lot going on. I made a video recently where I was talking about the fact that - and I'm sort of reiterating it in this video - I'm really sick and kind of tired. One) This just my opinion, but I think it's borne of pretty good analysis of this whole thing.

Thailand, we got cannabis right out of the gate. Everything we are doing now, not everything, but this cracking down and creating all these arbitrary and capricious rules and regulations for a bunch of people who detrimentally relied on their government, on their government licensing, to do business legally, I find it not only counterproductive - what's the point of going after Thais for ticky tack violations when we don't even have a law. It's just, "oh we say this now, and we say it's a problem, and now you have a problem." Well based on what legal basis of any of this? Because there isn't a law. And I have discussed at length the way in which this became legal, because it did utilize the power of law through the Emergency Powers that Anutin had at the time he pulled it off the Narcotics list. That was enshrined in law through the Communicable Diseases Act as we have discussed in prior videos. But everything that has happened subsequent to that is not based on any law. And in a Civil Law jurisdiction, as in a Common Law jurisdiction that utilizes statutory law, in order to make something illegal, you have to qualify that illegality. You can't, it's not just, "oh, now we say you can do it like this, you can't do it like that." This would be like regulating, micromanaging florists and saying, "oh you can only make bouquets with three tulips and two roses, not three roses and two tulips." And I'm not kidding about that because the moment this became legal, this is another agricultural product. It's another plant you can grow out of the ground, pick it up and do with it as you need. But based on the legal theory, which I don't even seem to think that there is one, coming from certain folks from the Ministry of Public Health, etc., it's all based on the notion that they can somehow just say, "Oh this is how we think it should be". And again, as I have discussed, it's not law, it's guidelines, as we will get into. Well they don't have the force and effect of law, so what are we talking about here? 

That said, I thought of making this particular video after reading two articles, both from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the first one is titled: New Cannabis penalty rules introduced. Quoting directly: "The Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine has issued new penalty guidelines" - where do you get the authority to do that? Where is the law granting the authority of the Ministry of Public Health to issue penalties to anyone associated with Cannabis? There has been no law pertaining to Cannabis promulgated through the Thai Parliament. So under the doctrine of codification, where does the Ministry of Public Health get the authority to issue these "so-called" penalties? - Quoting further: "that include license suspensions or revocations for Cannabis businesses found to breach the Department's requirements." Again, the framework that Anutin laid out at the time he pulled Cannabis off the narcotics list and fashioned the situation that we have now, all occurred under Emergency Powers which were lawful. Those Emergency Powers were extinguished approximately 6 weeks after that, reverting us back to the standard legal system in Thailand, which means that Cannabis is legal. It's as legal as like again flowers or something that grow out of the ground. Now there are certain caveats to that that were laid out when Anutin first did this stuff. Notably, you can't sell to anybody under 20, you can't sell to pregnant women. That was it. So everything that happened subsequent to that in my mind is illegitimate, until we get a promulgated law. That said, quoting further: "The guidelines" - and note that again, they are "guidelines", okay? It is not law; it's just this is what we say you should do. Well where is your legal authority? Not your guideline authority, your legal authority.

I remember, there was a video we did some time back where even the police commented on this. They said, "hey, make whatever guidelines and things that you want, where is law? We are not going to get involved. And they were right about that. At least they know how the law works - Quoting further: "The guidelines, developed under the Ministry of Public Health's Controlled Herbal Product (Cannabis) BE 2568 notification" - again, I don't care. You can put all these titles and when this was promulgated in their own little world, okay you said guidelines. Great we are the public. Thanks for the guidance. That is not a law. That is not a law. Nor should it have the force and effect of law - quoting further: "set penalties for licensed operators engaging in research" - now that is the key point. These folks are already licensed, and they were licensed under a framework that had nothing to do with any of this, and none of this is coming about as a byproduct of a law which has actually been promulgated. So what are we talking about here? This sounds like a lot of nonsense and frankly, it discredits the entire movement to normalize the regulatory structure associated with Cannabis. We need to stop this nonsense. We need to pass a proper law and then regulate therefrom; it's all being done backwards - Quoting further: "export, sale or processing of Cannabis for commercial purposes, Department Deputy-Director General Dr. Thewan Thaneerat said on Monday. The guidelines are intended to provide a uniform framework for both law enforcement and Cannabis business operators.” You know what provides a uniform framework for law enforcement? Laws. The police themselves said this isn't a law, so what are we talking about? And when did the Ministry of Public Health get to direct the police what is legal and what is not without promulgated law? This is really important stuff here. It is honestly one of the kind of - Jatuporn sort of brought this up back when he was talking about condo quotas or something back under the old Srettha Administration and he was talking about the fact that there are Cabinet resolutions as opposed to laws and things. Look at the end of the day, the way I understand it, all of these sort of resolutions, guidelines, all of this sort of tertiary stuff can only exist based on promulgated law. You need an actual underlying Act and then you are off to the races for this other stuff. None of that has happened since Anutin made Cannabis legal in the manner he made it legal. So everything we are talking about is basically superfluous. It's really annoying to watch this because these are supposed to be the people who understand how the legal system works and why are they just, again, it's arbitrariness, capriciousness and to what end? To undermine the people that are trying to do business lawfully and legally and detrimentally relied on their own Government, the main Party of which was behind legalizing this to begin with. 

Quoting further: "Under the rules, operators may face a 30-day license suspension for failing to maintain or submit the Por Thor 27 form, which declares the source of Cannabis and product quantities currently held in stock, and the Por Thor 28, a record of Cannabis distribution that covers the daily sales or how Cannabis is processed into other products." I get that you have come up with all these guidelines. But where is the underlying law permitting you to come up with these guidelines? That's my problem here. It all comes back to the Doctrine of Codification. Otherwise, we just have bureaucrats running around making up whatever rules they want about everything, and I know people are sitting there going, "oh well it's Cannabis, and it's a different thing." No it is not. I'm not kidding when I say I'm concerned about this because tomorrow they can just start regulating florists however they want and then after that anyone: bakers and restaurants, "oh well the wheat germ that creates bread or noodles, we can regulate that because we are the Ministry of Public Health and now you can't do X, Y, and Z” - at the drop of a hat because we say so with no promulgated law. It's a real problem. 

That said, in another article, again from the Bangkok Post, the article is titled: Public input sought on Cannabis Law. Quoting directly: "The Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine (DTAM) is accepting public feedback on the draft Cannabis and Hemp Act until July 1, before submitting it to the Cabinet for consideration." Well a couple of things here. I sort of love "public input being sought". Yeah, as we'll get to, through a really Byzantine mechanism. It's not like they're having a Town Hall meeting and saying, "hey what are your concerns?" Meanwhile, again it's all being done through the rubric of this Cabinet Resolution. I question the legality of the Cabinet Resolution where we don't have promulgated law. The Doctrine of Codification in a Civil Law country requires a promulgated law through the Legislative body, not the Cabinet. The Cabinet is the Executive body. The Legislative body needs to come to a consensus on the issue of Cannabis in Thailand, and then the executives and the regulators can go out and execute pursuant to that law. So let's start there. And again, the public is being asked to comment. Yeah, through again the most Byzantine system as we will get to. Quoting directly: "Members of the public, business operators and other relevant individuals are invited to voice their opinions on the direction of Thailand's Cannabis and Hemp industry and legislation" - and again legislation, except for the fact that they are not saying this is going to be legislation. It sounds like ever more nonsense, because for whatever reason, they don't want to let the public have a say in how this law ultimately works. My question is why? Quoting further: "through online submissions until July 1 via the Government's legal channel "law.go.th". I'm starting to wonder if they took a page out of my book. I mean we are legal.co.th for the firm. That said, quoting further: "website and the DTAM website, said Dr. Thewan Thanirat Deputy Director-General of the DTAM. The draft would establish clear rules and control measures to prevent the misuse of Cannabis." But is it a law? Is it a Bill passed by the body of Parliament. Quoting further: "Such mechanisms would not only strengthen public health security but also support sustainable economic development." What does any of that platitudinous nonsense mean? What does that mean? It means you are trying to regulate something that we are free to do already, for very little reason. Quoting further: "The public hearing process is expected to help strike a balance among medical use" - I will get back to that - "economic opportunities, and the protection of public health, while reducing conflicts and strengthening public confidence." First of all, I am sick of this medical use presumption. Where is the medical use presumption for alcohol? Alcohol does far more damage to the human body, it does far more damage over time to people and to society than Cannabis ever has. Quote Matthew McConaughey to quote Matthew McConaughey in the movie The Gentleman, it doesn't kill anyone. It just doesn't. Meanwhile alcohol causes how many X number of deaths every year? Where's the concern about medical usage of alcohol? Okay, "economic opportunities and protection of public health" - what about the protection of the thousands of people who went out and got a license and built a business on the detrimental reliance that they could do business in Thailand under the terms of that license; at the very least, under the terms of the license itself. So meaning until that license is in fact expired. So can we not rely now on the licensing that we ever get from the government? Because anytime they feel like it they can just change it on a whim? What's the point of having a license?

All of this is highly concerning to me not from the standpoint of cannabis per se? But the legalities underlying this and the fact that nobody seems to particularly want to undertake proper legislative due process.