Transcript of the above video:

So the title of this video may not be overly descriptive of what we are going to talk about here. Long story short, I haven't said much about the issue of Cannabis the past few weeks. It has been kind of going back and forth in the political arena but I kind of wanted to do this video to go ahead and sum up sort of where things stand as of this moment, the time of this video. I believe we are at January 15th, 2024 and this video will be going up this afternoon if all things go to plan. So this is kind of where we are at to this moment and then sort of my own personal take as to what is going on or what I think; again, this is kind of an opinion piece. 

That being said, let's start off with the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Weed advocates slam control bill. Quoting directly: "Advocates of Cannabis legalization blasted Public Health Minister Cholnan Srikaew's decision to endorse a new draft to the Cannabis and Hemp Control Bill without consulting the civil sector as he had promised." Quoting further: "Prasitchai Nunual, Secretary-General of Thailand's Cannabis Future Network, said on Facebook that the Minister failed to keep his promise that the draft would be put up for public discussion before it was passed on to the Cabinet." As I will get to in a moment, that kind of changed. That said, quoting further, a lot going on here. Quoting further: "He also pointed out inconsistencies in the government's efforts to control cannabis, methamphetamine pills and alcoholic beverages." This one came out of left field for me, this whole methamphetamine aspect of this. That part of it was like "wait, what?" So let me get to it here, quoting further: "While Cannabis is legally considered a herb, its use will require a doctor's recommendation under the new draft. Meanwhile, the possession of up to five methamphetamine pills isn't considered a criminal offense despite it being classified as a narcotic." So let's start off by giving some background here; we have done a lot of videos on this.

Cannabis was pulled off of the narcotics list, it was reclassified as a, herb and it is dealt with under the Thai Traditional Medicine sort of rubric, okay? I think that was a good thing to do in the sense that it really does reflect reality. Cannabis is at the end of the day an herb and at the end of the day, yes it has certain properties including psycho-reactive properties as a result of THC if you are ingesting the kind that has THC, not all of it has that. But beyond even that it has certain properties so it is an herb but it is a regulated herb, it's under certain regulations. As of right now for example, it is illegal in Thailand to sell to anyone under 20 years of age, that's the age of majority, the drinking age so to speak here in Thailand. It's also illegal to sell to pregnant mothers. Again there are already restrictions on this and there already is an oversight framework in place. Again a lot of the narrative on this talks about it as if everything is just up in the air, there are no rules; there are rules okay, but it has been legalized. I keep seeing it said "well it's decriminalized." No, it is not decriminalized, it's legal. What we are talking about here in any future draft is how they may or may not make it illegal or make certain activities associated with it illegal. Meanwhile, methamphetamine is still considered a narcotic and it should be. I have been thinking about this and I've been looking for a sort of rule of thumb differential, a differentiator if you will between what is a narcotic and what is not? My best rule of thumb that I have come up with in terms of if you will a lay person's definition, not some grand legalese of "this is and this is". No, just sort of a rule of thumb that you can use commonsensically and this is what I have come up with. Narcotics kill people if they are used improperly. In this case Cannabis I don't think can be considered a narcotic because point to me the person who has died from it. And I guarantee you in this rush to go up against Cannabis and I don't understand where the impetus is for this. There seems to be a contingent, I guess we saw them really rallying to their flag or whatever you want to call it during COVID, there seems to be these people that just don't like freedom, they just have a problem with people being free or what I described and I made videos on this at the time, 'negative freedom', not this so-called ‘positive freedom’ which is, that is its own kettle of fish, I am not going to get into that but sort of ‘negative freedom’, ‘negative liberty’, which is the right to be left alone; that if you are not hurting anybody, you can be left to your own devices. I think the Cannabis issue really puts a fine point on that. Again who has Cannabis killed? I'm not exactly asking that rhetorically. If somebody can point to me someone in the comments who directly died of a cannabis overdose, which I'm not even sure is possible at least under present conditions, meanwhile how many people have died from methamphetamine honestly? I don't bring up my personal life and my background all that much on this channel but just a little background on me and where I came from. Back in Kansas my father has been a Judge for 30 years okay, and I am sure he has adjudicated countless cases - Cannabis remains illegal in that jurisdiction - I am sure he has adjudicated countless cases involving Cannabis but over the years I have kind of asked him from time to time, "what do you think is one of the most pernicious ills on society?" and among other things, there are a few other things out there including victimization of children which we have discussed in other videos, but leave that aside, stay on point here, he has repeatedly told me “methamphetamine destroys people”; I think I remember him saying it's like "it sucks out people's soul". It makes them just a shell of a person and they do all kinds of things just to get their next fix; that appellation cannot be described to cannabis users. Now there are things that you can describe about cannabis users. Perhaps you could say they lose some of their ambition, they can be rather docile, laziness has often been attributed to long-term cannabis users, okay, whatever but again is it killing anybody and are those are those attributes really hurting anyone? So again this whole clutching of the pearls in terms of cannabis while then turning a blind eye to methamphetamine, I mean not only does that not make any sense, it's just bad policy at the end of the day to my mind.

In any event, quoting further: "Methamphetamine has ruined people's lives, but people can possess it. Drinking is [indirectly] promoted by extending the operating hours of entertainment venues. If the Ministry's policy is dictated by political interest instead of facts, we will take further steps." So again, and this is another side to this, there seems to be a movement out there that seems to be this, I saw this in the print edition actually of the Bangkok Post where they were talking about there seems to be interest in the alcohol sort of constituency in the alcohol business which is anti-Cannabis and it seems to be driven by the fact that perhaps demand for alcohol is lessening because people are utilizing Cannabis in its place. Okay, as has been seen in headlines, I am not going to cite here, but they have already dropped certain taxes related to alcohol and if it is a concern of someone's constituency that alcohol may be viewed as I don't know how you would want to put it, as not the preferred alternative for those who are looking to imbibe upon something, Tax Policy maybe the correct way to deal with that. As I have discussed in many other videos, I think Cannabis needs to be taxed heavily here in Thailand and the revenues utilized for Public Services, Public Works; if that money needs to perhaps go toward treatment of folks that have issues with drug addiction or addiction to alcohol even, perhaps that would be a good idea for those funds to go there. But again, by creating a tax base on the Cannabis it might create a differential within the market wherein alcohol would again be sort of on par if you will in terms of price. So that is one way to deal with that whole thing in my mind.

Quoting further: "The Public Health Ministry seeks to regulate the use of Cannabis in a similar manner to tobacco and alcohol which last year killed more than 100,000 people and 40,000 people respectively." Quoting further: "Despite the harm and risk, tobacco and alcohol posed to individual and public health, both substances are allowed for recreational use." Yeah, that is another issue we have constantly been hearing the refrain on. "Whoa, we don't want recreational use of Cannabis!" Why? Again alcohol kills people; tobacco kills people and yet we allow recreational use of that. Again I don't understand these people whose big problem is just freedom per se. Look, again this isn't an argument where you are sitting there making some crazy wild-eyed libertarian argument that like heroin should be legal. That is a hard argument to make because kids can get a hold of it instantly kill themselves; anybody can get a hold of that kind of substance and instantly kill themselves, so you have to do kind of a cost- benefit commonsensical analysis. Again, when you look at Cannabis, where is that analysis? Again it doesn't kill people and then meanwhile, the recreational use thereof does not cause nearly the public health or personal health problems as does for example tobacco and alcohol which are allowed to be used recreationally! What sense does that make to heavily regulate one which when you do the cost-benefit, the benefit ratio is higher than the cost and you are going to say "oh you can't recreationally use that, but you can recreationally use this stuff that has been shown to kill people!" Direct correlations, let alone methamphetamine. Quoting further: "In contrast, Cannabis which has not been linked to any deaths, will be prohibited for recreational use, he added." Yeah, I mean come on. Quoting further: "Most people believe that the new Bill isn't for the public interest but for the interest of some people whose sales dropped significantly after people switched to Cannabis to alleviate symptoms like pain or sleeplessness, he said." Yeah that is a good point. Who is against this and why? And again people's interests are their interests; constituency interests are their interests. I can understand the alcohol industry might have problems with the legalization of Cannabis okay, but a couple of things here. First of all that industry in and of itself is heavily regulated. It has never been particularly conducive to small businesses so I have issues there just to begin with, whereas Cannabis as we will get into further and later on in this video, Cannabis has created a ton of small businesses here in Thailand and I can only say as well as helped keep the commercial real estate sector propped up which I will get into further down the line here after I am done sort of making these citations. But again, this whole notion that again like recreational use of alcohol, that's just okay but now we are attacking Cannabis for recreational use and apparently according to this article, there was something of an attempt if you will to try and push this thing through without any public discourse.

I was kind of holding back on making a video on this because I didn't really know how it was going to play and then I saw these articles where "oh wow, they tried to kind of push this thing through" and then they said well no they were only commenting on it, now we are going to actually look at really reviewing it for promulgation purposes. Okay, at the end of the day though this whole recreational use obsession makes no sense to me especially in light of the fact that it is considered perfectly okay for the recreational use of alcohol and tobacco to remain as it is. Then meanwhile, they are talking about methamphetamine use notwithstanding the fact that it is still considered a narcotic, that doesn't make any sense at all. Quoting further: "Dr. Cholnan said on Saturday that under the Bill, Cannabis cannot be used for recreational purposes and the use of Cannabis at home for medical purposes must be done in accordance with the right procedures." You know, when I hear this it is like again why? Recreational use, why are you obsessed with this? Why do you want to curtail Thai people's freedom to do as they like with their own body, with something that doesn't ultimately kill anybody. I liken this to being like "oh we are going to pass an Aloe Vera Act, an Aloe Control Act wherein we are going to control all usages of Aloe Vera, and there can be no use of Aloe Vera for recreational purposes. It can only be used as a treatment for sunburn or something like this". That makes no sense and honestly it is not an apples to bowling balls comparison. Aloe Vera is a plant, Cannabis is a plant; they are both used by humans for various purposes, both therapeutic and in a sense recreational because, Aloe Vera there are people that are really obsessed with being moisturized so they are using Aloe Vera lotion all the time. Are we going to stop that? Is that recreational use of Aloe Vera? Come on! Come on! This stuff just doesn't have a lot of logic to it, that's what bothers me the most about some of this stuff. In any event moving on. Bangkok Post, by the way, tip of the hat to you guys. You have done a great job keeping track of this and I have got to be honest, I made some critical videos in the past with regard especially to an editorial that was done about Cannabis; you have really been walking the middle road and you have been trying to report the facts and it is much appreciated. I really like your coverage of this thus far at least in 2024 thus far. Quoting further, again Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com: Draft bill on Cannabis control not finished, says Cholnan. So again this started out as they were trying to put this through apparently, without any public comment and the public got a little upset about that, so quoting directly: "The drafting of the new Cannabis and Hemp Control Bill is still not complete. It has not yet been forwarded to the Cabinet for approval, Public Health Minister Cholnan Srikaew said on Wednesday." Quoting further: "Dr. Cholnan was firm in his belief that Cannabis should be used only for medical purposes as the Prime Minister said in his policy statement to Parliament." Well again they say these things like "oh that was a policy statement to Parliament", well that Prime Minister yes, in this coalition government he is Prime Minister; he doesn't represent everybody and not all the parties necessarily agree with that. So he can make his statement but that is his statement. Quoting further: "The legislation was being drafted to support this principle." Why? Is there some hue and cry on the streets of Bangkok or any of the towns and villages of Thailand that are like "we have got to do something about this Cannabis issue." No. If anything the opposite is happening. You've seen little shops pop up everywhere. Now there's arguments economically maybe a bubble is in play but okay, that's a different question, but getting to this, this is important because small entrepreneurial Thais have benefited from this; a number of jobs and by the way these might not be jobs that your precious GDP numbers might not be able to factor in, because again as we have discussed in other videos, GDP is all just a function at the end of the day of bank credit and anything that is occurring outside of whatever you want to call it the "financialized" or the "formal economy", over in the "informal economy" is not easily tracked. But anybody who walks up and down the street of Bangkok or Pattaya, I was in Samui recently, I have been in Phuket the last few months, anybody that walks up and down the streets of these places and looks around with your own two eyes - this isn't even anecdotal evidence, this is just self-evident - that you can look around and see hey Thais have jobs, entrepreneurial Thais have jobs and guess what else? While the rest of the world coming off of COVID has watched their commercial real estate sector go into the toilet, Thailand’s has held on and why is that? Because retail commercial real estate is in demand as a result of a new cash crop being created in Thailand and entering the economy. Do we really want to reverse that trend? Is that good policy for anyone here? I mean and we are not even now talking about the Cannabis sector, now we're talking about real estate. I thought the Prime Minister was a real estate guy. Isn't that self-evident? Quoting further: "Cannabis extracts that contain more than 0.2% tetrahydrocannabinol would be classed as a narcotic." Do we really want to go backwards? The folks that actually, it's such an irony knowing the history of this, that under what one could argue was an Authoritarian Government, this was legalized by the very people who know law enforcement best and they said at the time, this isn't a good idea to expend time and resources of the state going after something that doesn't kill anybody that can be readily grown all around, okay? And to go after that rather than use those resources to go after drugs such as methamphetamine which actually kill people and harm society. Again I fail to see after a year and a couple of months now of having this on the books as legal, where there has been a massive societal harm. Now I will get to some things here in a minute where I do agree that regulation is on point but as far as just the overarching "has the sky fallen, dogs and cats living together in mass hysteria, has that occurred in Thailand since Cannabis was legalized?” I haven't seen it. Quoting further: "Existing Cannabis shops were allowed to open as they were granted permission to operate as business establishments he said. The planned Bill would focus on controlling misuse of Cannabis." So what does that mean? The people that are licensed are licensed? They can do whatever but we're now going to go after misuse? It seems like a lot of nanny-state nonsense is what it seems like to me. It seems like the state trying to tell people on an individual level, consenting adults, how to use and not misuse something. And meanwhile it's a step back to call this a narcotic because again, just my own rule of thumb definition, this stuff doesn't kill people even in hugely large quantities. Yeah you might get sick, yes you might have to go get some treatment for I don't know, vomiting, dizziness whatever but is it going to kill anybody? Okay and meanwhile, again other substances perfectly legal for recreational use do kill people! You don't see a hue and cry to get rid of that. 

Quoting further: "Sa-nga Ruangwattanakul, President of the Khao San Road Business Association, said Cannabis was one reason foreign tourists chose to visit Khao San Road." Yeah, this was another sort of meme that was out there in this whole narrative which was, I saw it out there, I think it was Dr. Cholnan, if I am incorrectly attributing that I am sorry, so I am not going to say that 100% but I think it was in another article in the Bangkok Post where somebody had said "well you know this Cannabis thing doesn't really bring in all that much tourism!" Really? Seriously? Now I don't think it is easy to quantify that unless you sort of stood at the airport at Immigration and surveyed all the foreigners coming in and said "hey did Cannabis, was it one of the components in your decision to travel here?" But as we will get into here in a minute, yeah I don't think it is really that big of a stretch to understand that yes a number of people are going to want to come here not only because of Cannabis, but it is a factor in their decision to make their vacation plans in Thailand. Quoting further: "In order to experience the taste, because Thailand was the only country in Asia where Cannabis was not listed as an illegal drug." Again, Thailand has made a good move here. Whether or not by consensus everybody understands it yet, we've got first mover advantage on a cash crop which could create a major boon in the agricultural sector here in Thailand. Leaving that also aside, it creates comparative advantage in terms of Tourism. If somebody looks at Malaysia and then they look at Thailand and they have any inclination towards Cannabis, they are going to pick Thailand. That is not something to be overlooked and it is definitely not a Golden Goose you just want to kill. I titled this video the way I did because during COVID, I was sincerely worried; I have less worry now especially after the 2023 high season has ended and we came in slightly over target only slightly, but there were many who were anticipating we were not going to come in over target or at target and we were going to fall substantially below. What worried me during COVID is we were going to kill the Golden Goose of Tourism with all of the crazy authoritarian nonsense that came about out of COVID and not really for any good reason. Now that we look back on it, we now know it wasn't for any great reason. I am looking at this situation in much the similar way. Where is the big threat that we need all this oversight? Where is it? I fail to see it. Meanwhile, it's a benefit; it's a Golden Goose; it's creating demand in the commercial real estate sector; it's creating a new entrepreneurial class amongst Thais. It's creating jobs under those entrepreneurs who are setting up these businesses because they need people to help them run them. That's a Golden Goose; it's laying Golden Eggs. Why kill it? Are we going to eat the Goose? That is not a good idea. Quoting further: "Cannabis shops in Khao San Road could generate 20 to 30 million Baht in revenue a month." We are just going to give that up, huh? 20 or 30 million Baht in revenue a month and by the way with a properly promulgated Act, especially one that focuses on Taxation and regulation rather than trying to re-criminalize and put people in jail for something that doesn't kill anybody, we could have a situation where the state and the people of Thailand could benefit greatly from those tax revenues. 20 to 30 million a month per shop? That is a crazy amount of Revenue that could be taxed. And by the way, a lot of it, that was talking about Khao San, that's going to be foreign revenue. That's not internal Thai money moving around, that's money coming in from abroad that the state can get a piece of. And by the way we have talked at length about Tax Matters here in Thailand because apparently the Thai Tax coffers are not in good shape. Well I can't imagine why after shutting down the economy for three years, but never mind that. Here is a way to rectify that situation. Let's not turn back the clock and make it a narcotic, let's tax it as the herb that it is. 

Okay, another article. Again Bangkok Post has been really good at keeping up with this, Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Better weed Bill needed. Quoting directly: "Previously, Public Health Minister Cholnan Srikaew was in hot water after saying he had submitted the Bill to the Cabinet. The statement suggested that the Ministry bypassed public consultation. He later corrected himself saying that it was the Ministry's opinions on the draft that reached the Cabinet shortly before a public hearing. The Minister also promised a speedy process so that the Bill would be enacted soon." Well as it is, I am not really looking forward to a speedy process for this Bill. I want to see this Bill actually thought out because whatever they are trying to put up apparently methamphetamine is going to be allowed, and then they are going to restrict this thing that has resulted in the boosting of the commercial real estate sector and the creation of an entirely new industry within Thailand that is contributing mightily to the economy. That said, quoting further: "Growing Cannabis without permission is subject to imprisonment for one to five years and fines of between 20,000 - 500,000 Baht depending on the size of the crop." Again, why are we doing this? I can understand fines. If you want to create a regulatory structure and do fines but do we really want our Law Enforcement Officers out there running around after people that are growing Cannabis or Hemp? Is that a good use of state resources? I mean this reminds me of ‘Smokey and the Bandit’ where the cops are chasing down Burt Reynolds because he is trying to smuggle Coor's Beer from one side of the Mississippi River to the other. Is that a really effective use of law enforcement resources? Come on! Quoting further: "Such tough penalties are deemed inconsistent with the principle that Cannabis is now seen as an herb." Yeah, no duh. Exactly. What it is, is it is turning back to create quite honestly a Draconian system whereby this is considered a narcotic and we start locking up people for growing a plant. It don't make a lot of sense to me. 

Again I am all for regulation and I will get into the parts of this I am really on board with regulating, especially as it pertains to kids. Now you want to create some highly penalized criminal laws, create some criminal laws for selling to children. Put somebody in jail for 10 years if they sell this product to somebody who is under 20. I have got no problem with that, no problem with that at all. That's good law enforcement, that's good policy. Kids should not be anywhere near this stuff. But to create it as a narcotic for consenting adults and then to put people in jail for growing it? Come on! Then meanwhile, say "well Methamphetamine, a little bit of that is all right!" Really? "Only Cannabis extracts containing more than 0.2% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) would still be classified as a narcotic." Again, why are we talking about this like it's a narcotic? Narcotics kill people. This stuff doesn't, okay? Are you just upset because people are getting 'high' so to speak? Is that what bothers certain people? It is these people that don't like people being able to make their own decisions, live their own lives and have their own freedoms. Is that what is really getting under people's skin? Is that what is putting a bee in your bonnet? Really? Quoting further: "With a narrow definition for recreational use, as mentioned in Section 4 and Section 42(1) on banning sales of Cannabis parts to any individual for recreational purposes." Really? So now we are getting into what people's intentions are when they purchase a product? I mean we discussed this with the whole Dram Shop Law notion where they were talking about some months back, I think it was a year or two ago, where they were talking about "well we want to start penalizing bartenders if they serve someone and then they go out and drunk drive". Well again we saw this in America, it doesn't work, one. The second one is why is it, this stuff is almost communistic, it's like Marxism where it's this “duty placed on one person to regulate another”, and to try and understand their intentions and what their goals are. It's none of your business. If somebody wants to come in and buy a product and it is legal and they want to use it for whatever purpose they want to use it for, so be it and in the case of Cannabis where again it's not something that can kill anybody, why are we imposing this nanny-state regime? Quoting further: "The Bill is problematic and may contradict the decriminalization of Cannabis principle." First of all Cannabis was not decriminalized, it was legalized; Cannabis is legal in this country. Secondly, it does go against the principle of legalization which is it is legal and it is not a narcotic, and quite honestly, defining it such was bad policy to begin with which was why it was changed and that was good policy to change it. Quoting further: "Cannabis advocates are right in questioning why the Government is being lenient regarding methamphetamine pills." You talk about right? Yeah exactly. I have got real problems with a Government who thinks yeah we need to get on this Cannabis issue but methamphetamine well yeah that might be all right. Really? Because methamphetamine kills kids. Period. It does it, there's no question about that. We have the data points to show that. Again show me where Cannabis has killed anybody. Again totally in favour of criminalizing sales to minors, heavily criminalizing - you should do time for that - but again to say out of one side of your mouth "oh we need to do something about this Cannabis", and then to be lenient on methamphetamine, a killer amongst killers when you are looking at narcotic drugs, what kind of policy is that? "But toughen its stance on this particular herb. From the question arises the need for the country to have a law to better regulate Cannabis use." I agree with that, "but a law with contradictions and inconsistencies is simply useless. It will only create more problems." Good point. Quoting further: "Restrictions based on minimum age of 20 and on places for consumption, for instance on consumers’ own homes and not in public areas should be enough for this law." Now on the issue of smoking in public and public usage, I have been clear on this since day one. First of all it is illegal. They have discussed this already; it is considered violation of relevant Thai Nuisance Laws. But that said, should we have a regulation system whereby there are designated areas where you can imbibe of this substance? I think that would be a very good idea and I think that there should be regulations and laws against public use. I don't think little kids, families, people walking around on the sidewalk should be subject to folks smoking this stuff, possibly blowing it in people's faces, that kind of thing, I don't think that that is good policy either. So again, I am in favour of regulation and I think that there should be designated areas where you can use this stuff. Quoting further: "Given that control measures on the planting, selling and advertising and type a product those containing more than 0.2% THC are in place." So again, we already have a regulatory structure. I love how the narrative of this is written as if we are in a vacuum out here, we are not. As I have explained in other videos, I went ahead and got my own licenses just because I wanted to go through the process and see how it all worked. I was also looking at the business generally - haven't really done anything with regard to that - but that said I went through the process of getting a license. It is not some walk in the park; there are regulations out there already. The notion that this is just sitting in a vacuum is not accurate based on the facts on the ground. "With regard to the food industry, the authorities should implement strong labeling measures in order that people who want to refrain from trying Cannabis can make their choices accordingly." Absolutely, there should be labeling; it should be done through the FDA and we should have a structure of making people aware that "hey this contains Cannabis or Cannabis byproducts". 

Long story short, I have been reluctant to make a video on this. As you can see I am rather passionate about it at this point because quite honestly none of what the Government is proposing makes any sense both in terms of policy law as well as just general common sense especially when you are talking about easing up on methamphetamine and then throwing the book at people associated with Cannabis. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. I hope at the end of the day whatever law is ultimately promulgated is not in line with what we are currently talking about in this video.