Transcript of the above video: 

As I have discussed in other videos, this whole, in my opinion, kind of false dialectic between recreational use and medicinal use here in Thailand, which has come up in the discussion of Cannabis legalization and how any future legislation should be drafted, I personally believe this is something of a false comparison and it's also, I don't think it's doing any of us any good. Let me just dig in here.

I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Pattaya Mail, pattayamail.com, the article is titled: Latest anti-Cannabis moves reflect political compromise not moral outrage. Quoting directly: "The current draft law is up for discussion until the end of the month. A spokesman for the Cannabis Future Network said he absolutely didn't believe recreational use would be formally banned." They go into some other discussion of the proposed draft and I would like to say, I think it's worth pointing out, I have talked about this in the past. I don't like this "it's either medicinal or recreational", I don't even like the comparison because nobody makes the comparison with alcohol, nobody makes the comparison with tobacco; nobody sits around and says "well are you using that tobacco for medicinal purposes? Are you engaging in drinking of that alcohol for medicinal purposes?" No. We just know that adults are adults. There are certain substances out there that cause certain effects on the body. You can call it intoxication, inebriation, whatever you want to call it, and depending on how much of it you have, you will get to increasing levels of intoxication. My personal opinion is Cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol in many, many ways but not to go too deep into that. Long story short and what I just want to focus on here is this notion of medicinal versus recreation. How about we just be adults and say let's regulate it in a similar fashion to the way that we regulate alcohol and tobacco. And I think and if you read this article and I urge those who are watching this to read the full article, I think if you look at it, that looks to me to be like what Parliament is trying to do here now. They are trying to come to a compromise but a compromise wherein hey we're going to regulate it. I definitely am in agreement, there should be criminal penalties for people that sell this to kids, absolutely. Seriously, if you intentionally sell to a child, you may need to go in prison as far as I am concerned, for a little while just to think about what you've done. But long story short, at the end of the day, the notion that it needs to be heavily regulated for adults and things, I just find that kind of spurious. I think reasonable people can make their own decisions about what they ingest in their own bodies. Quoting further: "Ganja shops, he thought, would need to re-register as street pharmacies (or similar)" Again, dispensary? That term is a little different, but why it has to be pulled into this pharmacological framework, I don't like that. I also don't like that people who want to use this have to then go through this, honestly in most cases, especially in the jurisdictions in the US, it's why I have never liked the “medicinal” jurisdictions in the US because it basically requires people to lie; it basically requires, people say they want to use Cannabis they have to go say "oh I have this medical problem!" Well let's not make people do that. If you called it a dispensary and said, "okay we need a special registration as a dispensary". Okay, fair enough but as a street pharmacy, why? Again registration, I'm fine with too. If you just register and say you're a Cannabis distributor, why get into any further verbiage? Just say you're a Cannabis distributor, you have this license, you are allowed to sell it and then we also want to tax you. What's wrong with that? Why does it need to go any further? Nobody says liquor stores need to be registered as street pharmacies, because liquor, alcohol also has medicinal effects. And people sort of say that that's a false argument. It's not, it's really not at all. It's an apples to apples argument in my mind. Quoting further: "..or perhaps customers would sign a slip to confirm they wanted weed for their health." No! Why? Why go through all that rigmarole and why make people have to engage in any form of dishonesty? Nobody has to sign a slip that they are buying a pack of cigarettes for any reason other than they just want a pack of cigarettes or to buy a beer. Quoting further: "This would have the effect of reducing the number of ganja selling points, unable to deal with the bureaucracy, whilst offering a way out for the larger or popular ones, especially in tourist areas." Well, so what? We're going to knock the legs out from under the lowest Thais in the social strata that are engaged in this business? That's what we're going to do? Then meanwhile as I have discussed in other videos, is there foreign money influence or control behind many of these larger shops? As I discussed in that video, I'm adamantly in favour of no foreigners in this space. People can say that is hypocritical of me because I became a naturalized Thai, I would feel this way if I wasn't Thai quite frankly, honestly. This should be a Thai only sector. This is agriculture; this is agricultural products. That has always been Thai only. So my question is we are going to create this massive bureaucratic Byzantine framework that is going to protect the big guys but it's going to knock out the low guys on the Totem Pole. Who are the big guys? Could the big guys be foreigners and the little guys be Thais? Because if that's the case, I find that wrong on so many levels. Anyway, quoting further: "The main enforcing agency could well be the Food and Drug Administration which is notoriously short of staff." Or we could form a new agency. Call it the Cannabis Control Board. Why do we have to do it under Food and Drug Administration? It could be done under its own Commission that could be created in the Bill that passes through Parliament. Quoting further: "The Royal Thai Police has been noticeably hands-off ever since weed decriminalization."  First of all not "decriminalization"; that's an insult to the Thai Police. Thai Police are doing their job. Cannabis has been legalized as I have discussed in many other videos. Decriminalization means when the police don't enforce the law; it means when they don't do their job, okay. The Police are doing their job. This isn't illegal. They have better things to do quite frankly than go and mess around hassling people who are selling a legal product. Quite frankly, Good Job Thai Police you're doing what you should be doing. This is legal now, we have got other things to do. Go after people selling illegal hard drugs that kill people, not go after the legal one that hasn't killed anybody that I've seen. Quoting further: "As the Roman poet Juvenal asked 2,000 years ago, "Who is watching the watchers?" Great quote. I like that quote. 

That being said, who needs to be watching the watchers? There aren't any watchers. I'm actually okay with the whole notion of free enterprise on some level, although it does concern me that there's foreign influence in the Thai Cannabis market. And I know there are those who are going to hate me on a certain level because I'm advocating this, but look I am for what is best for Thailand and for the Thais, and for the most possible Thai people that can gain benefit from this particular product. And as I've discussed in other videos, Thailand is in the catbird seat, first mover advantage on one of the great cash crops arguably of the 21st century and the only one that can make the moves that Thailand can in Asia. So Thailand should do everything in its power to not only maintain this advantage, but do everything in its power doing enhance this advantage. And I think it's a good idea to keep a close eye on any kind of foreign intervention into Thailand's local Cannabis market.