Transcript of the above video:

I want to preface this video by saying the first citation I'm going to do here real quick, which is from Thai Enquirer on X, Thai Enquirer's Twitter, so that's Thai Enquirer, I think their website is thaienquirer.com, but I found this on X, and quoting directly: "The government is advancing plans to restrict cannabis use exclusively to medical purposes, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra stated after the Bhumjaithai Party, which spearheaded marijuana legalization, exited the Phue Thai - led coalition. The Ministry of Public Health is implementing regulations requiring medical certification for Cannabis purchase."

Well first of all, how are they able to do that? There's no law. As I have discussed in other videos, yeah Anutin Charnvirakul then Public Health Minister pulled this off the narcotics list when he had emergency powers to do so. His emergency powers were extinguished by the end of the Emergency Decree pertaining to COVID, and then we reverted back to standard law here in Thailand which is standard Civil Law. Under the Civil Law, you have to expressly pass a Parliamentary Act to make something illegal. Nothing has as yet been passed to make Cannabis illegal. And as I have talked about in another video - I made one video specifically where I held up a bouquet of flowers - and I said if you allow them to just regulate cannabis without a law, then tomorrow they could just say, "oh flowers are now illegal, or a certain flower is illegal because we say so". It's nonsense. You don't have an underlying law from which to create regulation. Now that said, it looks like maybe Parliament may pass something. Quoting further: "The Prime Minister reaffirmed that the Phue Thai's official stance supports cannabis solely for medical use, with strict enforcement planned." Well neat. Where's your legal authority for that strict enforcement? It can't just come from regulatory authority alone, where you don't have an underlying Act regulating it. Again it's like the video I made about sovereignty; do you understand how this stuff works. Quoting further: "Prasitchai Nunual, Secretary-general of Writing Thailand's Cannabis Future Network, warned that recent inspections of cannabis outlets and the proposed Ministerial Regulation could result in cannabis being reclassified as a narcotic." How? Under what authority? If there has been no law passed, how can you do that regulatorily? Because if you can do that, you can tomorrow say baby powder is illegal or aspirin is illegal. It's a really slippery slope and it is a legal principle that we should not be ignoring. Quoting further: "He claimed the measures are politically motivated rather than based on health, crime, or anti-drug concerns.." - yeah, pretty much. I have been told that Thaksin just doesn't like weed, and so he has directed all his minions in the Phue Thai Party to do the same. Well that's great, but you need to pass a law to change this regime on this. Quoting further: "..issues the Ministry chose to overlook due to lack of scientific evidence against legalization when approving it during the Prayut Administration and while Phue Thai and Bhumjaithai were aligned." No, they didn't have the legal authority to do it, and they knew it. 

That said, at the same time it now appears Bhumjaithai is calling for controls and bear in mind, these were the ones that spearheaded the legalization to begin with. Bangkok Post print edition, Bhumjaithai MP calls for controls. Quoting directly: "The BJT (that is Bhumjaithai Party) previously proposed the Cannabis - Hemp bill, which was derailed by political maneuvers and the dissolution of Parliament by the then - Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha." Yeah, they couldn't pass a law. You can't do this by regulation alone where you don't have an underlying law that says you can do it. That's a basic tenet of the Civil Law. And I know I'm a layman when it comes to the Civil Law, but I do have a Juris Doctorate and I can engage in Comparative Law and one of the basic tenets of the Civil Law System is in order for something to be illegal - it's the Doctrine of Codification - you have to write a code to make it illegal and thereby regulate it. Quoting further: "However, the Party resubmitted the Bill to the current Parliament." Yeah, it is sitting there. Vote on the Bill. Stop trying to do this through regulatory Fiat. Quoting further: "Concurrently, the Public Health Ministry submitted a similar draft to the Cabinet, but it has remained stalled." 

Well I guess we're all at liberty then. That is the point of the Civil Code, that if you can't get it through Parliament to make it illegal, then we get to remain free. I mean that is just the gist of it. I am really getting tired of this; they've been trying this for a couple of years now ever since this Coalition, Core Coalition Party got in. They just decided unilaterally they don't like it. Look, let me be clear. On a personal level, I think some regulation probably is in order. I think it actually would be good for the industry frankly if there were regulations in place that tightened up certain aspects of things, but I don't want to see it happen just because on a "because we say so" basis. You can't say "Ministerial Regulations" where you don't have a law from whence the regulations spring from. Again that is the basic tenet of the Civil Law, the Doctrine of Codification.