Dogmatix

First of all Chlonan is a Thaksin lackey and Thaksin waged the war on drugs to get revenge on his son's dealers and is still down on drugs, even relatively harmless ones. Secondly they hope to get political credit from voters who are brainwashed against "yaa septic" (narcotics).

Stolen from them by Thaksin who sold out to the military in order to come home without having to go to prison. Without Thaksin the military had no way to steal the election and they are only a small part of the government anyway.

There is some data on this. A rich guy's son did a hit and run on a female Cambodian migrant worker in his sports car. The woman was decapitated by the impact and her torso went through the windscreen and ended up in the passenger seat. Still the rich kid didn't stop and drove off with a shattered windscreen and the headless corpse of the woman for company in his passenger seat. I am pretty sure he got a light sentence.

"It is a decision about the kind of democracy Thailand aspires to be—one where the rule of law prevails over political maneuvering. For the sake of our nation’s democratic integrity and commitment to justice, Thaksin should be released." What an astonishing statement but unsurprising due the political orientation of Thai Enquirer's ownership. Quite the opposite is true. Thaksin a common criminal convicted of corruption who deserves to serve his full sentence. His treatment since returning home and stealing of the election by his party represents a supreme triumph of political maneuvering over democratic integrity and justice.

Since you need your passport anyway, if you are staying at a hotel and overstayers are unlikely to travel by air, this is a solution looking for a problem.

I too am a degenerate. These two Polish lassies are welcome to come and sunbathe by my pool, as far as I am concerned, but Mrs Dog may have some cultural objections.

The Israeli ambassador's ads on tuk tuks campaign should have a decisive effect. Hamas high heid yuns on gentlemen's trip to Bangkok will immediately relent and send the hostages back demanding nothing inexchange, not even a day of cease fire.

The Palestine govt that has embassies is the PA, or Fatah which is nominally in charge of the West Bank. Fatah was given control of Gaza b Israel when it withdrew in 2005 but there were elections which were won by Hamas. Fatah refused to cede power and a bitter civil war ensued in Gaza. Hamas won and has been charge of Gaza since them- Fatah was driven out to the West Bank. There have been no further elections.

Looking only at penalties in the draft bill for users, not growers and vendors, it looks like this. Consuming cannabis for recreational use - fine up to 60,000. Driving under the influence of cannabis - up to 1 year in jail and/or fine up to 20,000. Recreation is defined as using for entertainment or enjoyment whether alone or with other people. Refusing a test, assumed stoned. No definition of stoned or how testing will be carried and this overlaps the existing law on driving under the influence of alcohol or substances where the penalties are higher. A big catch for the shop owners is up to one year in jail and/or 100,000 for selling to be used for recreation. They asked how they can prevent customers who buy for medical purposes using it for recreation. No meaningful reply from the ministry muppets.

I think there is room for both types of thread. This issue is going to evolve over the next couple of years and it will be good to maintain a "go to" thread to check in with every now and again to see, if anything new has happened. You can just go back a few pages to see, if guys are discussing anything new. Of course, these these lengthy threads contain a lot of information but not indexed or easily retrievable. So a tax guide thread is useful as a sort of summary too. Legal liability? A disclaimer helps, although there are many legal cases, where disclaimers and even signed waivers of rights are deemed unenforceable by courts. However, I expect the risk is minimal in this case.

The OP is about the draft bill which is just been released. Why not stick to discussion of that, rather than discussing pros and cons for cannabis which can be done on countless other threads and fora?

Most of the regulations and penalties in the draft are for businesses and growers in the cannabis trade. For users I see only the 60,000 baht fine for recreational use and the 1 year in jail and/or 20,000 baht fine for driving while intoxicated with cannabis. This driving aspect seems to overlap with the existing law on driving while intoxicated with alcohol or other substances, where I think the maximum penalties are higher. There is wording about the obligation to take a cannabis test, if demanded, and you are deemed intoxicated with cannabis, if you refuse to be tested. But it doesn't say what the limit is or what type of testing they will do. I don't think anyone has out with a particularly suitable test for roadside testing. Most existing tests will just confirm that you consumed cannabis within the last few days but it is hard to determine whether someone is intoxicated to the point that driving would be impaired. They could end up busting anyone who has any traces of cannabis in their system, even if they are stone cold sober. This would be unfair as they allow a small amount of alcohol in the body.

I disagree that the thread should be closed. If people find it no longer useful or interesting, they will stop using it and it will die of natural causes. The same thing has been said about the PR and citizenship threads on occasion but both are now nearly 20 years old and still going strong. Members who are interested in the tax guide thread will find their own way there.

Sometimes causes small traffic jams on rural roads as one lane is blocked completely. It is also dangerous, as it can be hard to see them at twilight or in the dark.

You would think basic rights would include given citizenship to stateless minorities but there are still a few hundred thousand being stonewalled by arrogant, racist district officers. They are not allowed to travel outside their districts and don't have access to employment, healthcare or education. This is a human rights issue that could be solved by Srettha with a few strokes of his pen but guaranteed nothing will happen - just the usual racist BS from officials about serious security concerns. Many of the people are indistinguishable from other Thais. I have seen them at the Interior Ministry waiting for interviews. They had Thai names and spoke Thai amongst themselves. What is the point of making it so hard for them?

This is pure hypocrisy by Israel. It is very obvious the safe return of hostages is a very low priority to the right wing government. If they cared about them, they would stop risking killing them with indiscriminate bombing and would be negotiating for their return.

I have the sense that PT is very concerned about huge claims for compensation from shops and growers. Therefore they decided not to make it totally illegal which would have resulted in compensation claims. They might just try to kill the above ground legitimate legal business and get the shops to close down without dealing with any claims. Politically, if most of the shops have disappeared, they can claim it as a victory, even thought the business will have gone underground and possession is not a crime - only using the stuff in your possession. If they are going to make possession of up to 5 speed pills a crime that will not be prosecuted, it will be difficult to make possession of cannabis illegal, even if you are not allowed to use the cannabis in your possession. If you claimed you didn't intend to use it but just liked the look and scent of it - like pot pourri - what could they do?

Unlike the case with alcohol, aggression is a fairly unusual effect of cannabis. Falling asleep is more normal. I don't condone doping people without their knowledge under any circumstances but I recall an episode where I was an event at the seaside in Thailand and there was a farang guy who was quite drunk and was talking loudly and aggressively about the need to execute all drug dealers. He was chain smoking cigarettes and unbeknown to myself a Thai girl had put two joints that looked like cigarettes in his cigarette pack when he went for a pee. He smoked the joints one after the other without noticing any difference because he was so drunk. Then all of a sudden he started modifying his tone and eventually decided that drug dealers were human beings and should be given a chance to rehabilitate. Then he passed out in a deck chair.

Now I have seen the draft bill, I have extracted key sections regarding recreational use and relevant penalties. In the definitions. "Recreation means an action performed for entertainment or pleasure whether alone or with other people." Section 25. The licensee must control and prevent the consumption of marijuana for recreational purposes in the licensed premises. Section 42. No person is allowed to distribute marijuana, hemp, or extracts to others, whether for commercial gain or not in any of the following ways: (1) Distribution of marijuana, hemp, or extracts for recreational purposes. Section 45. Consumption of marijuana, hemp, or extracts for recreational purposes is prohibited. Penalties Section 58. A licensee who violates section 25 shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year. or a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand baht or both. Section 63. Whoever violates section 42 (1) or (2) shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or fined not more than one hundred thousand baht or both. Section 66. Anyone who violates section 44 or section 45 shall be liable to a fine not exceeding sixty thousand baht. The maximum penalty of 60,000 is pretty severe for most people but, at least, doesn't involve a prison sentence. However, if we assume, say, a 20,000 baht fine for first offenders and more for subsequent offenders, it is pretty obvious that many Thai would end up being dumped in prison for non-payment of fines. At one day for 200 baht of unpaid fines, that could mean 100 days in prison for a first offence. It seems that the shops will be the main targets, as they will be subjected to a one year jail sentence or a 100,000 or both for distributing cannabis for recreational purposes, even though they have no way of knowing what customers are going to do with it. This law makes them sitting ducks for harassment and extortion which could force the business entirely underground with no quality control or tax. There seems to be a whole lot missing, such as how is medical use going to be administered and whether shops can still sell buds or not. I couldn't find any references to bud, even though the minister had earlier said shops would not be able to sell them at all. They did say a couple of weeks ago that certain details would be specified later in ministerial regulations, which the way politicians amend laws with a stroke of a pen without having to go through parliament, e.g. Anutin's legalisation order in June 2022. Apparently no penalties for possession with intent to use recreationally but perhaps they will add that for possession without a prescription.

So why not ban alcohol too - and cigarettes while you're about it?

Here is part of the public consultation meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ZRR6GY1Nc. It was rather poorly attended by people in the weed business. Small business people asking questions, but unfortunately no legal hotshots challenging the draft. Most of them seemed like very ordinary guys trying to make a living but not very knowledgeable about legal matters. So can be easily ridden roughshod over. I thought they had better legal muscle from articles I had read. The biggest complaints were about Section 25, the prohibition on recreational use, and a ridiculous, broad definition of recreational in the law. There are penalties for recreational use of a fine of I think 60lk and or 1 year in jail but also penalties for the seller. They asked how can they know, if they sell for medicinal use and someone uses it for fun. The definition of recreational can overlap with medical, they pointed out, e.g, .if you take it for Parkinsons and that allows you to relax and enjoy yourself, then, it appears that you have crossed the line to recreational use. They said police would be incentivized to go into someone backyard to arrest him for smoking a joint, if the cop make an instant judgement that he was enjoying himself smoking it, even though it was for medicinal purposes. Recent reports on the draft kept saying that the shops would no longer be allowed to sell dried buds but I didn't see or hear anything about that and the questions seemed to suggest they would still be able to sell buds for medicinal purposes. Also there was no discussion of doctor prescriptions. Perhaps that is all to follow in ministerial regulations that don't need to go through parliament. The whole thing seems all very surreal, especially against a backdrop where they are planning to partially decriminalize amphetamines by not prosecuting possession of up to 5 pills. A year in prison for smoking a join for fun instead of for medicinal purposes but no prosecution for speed pills, no matter whether they were for recreational purposes or not.

The OP from Thai Examiner is very verbose but doesn't refer to any details of the draft bill or what transpired at the public consultation session on Friday. After the complaints that Cholnan had reneged on his promise for public consultation on the Cannabis Bill, they did in fact hold one yesterday after making the draft available somewhere, or maybe on request, as I can't find it. Here is at least part of the public consultation meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ZRR6GY1Nc. It was rather poorly attended by people in the weed business. Small business people asking questions, but unfortunately no legal hotshots challenging the draft. Most of them seemed like very ordinary guys trying to make a living but not very knowledgeable about legal matters. So can be easily ridden roughshod over. I thought they had better legal muscle from articles I had read. The biggest complaints were about Section 25, the prohibition on recreational use, and a ridiculous, broad definition of recreational in the law. There are penalties for recreational use of a fine of I think 60lk and or 1 year in jail but also penalties for the seller. They asked how can they know, if they sell for medicinal use and someone uses it for fun. The definition of recreational can overlap with medical, they pointed out, e.g, .if you take it for Parkinsons and that allows you to relax and enjoy yourself, then, it appears that you have crossed the line to recreational use. They said police would be incentivized to go into someone backyard to arrest him for smoking a joint, if the cop make an instant judgement that he was enjoying himself smoking it, even though it was for medicinal purposes. Recent reports on the draft kept saying that the shops would no longer be allowed to sell dried buds but I didn't see or hear anything about that and the questions seemed to suggest they would still be able to sell buds for medicinal purposes. Also there was no discussion of doctor prescriptions. Perhaps that is all to follow in ministerial regulations that don't need to go through parliament. The whole thing seems all very surreal, especially against a backdrop where they are planning to partially decriminalize amphetamines by not prosecuting possession of up to 5 pills. A year in prison for smoking a join for fun instead of for medicinal purposes but no prosecution for speed pills, no matter whether they were for recreational purposes or not.

After the complaints that Cholnan had reneged on his promise for public consultation on the Cannabis Bill, they did in fact hold one yesterday after making the draft available somewhere, or maybe on request, as I can't find it. Here is at least part of the public consultation meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ZRR6GY1Nc. It was rather poorly attended by people in the weed business. Small business people asking questions, but unfortunately no legal hotshots challenging the draft. Most of them seemed like very ordinary guys trying to make a living but not very knowledgeable about legal matters. So can be easily ridden roughshod over. I thought they had better legal muscle from articles I had read. The biggest complaints were about Section 25, the prohibition on recreational use, and a ridiculous, broad definition of recreational in the law. There are penalties for recreational use of a fine of I think 60lk and or 1 year in jail but also penalties for the seller. They asked how can they know, if they sell for medicinal use and someone uses it for fun. The definition of recreational can overlap with medical, they pointed out, e.g, .if you take it for Parkinsons and that allows you to relax and enjoy yourself, then, it appears that you have crossed the line to recreational use. They said police would be incentivized to go into someone backyard to arrest him for smoking a joint, if the cop make an instant judgement that he was enjoying himself smoking it, even though it was for medicinal purposes. Recent reports on the draft kept saying that the shops would no longer be allowed to sell dried buds but I didn't see or hear anything about that and the questions seemed to suggest they would still be able to sell buds for medicinal purposes. Also there was no discussion of doctor prescriptions. Perhaps that is all to follow in ministerial regulations that don't need to go through parliament. The whole thing seems all very surreal, especially against a backdrop where they are planning to partially decriminalize amphetamines by not prosecuting possession of up to 5 pills. A year in prison for smoking a join for fun instead of for medicinal purposes but no prosecution for speed pills, no matter whether they were for recreational purposes or not.

Don't know where you are but the smell of pot is not noticeable in Bangkok at all.

All these international articles but the Thaksinite health minister still refuses to let anyone read the Bill he has prepared. We are just discussing his comments on it. He reneged on his promise for public consultations too. We kept seeing stuff like OP saying that promotion and online selling of cannabis will be banned which is already the case in the controlled herb order. Also that extracts with over 0.2% TNC will be illegal which was although the case in June 2022. Everything but factual information about what is in this damn draft.