Dogmatix

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.

This typical Thaksinesque authoritarianism from a Thaksin acolyte. The 2017 constitution required prior public consultation, taking into account views from affected parties, on legislation. That was axed from later military constitutions but the junta government opted to allow public consultation anyway. Now Thaksin is back behind the driving wheel, his minister promises public consultation but reneges on his promise. In fact the bill we are discussing is still kept secret. So we are discussing it second hand. It seems that PT is worried about shops suing the government for damages. So the solution is to not completely recriminalise or revoke the shops' licences but to make it impossible for them to do business by only allowing them to sell cannabis with less than 0.2% THC. It sounds like medical THC will be the same as it is now - restricted to oil over 0.2% but not much higher than that with a nasty substance added to prevent drinking the whole bottle to try to get a buzz. I was prescribed two bottles of this stuff which had a notice in red on the bottle warning that is became an illegal narcotic 30 days after the prescription date. It was a dark green colour, rather than the normal colorless, tasted revolting and did nothing. So I threw both bottles in the trash after 30 days, rather than keep an illegal but ineffective substance in the house. Cost me 600 per bottle and and another 800 for a prescription and consultation with an idiotic traditional medicine "doctor". The shops will be left to go bust as they will only be able to sell thinks like CBD tea and cannabis hand lotion.

I think almost certain that foreign tourists will be denied access to whatever gets defined as medical cannabis and quite likely foreigners on longer term visas including permanent residents too.

Not true. What Anutin did was to issue a ministerial regulation amending the appendix to the Narcotics Act that lists illegal drugs. Cannabis was simply omitted from the new list with the exception of extracts containing more than 0.2% THC. No mention of why this was being done or how the decriminalised drug should be used. Go read the Royal Gazette announcement for yourself. Anutin claimed verbally it was being done for medical use but he is a politician. What he did and what he said were two different things.

Most are subject to abuse and left to die in the overcrowded cells.

Interesting, if they have given the 50% allowance up to max 100,000 to foreign pension. Indeed this should be the case according to the letter of the RC but I assumed they might discriminate against foreign pensions. Technically it should only apply employment pensions but perhaps they will be generous enough to extend it to state pensions. However, for most foreigners tax credits should be claimable for pension income and US social security is protected anyway. Here's what the RD says about declaring Thai interest income and dividend income. "Interest The following forms of interest income may, at the taxpayer’s selection, be excluded from the computation of PIT provided that a tax of 15 per cent is withheld at source: interest on bonds or debentures issued by a government organization; interest on saving deposits in commercial banks if the aggregate amount of interest received is not more than 20,000 baht during a taxable year; interest on loans paid by a finance company; interest received from any financial institution organized by a specific law of Thailand for the purpose of lending money to promote agriculture, commerce or industry. Dividends Taxpayer who resides in Thailand and receives dividends or shares of profits from a registered company or a mutual fund which tax has been withheld at source at the rate of 10 per cent, may opt to exclude such dividend from the assessable income when calculating PIT. However, in doing so, taxpayer will be unable to claim any refund or credit as mentioned in 2.4." So Thai bank interest is taxable if over 20,000, even if 15% tax already withheld but, if non-employment income is the only assessable income you have, I guess, no need to declare it, unless total non-employment income is over 120,000. If your interest income is over 20,000, it seems you can avoid declaring it, if you keep your money in a finance company or in government bonds. Potentially you could pay more than the 15% withholding tax, if you were in a higher tax bracket. Even with such low interest rates in Thailand, it is not difficult to get more than 20,000 in bank interest. But what I said about Thai dividends stands. No limit to how much you can receive without declaring, if you are happy with the 10% withholding tax. There is a sweet spot for filing tax credits on Thai dividends which is around 2-4 million dividend income a year. As long as you don't have any other income, you can get a tax rebate of over 4000,000 on dividend income of 3 million, if you do RMF and have other deductions too. That means that you actually get more tax back than was deducted. I guess these dividend tax credits will be abolished sooner or later though.

I think so. He couldn't be extradited for the civil case brought by Roberts but, if he committed perjury under oath, albeit in a zoom call, he could have been extradited. He refused to testify to the FBI by zoom in the Epstein case, while Epstein was still alive and before Roberts brought her case. The awful Cressida Dick of the Met protected Andy from criminal charges in the UK. Even though Roberts was over the UK age of consent (and was clearly a hardened hooker by then) she was 17 and criminal charges can be filed against those complicit in sex trafficking of minors under the age of 18 under English law. If he were not a royal, things might have gone differently in the UK.

They didn't change the tax status of all foreign residents. They changed the tax status of all Thai and foreign tax residence who remit foreign source income. Foreigners who don't remit any foreign source income have no change in tax status.

Prawit was not happy about the deal that Thaksin did with Prayut to form the coalition. Thaksin cunningly played them off against each other and Prawit didn't get the ministries he expected and his senators didn't vote for Srettha. Maybe time for some pay back.

I think it was his US lawyer's advice. Andy and his British solicitor "Good News" Gary were utterly clueless. However, there was one weird part of the US defense strategy when Andy publicized that he applied for a jury trial which caused shock horror at the Firm and in the British media. This was weird because Virginia had already applied for a jury trial and the plaintiff's wishes for a jury trial take precedence. Therefore Andy was going to get a jury trial whether he wanted one or not. So this was probably also on the advice of his US attorney to throw sand in the eyes of Andy's mum and scare her into pay up which she did. Actually a jury trial would not necessarily have been worse than a bench trial but again Mum and the tabloids were not to know this and any kind of trial would have exposed Andy to a future US federal criminal trial for perjury , as he would testified under oath. So I guess there was no way Andy really wanted a trial at all.

In your section 8 I don't believe there is any requirement to file a tax return if you have Thai bank interest in excess of 60,000. PWC says this: " in the case of having income from other sources (with or without employment income) of THB 60,000 or less (for single persons) or THB 120,000 or less (for married persons)." I believe it refers to income from non-employment sources, e.g. rental income. Banks deduct 15% withholding tax on interest and it is an option to declare this income, if you believe you would pay less than 15% and get a refund. Otherwise you can just accept the 15% deduction and not declare it. Same applies to Thai dividends from which 10% withholding tax is deducted at source. You can have as much Thai dividend income as you want and it will not push up your tax rate. If you opt to declare Thai dividends, you can claim tax credits for the corporate income tax paid by the companies to avoid double taxation. This can be all calculated automatically for you by the RD's website, if you file online in Thai. Otherwise it would be very laborious and would take many hours of work (don't ask me how I know this). To qualify for the tax credit on dividends, you must own foreign registered shares as a foreigner, not NVDRs. Now for the bad news. This 60,000 threshold for declaring non-employment income probably applies to foreign pensions. Regarding the tax allowance of 100,000 cited for pensions, this seems misleading. The 100,000 tax allowance is for Section 40.1 income from employment which includes pensions but only pensions derived from employment. So state pensions are out but Thailand doesn't have any. So no need for them to mention this in the RC. I suspect company occupational pensions from overseas are also excluded, even though they appear to qualify on the face of it. That is because I suspect that to qualify the corporate pension has to be notified by a Thai employer, e.g. Thai Civil Service. Most Western government employment pensions will be protected from Thai taxation by DTAs, but not so state pensions (except US Social Security) and company pensions.

To get the spouse allowance you have to do a joint tax filing and the first time you claim you will be asked to submit a marriage certificate. So no. Common law marriages are not recognized for this purpose. No sure how you get to allowances and deductions over the following without having deductions for things like investment in RMF/SSF or insurance and stuff. Basic allowance 60,000 Senior allowance 190.000 Totals 270,000. Adding the tax free threshold of 150,000, tax would start 420,000.