Cannabis Network Gives Health Minister A Warning

[billd766]

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

Prohibition has never worked. Peeps who wanted to smoke recreationally did before 2022 and will after any future adjustments to ganja laws. 

Of course they will, and then whine if they get caught.

[Burma Bill]

Make it illegal again and no more protracted BS discussions for and against filling AN pages!

[sambum]

Cannabis leaves AND plants? I see no plants!

 

[jvs]

No matter how this ends,it shows the start of a big crack in the government.

[Dogmatix]

10 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Define traditional medical practitioners?

street vendors?

They are qualified to treat patients with herbs and traditional medicines. You can find in traditional medicine clinics.

[Spock]

9 hours ago, PJ71 said:

Benzos are available OTC here.

Really?!

[Bday Prang]

11 hours ago, Colabamumbai said:

Village doctors have been treating Thais with CBD oil for a hundred years. 

                It would be more correct to say that village doctors have been treating people with just plain cannabis oil for hundreds of years. That has been the case in most, if not all,civilisations across the world.

               Mankind has enjoyed a long and beneficial relationship with cannabis for possibly thousands of years, Its eventual vilification and prohibition, which effectively ended  medicinal use and indeed actually banned any research into its medicinal properties  is a relatively recent issue which started just after the end of the prohibition of alcohol in America

                Local witch doctors had no idea about "CBD" hundreds of years ago, and even if they did, they certainly lacked the technology to either  identify it or isolate it.  So its a certainty that any oil used medicinally would have been a "full spectrum" type oil. And why not?

              "CBD" oil is hardly a natural, homeopathic product, its about as natural as decaffeinated coffee, it only actually exists,  as a direct  result of the prohibition, firstly because any trace of THC would render the oil illegal and therefore unsaleable in many countries. Secondly because of the hysteria, promoted for various reasons, primarily  by mainstream media, surrounding  the "evil" THC and  "being high" 

                So, as an example, in the UK for example its perfectly OK to use a bit of "processed" CBD  cannabis oil from Tesco's  to help with ones backache, BUT... if you use the natural unprocessed stuff and end up feeling a bit happier than normal then you have committed  a serious drug related  crime and would be prosecuted if caught in possession of oil containing any THC

                Many medicinal drugs have what might be described as pleasant side effects, morphine for example, but I have not heard of any attempts by scientists to remove the side effects nor have I ever heard of anybody refusing a morphine shot for fear of feeling happy   Only cannabis generates such concerns and even to this day continues to  receive so much negative attention. Is this a testament to the power of propaganda, or a damning criticism of peoples inability to think for themselves? Probably a bit of both.

                 There was never any medical or scientific reason behind the prohibition of cannabis, it was all as a result of politics and racism,  we even know the names of those  responsible, but it is additionally  shameful and  perverse , that the faceless medical establishment , in the form of "big Pharma" have been allowed to  play a major role in continuing to  prevent mankind from enjoying the benefits of this plant, purely to enable them to continue selling us their nasty chemical based pills and potions

                  

[Bday Prang]

10 hours ago, Burma Bill said:

Make it illegal again and no more protracted BS discussions for and against filling AN pages!

Or better still keep it illegal and stop the b/s hysteria from those who seek to impose their views on others. What's it to you anyway, you don't even live here, that makes you worse than the rest of them

[JBChiangRai]

12 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

                It would be more correct to say that village doctors have been treating people with just plain cannabis oil for hundreds of years. That has been the case in most, if not all,civilisations across the world.

               Mankind has enjoyed a long and beneficial relationship with cannabis for possibly thousands of years, Its eventual vilification and prohibition, which effectively ended  medicinal use and indeed actually banned any research into its medicinal properties  is a relatively recent issue which started just after the end of the prohibition of alcohol in America

                Local witch doctors had no idea about "CBD" hundreds of years ago, and even if they did, they certainly lacked the technology to either  identify it or isolate it.  So its a certainty that any oil used medicinally would have been a "full spectrum" type oil. And why not?

              "CBD" oil is hardly a natural, homeopathic product, its about as natural as decaffeinated coffee, it only actually exists,  as a direct  result of the prohibition, firstly because any trace of THC would render the oil illegal and therefore unsaleable in many countries. Secondly because of the hysteria, promoted for various reasons, primarily  by mainstream media, surrounding  the "evil" THC and  "being high" 

                So, as an example, in the UK for example its perfectly OK to use a bit of "processed" CBD  cannabis oil from Tesco's  to help with ones backache, BUT... if you use the natural unprocessed stuff and end up feeling a bit happier than normal then you have committed  a serious drug related  crime and would be prosecuted if caught in possession of oil containing any THC

                Many medicinal drugs have what might be described as pleasant side effects, morphine for example, but I have not heard of any attempts by scientists to remove the side effects nor have I ever heard of anybody refusing a morphine shot for fear of feeling happy   Only cannabis generates such concerns and even to this day continues to  receive so much negative attention. Is this a testament to the power of propaganda, or a damning criticism of peoples inability to think for themselves? Probably a bit of both.

                 There was never any medical or scientific reason behind the prohibition of cannabis, it was all as a result of politics and racism,  we even know the names of those  responsible, but it is additionally  shameful and  perverse , that the faceless medical establishment , in the form of "big Pharma" have been allowed to  play a major role in continuing to  prevent mankind from enjoying the benefits of this plant, purely to enable them to continue selling us their nasty chemical based pills and potions

                  

You constantly ignore the reasons informed & involved organisations want it banned and promote a one-sided view of how it makes you happy.

 

Law enforcement want it banned because drug driving has now overtaken drunk driving, in the UK since 2021 it is up 50% year on year for 6 consecutive years peaking in 2021.  Using THC is incompatible with driving a car or motorbike, do you do either of these?  The accidents take peoples lives and families are destroyed.  Whilst legalisation removes possession offences, it increases violent crime

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/crime/drug-driving-arrests-up-50-continuing-six-year-trend/

A Review of Cases of Marijuana and Violence - PMC (nih.gov)

 

Health Practitioners want it banned mostly because of mental health issues and addiction.

Health Effects of Marijuana | Health Effects | Marijuana | CDC

 

Whilst I agree with you that it is wrong to ban research into the health benefits of any compound whether banned or not.  I have two issues with legalising cannabis in Thailand.

 

The first is controlling access to the younger with developing brains.  The damage that occurs with cannabis on developing brains is well documented and indisputable.  It is also well documented and indisputable that male brains continue developing to the age of 26 and female brains to the age of 24, yet the law here only prevents access to THC to the age of 20, this is wrong.

 

The second is Thailand's legal system is not ready regarding drug driving, the law has not been set with limits of blood THC concentration, the police have not been issued with drug wipe kits.  If Thailand were to follow the same limits as the UK, then THC use is incompatible with driving any vehicle within 48 hours of use.  This means regular users of Cannabis cannot hold driving licences.

 

If Thailand can address these issues, then I have no problem with weed shops selling for recreational use, but I would like to see warnings given at point of sale to new users, just as pharmacists will ask you and educate you on prescription of a new drug.  

 

I am not obsessed with this as you suggested in another post.  I only post corrections when incorrect statements are made like it being safe, not cause violence, not cause mental health issues and is non-addictive.

 

I have been at the sharp end and witnessed all these things first hand.  We can't say THC is ok because it's not addictive, doesn't cause violence, and doesn't lead to mental health issues because all these things are well documented and indisputable.

 

Sort my concerns out and I have no issue with recreational use, but don't post & gaslight that THC addiction, mental illness and attendant violence don't exist,

 

 

 

 

 

[bamnutsak]

35 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Sort my concerns out

Speaks volumes that you think anyone here cares about sorting your "concerns".

 

None of us are responsible for Thai laws, so who are you trying to convince? You are not going to change anyone's mind. I guess if you really cared you would be lobbying Thai government officials?

 

Most of us here are adults and can make our own lifestyle choices. I'll respect the government's wishes when/if they restrict recreational cannabis use.

 

I'm reminded of the chaps who used to proselytize outside Nana Plaza about the evils of the temptations of the flesh. Sure they were entertaining, but who were they trying to convince. I think they just liked to hear themselves speak, and were hoping for some attention.

 

 

I will stipulate that Cannabis may be addictive to some very few, especially for those who are easily addicted to anything. I will stipulate that it is unlawful operate a motor vehicle under the influence of Cannabis. I will stipulate that those with underlying mental illnesses may be further affected by the use of Cannabis. If brain development is an issue then I'd support the 26M/24F restrictions, assuming they also raised the legal alcohol age to the same levels. The "attendant violence" is a bridge too far, for me anyway. For meth, or alcohol, sure. For cannabis meh. Maybe a fight over the last slice of pizza, but that's about it.

 

 

 

 

[JBChiangRai]

4 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

Speaks volumes that you think anyone here cares about sorting your "concerns".

 

None of us are responsible for Thai laws, so who are you trying to convince? You are not going to change anyone's mind. I guess if you really cared you would be lobbying Thai government officials?

 

Most of us here are adults and can make our own lifestyle choices. I'll respect the government's wishes when/if they restrict recreational cannabis use.

 

I'm reminded of the chaps who used to proselytize outside Nana Plaza about the evils of the temptations of the flesh. Sure they were entertaining, but who were they trying to convince. I think they just liked to hear themselves speak, and were hoping for some attention.

 

 

I will stipulate that Cannabis may be addictive to some very few, especially for those who are easily addicted to anything. I will stipulate that it is unlawful operate a motor vehicle under the influence of Cannabis. I will stipulate that those with underlying mental illnesses may be further affected by the use of Cannabis. If brain development is an issue then I'd support the 26M/24F restrictions, assuming they also raised the legal alcohol age to the same levels. The "attendant violence" is a bridge too far, for me anyway. For meth, or alcohol, sure. For cannabis meh. Maybe a fight over the last slice of pizza, but that's about it.

 

 

 

 

Sort my concerns out was not aimed at you, it was aimed at the Thai government. The whole delisting of it as a narcotic by Anutin who at the same time says recreational use is illegal, and the press release saying anything over 0.2% THC is illegal (re infographic I posted earlier) just demonstrates what a complete and utter mess they made of the whole process.

 

We are agreed on addiction (though probably differ on the percentage), agreed on mental illness, it's not a great leap to realise that mental illness can lead to violent behaviour and the violent behaviour I am talking about typically comes from those with mental illness and the statistics link that to CUD & psychoses.  Those without Mental illness as you say are too chilled to care.

 

I would agree on raising the age for alcohol consumption if it affects the developing brain, I don't know if it does, I would have to research it.  I am not in favour of raising that age purely to keep it inline with Cannabis just for the sake of it.

 

[Wuvu2]

Bla bla bla. The toothpaste everywhere and it's not going back into the tube ???? 

[Mr Meeseeks]

On 9/23/2023 at 9:24 AM, jacko45k said:

A profusion of empty cafes and shops is what the Thai economy is dependent on? I think not. 

If they all shut down due to a change in the regulations, billions of Baht will be lost by investors. That is no guarantee that it won't happen. Thailand is not renowned for making organised, planned, and sensible decisions. 

 

Knowing Thailand as I do after 33 years here, I did question the wisdom of an American friend of mine who has now invested over a million dollars in a cannabis farm. 

 

The simple question I asked him was, “are you prepared to walk away from that investment?”

 

There was no answer. He simply could not comprehend they would or could do a u-turn on cannabis policy. 

 

And yet here we are, on the precipice. 

 

If I was doing a SWOT analysis on THREATS, I would have identified this government flip-flopping as the biggest threat to my investment.

 

Too big of a risk for me.

 

No safe money is in the hands of Thais with power making decisions.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Mr Meeseeks

[Bday Prang]

12 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

You constantly ignore the reasons informed & involved organisations want it banned and promote a one-sided view of how it makes you happy.

 

Law enforcement want it banned because drug driving has now overtaken drunk driving, in the UK since 2021 it is up 50% year on year for 6 consecutive years peaking in 2021.  Using THC is incompatible with driving a car or motorbike, do you do either of these?  The accidents take peoples lives and families are destroyed.  Whilst legalisation removes possession offences, it increases violent crime

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/crime/drug-driving-arrests-up-50-continuing-six-year-trend/

A Review of Cases of Marijuana and Violence - PMC (nih.gov)

 

Health Practitioners want it banned mostly because of mental health issues and addiction.

Health Effects of Marijuana | Health Effects | Marijuana | CDC

 

Whilst I agree with you that it is wrong to ban research into the health benefits of any compound whether banned or not.  I have two issues with legalising cannabis in Thailand.

 

The first is controlling access to the younger with developing brains.  The damage that occurs with cannabis on developing brains is well documented and indisputable.  It is also well documented and indisputable that male brains continue developing to the age of 26 and female brains to the age of 24, yet the law here only prevents access to THC to the age of 20, this is wrong.

 

The second is Thailand's legal system is not ready regarding drug driving, the law has not been set with limits of blood THC concentration, the police have not been issued with drug wipe kits.  If Thailand were to follow the same limits as the UK, then THC use is incompatible with driving any vehicle within 48 hours of use.  This means regular users of Cannabis cannot hold driving licences.

 

If Thailand can address these issues, then I have no problem with weed shops selling for recreational use, but I would like to see warnings given at point of sale to new users, just as pharmacists will ask you and educate you on prescription of a new drug.  

 

I am not obsessed with this as you suggested in another post.  I only post corrections when incorrect statements are made like it being safe, not cause violence, not cause mental health issues and is non-addictive.

 

I have been at the sharp end and witnessed all these things first hand.  We can't say THC is ok because it's not addictive, doesn't cause violence, and doesn't lead to mental health issues because all these things are well documented and indisputable.

 

Sort my concerns out and I have no issue with recreational use, but don't post & gaslight that THC addiction, mental illness and attendant violence don't exist,

 

 

 

 

 

You have not been at the sharp end at all, you were a part time magistrate dealing with low level miscreants who were advised by their legal aid lawyers to blame all their "troubles" on their fictional addiction to cannabis and as such you now erroneously believe that cannabis is the reason for all their woes and misbehaviour

             Concerns regarding "drug driving" are hopelessly exaggerated, there is absolutely no similarity between the effects of cannabis and the effects of alcohol , They are two completely different substances that affect users in completely different ways, the the fact that cannabis and alcohol are even mentioned in the same breath when discussing driving is nothing other than a confirmation of the ridiculous one size fits all approach to a very complicated subject and a complete ignorance regarding the effects of cannabis

           Your blind faith in the spurious facts and figures produced to order by "retained" and "aligned" scientists and experts is totally indicative of a wannabe fully paid up member of the establishment which as a part time voluntary magistrate is exactly what you are  ( or rather, were)

           The tests for cannabis intoxication are nothing more than a vicious knee jerk reaction designed to placate people like yourself  with the limits set ridiculously low in order to secure as much revenue as possible and remove as many as possible from the roads  Nothing to do with safety at all 

[jacko45k]

18 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

No safe money is in the hands of Thais with power making decisions.

And foreigners are often the victims as the locals take advantage... from the successful shop, faced with a huge rent increase and the landlord simply taking it over, to the soapy massage owner, told to fly home or else.....

I am not sure I would go along with billions of baht being lost... some was made by the renovators and sign makers, but I was amazed at the number of cafes etc that sprung up based on rather soft and untried ground. Folly I suspect.

Can a farm not simply turn to another crop?

Edited September 24, 2023 by jacko45k

[JBChiangRai]

9 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

You have not been at the sharp end at all, you were a part time magistrate dealing with low level miscreants who were advised by their legal aid lawyers to blame all their "troubles" on their fictional addiction to cannabis and as such you now erroneously believe that cannabis is the reason for all their woes and misbehaviour

             Concerns regarding "drug driving" are hopelessly exaggerated, there is absolutely no similarity between the effects of cannabis and the effects of alcohol , They are two completely different substances that affect users in completely different ways, the the fact that cannabis and alcohol are even mentioned in the same breath when discussing driving is nothing other than a confirmation of the ridiculous one size fits all approach to a very complicated subject and a complete ignorance regarding the effects of cannabis

           Your blind faith in the spurious facts and figures produced to order by "retained" and "aligned" scientists and experts is totally indicative of a wannabe fully paid up member of the establishment which as a part time voluntary magistrate is exactly what you are  ( or rather, were)

           The tests for cannabis intoxication are nothing more than a vicious knee jerk reaction designed to placate people like yourself  with the limits set ridiculously low in order to secure as much revenue as possible and remove as many as possible from the roads  Nothing to do with safety at all 

Oh, you were there at the court hearings when I was a magistrate were you? How remiss of me not to notice you.  You probably noticed the expert medical assessments we sought before sentencing too as you noticed those lawyers.

 

Are you a Q-Anon conspiracist?  You don't seem to like facts and figures from scientific and organised research much preferring and trusting your own conspiracy theories.

 

Of course, you know better than law enforcement and the medical profession concerning drug driving, I should have realised that.

 

I suggest we immediately discard all the scientific research on cannabis and driving under the influence and instead trust Bday Prang to tell us reality and set the law.

 

You have sunk to the bottom from your original well thought out, although highly biased piece.  Perhaps you were stoned when you wrote this?

 

 

[mikebike]

23 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Oh, you were there at the court hearings when I was a magistrate were you? How remiss of me not to notice you.  You probably noticed the expert medical assessments we sought before sentencing too as you noticed those lawyers.

 

Are you a Q-Anon conspiracist?  You don't seem to like facts and figures from scientific and organised research much preferring and trusting your own conspiracy theories.

 

Of course, you know better than law enforcement and the medical profession concerning drug driving, I should have realised that.

 

I suggest we immediately discard all the scientific research on cannabis and driving under the influence and instead trust Bday Prang to tell us reality and set the law.

 

You have sunk to the bottom from your original well thought out, although highly biased piece.  Perhaps you were stoned when you wrote this?

 

 

Well, as is usual for a person who resides in a certain station in life, you will forever live in your bubble, your info silo had told  you, "drugs bad". This has been reinforced by the circumstances and biases of your chosen profession. You have no ability to fact from fiction in this issue because of your own closely held beliefs. You are far from impartial Mr. Magistrate. 

[JBChiangRai]

15 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Well, as is usual for a person who resides in a certain station in life, you will forever live in your bubble, your info silo had told  you, "drugs bad". This has been reinforced by the circumstances and biases of your chosen profession. You have no ability to fact from fiction in this issue because of your own closely held beliefs. You are far from impartial Mr. Magistrate. 

If you had read my posts you would have known that I am not against cannabis for recreational use (with certain safeguards on age and restrictions on operating a motor vehicle), so you can hardly say I believe "drugs bad".

[Lancelot01]

On 9/23/2023 at 6:21 AM, kiwikeith said:

True, but not all countries have legalised uncontrolled THC level gunga for sale, and pressure could be put on them from someone who grew plenty of it b4 it became legalised, it's making some up the ladder very rich, and it's a bold move to try and reverse it now, as big jokes car was installed with Aircon one day, free, would be an example of their generosity. 

I suppose, "those up the ladder" have made sufficient now in  a shrinking market, time to move on.

[Lancelot01]

On 9/23/2023 at 7:09 AM, pedro01 said:

No - you just thought I meant something else.

 

There's a lot of drugs that can only be prescribed in a hospital - in other words, the local clinic can't prescribe them. Drugs like Tramadol are a good example - they used to be OTC here but then Thai kids started abusing the stuff mixing it with booze and so they brought in additional restrictions years ago.

And Xanax. Freely available years ago now only prescription.