Bhumjaithai Party Advisor Seeks Caution on Cannabis Reclassification

[webfact]

 

Mr. Supachai Jaisamut, advisor to Deputy Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, voiced concerns during a seminar on the future of cannabis in Thailand.

 

As the former chairman of the committee responsible for the Cannabis and Hemp Act, Supachai reiterated that the Bhumjaithai Party remains steadfast in its initial ideology. The party has consistently aimed to ensure that cannabis benefits citizens, particularly in medical, health, and economic applications.

 

Supachai underscored the party's commitment, highlighting their efforts to regulate THC extract levels to be no more than 0.2%. He questioned the rationale behind suggestions to reclassify cannabis as a narcotic, emphasising that any such move should be backed by substantial justification.

 

He noted that the Bhumjaithai Party's actions are rooted in public benefit and the responsibilities they hold as representatives. The party's work on cannabis legislation aims to serve the people, and any notion of internal conflict is misplaced. Echoing the party's dedication, Supachai believes the duty of overseeing cannabis should remain aligned with their principles.

 

He reaffirmed that party leader Anutin Charnvirakul and the members remain firm in their stance on cannabis. Despite speculation, the party consistently advocates for the voices of the public. Despite the looming threat of cannabis being reclassified as a narcotic, Supachai stressed that such a move would neither resolve the underlying issues nor respect the voices of the approximately 5 million users.

 

Supachai lamented that politics had stalled progress on cannabis legislation but expressed readiness to continue the fight. He remains hopeful that with appropriate legal controls, cannabis can transition back to a legal status, benefiting sectors like medicine, industry, and the economy.

 

In his concluding remarks, Supachai urged all parties to move past biases and focus on public welfare, centred on the benefits that a regulated cannabis industry could provide.

 

Picture courtesy: Daily News

 

-- 2024-07-06

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

[stoner]

7 minutes ago, webfact said:

He noted that the Bhumjaithai Party's actions are rooted in public benefit and the responsibilities they hold as representatives.

 

keep blazing new trails anutin. i for one dank you very much. 

[dinsdale]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

The party has consistently aimed to ensure that cannabis benefits citizens, particularly in medical, health, and economic applications.

By far the biggest "economic application" is the continuance of decriminalisation albeit with regulation.

[hotchilli]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

As the former chairman of the committee responsible for the Cannabis and Hemp Act, Supachai reiterated that the Bhumjaithai Party remains steadfast in its initial ideology. The party has consistently aimed to ensure that cannabis benefits citizens, particularly in medical, health, and economic applications.

Anutins mouthpiece.

[hotchilli]

4 hours ago, dinsdale said:

By far the biggest "economic application" is the continuance of decriminalisation albeit with regulation.

So why did Anutin want to give free plants to every household?

[dinsdale]

9 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

So why did Anutin want to give free plants to every household?

I wasn't talking about Anutin's rhetoric. I was talking about the real world economic benefits of the commercialisation of dope for recreational purposes.  

[hotchilli]

6 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

I wasn't talking about Anutin's rhetoric. I was talking about the real world economic benefits of the commercialisation of dope for recreational purposes.  

With regulation... which Anutin didn't wait for before he railroaded it through.

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, hotchilli said:

With regulation... which Anutin didn't wait for before he railroaded it through.

Ah! So you think regulation is necessary. So do I. Regulation not recriminalisation by making it a class 5 narcotic again. As for this initial policy it was like all other policies in Thailand. Open mouth first think later.

[rice555]

It's in the first few lines, 0.2 for extracts!

Hope the 0.2% flower Karen's stop their nonsense! 

[bamnutsak]

BJT/Anutin has been pretty consistent on 0.2% for extracts - they don't want to expand the vaping trend - but for most medical applications extracts are required. You can't have a youngster with epilepsy smoking a fatty.

 

And when BJT says 

9 hours ago, webfact said:

economic applications

 

they mean recreational.

 

 

[hotchilli]

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Ah! So you think regulation is necessary. So do I. Regulation not recriminalisation by making it a class 5 narcotic again. As for this initial policy it was like all other policies in Thailand. Open mouth first think later.

I have no issue with Cannabis farms or private growers.. who if registered can supply pharmaceutical facilities who produce the drugs and in-turn supply them to hospitals and pharmacies, to be prescribed only by doctors for patients in need.

I do not agree with Cannabis shops or street vendors selling it to whoever walks in the door with money, or home grown for recreational use.

 

[dinsdale]

35 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

I have no issue with Cannabis farms or private growers.. who if registered can supply pharmaceutical facilities who produce the drugs and in-turn supply them to hospitals and pharmacies, to be prescribed only by doctors for patients in need.

I do not agree with Cannabis shops or street vendors selling it to whoever walks in the door with money, or home grown for recreational use.

 

So you think recreational use of cannabis should be illegal and as such should be reclassified as a type 5 narcotic. You are of course entitled to your views. If you think giving the money going into the economy back to the drug lords and corrupt officials is the way to go then fair enough. That's your opinion. Have you considered though that regulation is possibly a better way to go and that recreational use isn't the demon you seem to think it is. I also wonder if your views come from a conservative/religious point of view. If they do then I understand where you are coming from.

[candide]

1 hour ago, hotchilli said:

I have no issue with Cannabis farms or private growers.. who if registered can supply pharmaceutical facilities who produce the drugs and in-turn supply them to hospitals and pharmacies, to be prescribed only by doctors for patients in need.

I do not agree with Cannabis shops or street vendors selling it to whoever walks in the door with money, or home grown for recreational use.

 

 

18 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

So you think recreational use of cannabis should be illegal and as such should be reclassified as a type 5 narcotic. You are of course entitled to your views. If you think giving the money going into the economy back to the drug lords and corrupt officials is the way to go then fair enough. That's your opinion. Have you considered though that regulation is possibly a better way to go and that recreational use isn't the demon you seem to think it is. I also wonder if your views come from a conservative/religious point of view. If they do then I understand where you are coming from.

It's exactly the same problem as alcohol prohibition.

 

The choice is not between (recreational) weed and no weed. It's between legal weed and illegal weed, as recreational use of cannabis will remain even if it's illegal (as in other countries where it's illegal).

 

Illegal weed means more mafia, more corruption,  more exposure to other drugs, waste of police resources which could be better used, less consumer protection, and less taxes. An unnecessary diversion of resources from real problems, such as the Yaba and opioids pleague which is destroying lives.

 

 

[stoner]

35 minutes ago, candide said:

 

It's exactly the same problem as alcohol prohibition.

 

The choice is not between (recreational) weed and no weed. It's between legal weed and illegal weed, as recreational use of cannabis will remain even if it's illegal (as in other countries where it's illegal).

 

Illegal weed means more mafia, more corruption,  more exposure to other drugs, waste of police resources which could be better used, less consumer protection, and less taxes. An unnecessary diversion of resources from real problems, such as the Yaba and opioids pleague which is destroying lives.

 

 

 

proper regulation is desperately needed but it won't solve all the issues. it is very easy to quietly grow your own cannabis - legal or not. here in canada the legal cannabis system is pretty decent considering it is the first. there are flaws still being worked out. new changes are on the way. overall the legal market/regulation has taken a huge percentage of the black market. 

 

however

 

due to decades of active business the black market here is difficult to stamp out. with low costs as you mentioned compared to legal the black market in canada still takes about 30 or 40 percent of market share - a few billion dollars still. costs in black market sales have dropped dramatically since legal. you can buy grams of extremely high quality flower for a dollar or 2. you also have shady practices in the black market which also drop costs even further compared to licensed producers. 

 

this is a big reason why i am for for regulation. some of the things done in the black market are down right nasty and very dangerous for the end consumer. regulation has for the most part eliminated this in the legal market but not completely. 

 

there are shady dealings within the legal industry as well. a LP (licensed producer) in candada was caught with an entire undeclared grow room. they were literally selling the room out the back door to the black market. there is also phony and false testing and shady extraction practices they get involved in. unregulated grow nutrients and PGR's the list goes on and on. 

 

regulation has eliminated a large part of the danger and crime aspect of it. it has ultimately provided the consumer with generally safe quality products. it keeps the supply out of children's hands more so than when it was illegal and easier for kids to get. 

 

the government is being too greedy and stiff on some regulations though. taxes and licensing fees are insane for LP's - they cannot compete with the black market this way for cost. when you are paying excess of 1 dollar a gram in tax......well. look to california for more examples of this government greed and dumbness. 

 

legal cannabis is in its infancy and will only get better as time goes on. keeping in mind its one of the only industries ever built entirely on the black market. 

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, candide said:

 

It's exactly the same problem as alcohol prohibition.

 

The choice is not between (recreational) weed and no weed. It's between legal weed and illegal weed, as recreational use of cannabis will remain even if it's illegal (as in other countries where it's illegal).

 

Illegal weed means more mafia, more corruption,  more exposure to other drugs, waste of police resources which could be better used, less consumer protection, and less taxes. An unnecessary diversion of resources from real problems, such as the Yaba and opioids pleague which is destroying lives.

 

 

Yep. The whole drug debate seems to be between the informed, the conservative religious side and the ill-informed. Also there is the darker side of this. Keep drugs illegal and some people maintain their power and influence and income stream be it huge amounts at the top to a bit of cash in the pocket at the the bottom. Being this is a forum you'll always have the informed and the sheeple. People who believe what their told without thought or challenge. The conformists. Been very evident over the last few years.

[Luuk Chaai]

12 hours ago, hotchilli said:

I have no issue with Cannabis farms or private growers.. who if registered can supply pharmaceutical facilities who produce the drugs and in-turn supply them to hospitals and pharmacies, to be prescribed only by doctors for patients in need.

I do not agree with Cannabis shops or street vendors selling it to whoever walks in the door with money, or home grown for recreational use.

 

 

Just hearing " Cannabis "  and Cannabis shops  or smoking Cannabis repeated over and over drives me nuts..   it sounds so sterile  

 

In reference,    one would not say Let's go to Nana or Soi 6 to view vagina  (  I opoligize in advance for anyone with virgin ears or morals )

 

[RSD1]

Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows.