Cannabis Shop Owners Plead with Government Over Drug Reclassification

[Luuk Chaai]

Our shop has been affected since the Prime Minister's   THAKSIN'S order to reclassify

[BillyBloggs]

7 hours ago, CharlieKo said:

These shop's had to apply for a license to be legally entitled to sell cannabis. So they followed the existing laws that followed decriminalisation of Cannabis products. So they should get compensation if the government re-criminalises cannabis. 

I bet they got their licenses for medicinal use

[Skeptic7]

Chok dee with that. Pleading common sense and reason here would be better served pleading with a bunch of dummies...

 

...OH RIGHT❗🤣

[hotchilli]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

He noted that cannabis use is already regulated by zoning. Andrei, who has lived in Thailand for over 10 years and uses cannabis for relaxation

Recreational use.

[Surasak]

55 minutes ago, Matrosen said:

It was just crazy to declassify something as dangerous as alcohol to society.

I shall take more notice of what is in the bottom of my glass in future!

[Shocked farang]

9 hours ago, Tropicalevo said:

 

 

 

Cannabis was decriminalised.

There is a fine line between decriminalise and legalise.

 

https://www.turnbridge.com/news-events/latest-articles/decriminalization-vs-legalization/

 

My understanding is that decriminalise means that one cannot be prosecuted in a criminal case for possessing cannabis.

It is still not legal to smoke it, sell buds or anything greater than .25 THC.

However, it means that someone has to get off their butt and and do something to prosecute a civil case.

Cannabis is legal in Thailand, once it was removed from that list it automatically became legal. Is Coca Cola legal? Yes, because it's not on the list. 

[AustinRacing]

No plan for compensation? Seriously? You operate contrary to law and expect compensation? Wonder how many kids have been affected. If anything I’d fine or imprison any shop that sold the stuff for non-medical purposes. 

[DLock]

1 hour ago, Shocked farang said:

Cannabis is legal in Thailand, once it was removed from that list it automatically became legal. Is Coca Cola legal? Yes, because it's not on the list. 

 

Coca Cola is allowed for "recreational use"...Cannabis never was.

 

Poor analogy.

[dinsdale]

13 hours ago, webfact said:

Our shop sells various cannabis products to both Thai and foreign customers, many of whom disagree with reclassifying cannabis as a narcotic and prefer it to be a controlled plant," said Mr. Jetanipit, reported Daily News.

"many of whom disagree with reclassifying cannabis as a narcotic". So who are the few among the many buying various cannabis products who do want it reclassified as a class 5 narcotic? My guess is 100% don't want it reclassified as a class 5 narcotic and recriminalised.

[dinsdale]

12 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Anutin said himself in an interview before legalisation that recreational use was not allowed and they had other laws to tackle that.

 

Yet people opened their businesses entirely expecting to sell recreationally.  It would be madness to compensate anyone for making a bad faith decision.

More to the point it would be madness to reclassify dope as a class 5 narcotic, recriminalise it, turn law abiding citizens into criminals, bankrupt businesses, take huge amounts of money out of the market and hand the dope industry back to the smuggling chain and fatten corrupt Thai officials pockets. You tell me that's not madness. Regulation is what's needed. Anyone with half a brain can see this. They should also be able to see this is ALL Thaksin.

[Dogmatix]

13 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Ok, maybe he said that, but where are the laws you are referring to? Have the entrepreneurs in anyway broken existing laws, or have they followed the ones in place?

If they have broken them, then you are right and no compensation should be. If there are no laws in place for what you mention, then there should be compensation.

 

The entrepreneurs got licences, made legal investments and followed the law.  They deserve compensation from a capricious government that was pushed to do this by one man whose party lost the election, just because he blames these people for his son's past drug abuse.   What a way to run a country.

[Gottfrid]

9 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

The entrepreneurs got licences, made legal investments and followed the law.  They deserve compensation from a capricious government that was pushed to do this by one man whose party lost the election, just because he blames these people for his son's past drug abuse.   What a way to run a country.

100% man! 

[Dogmatix]

From what I can see there is no confirmation that the ONCB met and voted to recriminalize today.  Only English language media Bkk Post, Nation and Pattaya Mail are reporting this. Thai Rath reported that the ONCB is awaiting the official draft of the Health Ministry's order to recriminalize, following the vote of the ministry's Narcotics Control Committee on 5 July to recriminalize, and will meet to vote on it at the end of this month, since the ministry cannot change the law without approval from the ONCB. 

 

I agree that it is a foregone conclusion that the ONCB will approve the draft, given Pheua Thai's current dominance of the political scene and its founder's extreme desire to recriminalize for personal reasons.   However, the OP's report and the English language reports from which it is presumably gleaned and which may have also gleaned from each other appear to be misleading. It is just not credible that not a single Thai language outlet would have come out with the news.  I think it is likely that one English language writer or sub-editor confused the Narcotics Control Committee with the Narcotics Control Board and others followed like sheep.  Perhaps it doesn't matter in this case as the outcome will be the same, despite Anutin's negative voted on the NCB.  However, a fact is a fact and jumping the gun is jumping the gun.  

[connda]

Cannabis Shop Owners Plead with Government Over Drug Reclassification
 

Screw you little people.  Now go home and get your shine box.
Truly yours,
Your government

[Bday Prang]

3 hours ago, DLock said:

 

Coca Cola is allowed for "recreational use"...Cannabis never was.

 

Poor analogy.

Well if you replace coca-cola with "kratom" it might make it easier for you to understand, not that it was particularly difficult

[daveAustin]

Government should be rightly shafted for this. If recreational use was against  the law, then these shops would’ve been shutdown ages ago and THE GOVERNMENT (same one as now, only overseen by a different crook) shouldn’t have given away a million plants! I mean, F-a-doodle-do, what an embarrassing shtshow, even for Thai politics. 
 

Then you have the usual dopey suspects on here lauding the decision to re-ban this relatively benign substance, yet they probably think nothing of drinking and driving. Pfft!

[Bday Prang]

3 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

100% man! 

               Of course somebody should pay, The authorities stood by and watched as a lot of  people invested a lot of money, no doubt in many cases it was money they didn't have in what they thought was a legitimate enterprise. 

              They were not "repeatedly warned of the risks" as some on here are claiming,  I certainly didn't notice any public information videos on TV or anything in the news papers, The usual warnings about cannabis use appeared now and again but nothing about the risks of investing in licensed retail outlets  

               Whatever Anutin allegedly did or did not" say" is of absolutely no relevance, except to a couple of whingers on this forum, who bizarrely  appear to have become fixated, on this  to the point of obsession  on his utterings. As mentioned earlier the thread legislation is issued in writing in the royal gazette and not by word of mouth.

               Those that invested were, as far as they were concerned investing in a bona fide business / industry which they correctly believed had great potential, they were not wrong either I would imagine the amount of money turned over in a couple of years by the cannabis industry is probably thousands of times more than that generated in over 20 years by other government inspired projects like OTOP for example.  Nobody was discouraged from jumping on board 

                Those on here spewing out their sad "serves them all right" and other such scathing and unsympathetic comments really should try to get over their personal dislike of recreational cannabis use, especially as its only a result of the "reefer madness" rubbish they were brainwashed with years ago,   maybe then they could   think about attempting to develop a more live and let live attitude towards the choices other adults choose to make.  Who knows, they may even stop trying impose their views on others , but somehow I doubt it 

                 If, as widely speculated , this change in policy is primarily as a result of Toxin's involvement then he should be the one paying the compensation, I would expect him to be only too grateful for the opportunity to return some of the money he stole from the country and people he claims to love, right back  to some of those same people who may now be facing financial ruin because of him

                   

[Dogmatix]

43 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

               Of course somebody should pay, The authorities stood by and watched as a lot of  people invested a lot of money, no doubt in many cases it was money they didn't have in what they thought was a legitimate enterprise. 

              They were not "repeatedly warned of the risks" as some on here are claiming,  I certainly didn't notice any public information videos on TV or anything in the news papers, The usual warnings about cannabis use appeared now and again but nothing about the risks of investing in licensed retail outlets  

               Whatever Anutin allegedly did or did not" say" is of absolutely no relevance, except to a couple of whingers on this forum, who bizarrely  appear to have become fixated, on this  to the point of obsession  on his utterings. As mentioned earlier the thread legislation is issued in writing in the royal gazette and not by word of mouth.

               Those that invested were, as far as they were concerned investing in a bona fide business / industry which they correctly believed had great potential, they were not wrong either I would imagine the amount of money turned over in a couple of years by the cannabis industry is probably thousands of times more than that generated in over 20 years by other government inspired projects like OTOP for example.  Nobody was discouraged from jumping on board 

                Those on here spewing out their sad "serves them all right" and other such scathing and unsympathetic comments really should try to get over their personal dislike of recreational cannabis use, especially as its only a result of the "reefer madness" rubbish they were brainwashed with years ago,   maybe then they could   think about attempting to develop a more live and let live attitude towards the choices other adults choose to make.  Who knows, they may even stop trying impose their views on others , but somehow I doubt it 

                 If, as widely speculated , this change in policy is primarily as a result of Toxin's involvement then he should be the one paying the compensation, I would expect him to be only too grateful for the opportunity to return some of the money he stole from the country and people he claims to love, right back  to some of those same people who may now be facing financial ruin because of him     

 

You are right.  A key point in a rule of law jurisdiction would be the fact that the government issued licenses to the shop owners and growers which implies that all was totally legal and they were encouraged by the government to invest in the new sector opened up by the government. If they have proper licenses, they should be compensated for this pernicious flip flop in government policy.  If the government didn't want them to invest in the businesses, it should not have issued the licenses and collected the fees.  That fact that someone else was prime minister doesn't negate government actions.

 

Imagine if they suddenly decided that all of what we consider prescription drugs would only be available in hospitals and that pharmacy owners were ineligible for compensation.  When Britain made the slave trade illegal it borrowed so much money to compensate British slave owners at home and in the colonies that it had to borrow so much money that the debt was only paid off in the 1980s.  Now there's responsibility for investment losses due to legal changes for you.

[Bday Prang]

20 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

Government should be rightly shafted for this. If recreational use was against  the law, then these shops would’ve been shutdown ages ago and THE GOVERNMENT (same one as now, only overseen by a different crook) shouldn’t have given away a million plants! I mean, F-a-doodle-do, what an embarrassing shtshow, even for Thai politics. 
 

Then you have the usual dopey suspects on here lauding the decision to re-ban this relatively benign substance, yet they probably think nothing of drinking and driving. Pfft!

indeed, one or two very dopey, but yet very vocal suspects who cannot resist any cannabis related thread.   After several years of their petty trolling we are all only too aware who they are and that that they don't wish to partake of this gift from above , But why they insist on trying convert the rest of us , none of whom are children, and none of whom  have requested their advice should be  a mystery to me.   But  its not really

[HugoFastor]

18 hours ago, CharlieKo said:

These shop's had to apply for a license to be legally entitled to sell cannabis. So they followed the existing laws that followed decriminalisation of Cannabis products. So they should get compensation if the government re-criminalises cannabis. 

That is 100% correct. I have a photocopy of a license from the vendor I normally buy from. It is a signed and sealed government document, which clearly states in Thai on their business license, the activities that they are allowed to perform, which include the sale of cannabis flowers without limitation. 

[Jing Joe]

A broader picture of two curses to society that many have raised:-

    Had alcohol prohibition way back in the USA continued, policing would have increased and droad deaths might have decreased but instead, addictions continued anyway like road and other deaths and increased policing needed.

     Thailand's allowing of cannabis could have fast tracked many into a dowfall to heavier drugs but now the horse has bolted and attempts to reverse the trade will surely send it underground, suggestive of more policing and all that entails in the L.O.S.

      Both scenarious above might have had political motivations both getting into and out of them, but there's the  unfortunate percentage of those with addictive natures or depression etc, etc, who more easily fell into the drug pit, and cannabis was a "gateway" for them.   (Contraversial subject involving many who will be in denial).

    Regardless, this developing Thailand debacle pales into insignifance compared to the world's scary challenge shaping up.

 

[Shocked farang]

12 hours ago, DLock said:

 

Coca Cola is allowed for "recreational use"...Cannabis never was.

 

Poor analogy.

The legal status of both substances is exactly the same: legal. That's the point. 

[Shocked farang]

Just now, Shocked farang said:

The legal status of both substances is exactly the same: legal. That's the point. 

And actually I want to go a bit further into this, Coca Cola is a very harmful substance due to the incredible amount of sugar it contains. I'm not comparing it to Cannabis in any way. It's harmful "per se". 

[patman30]

The worst part of all this
are all the other benefits the plant provides
since the US made "medical use" legal if you just go pay for a medical card (scam)
the old arguments of why weed should be legal has vanished
and it has turned into recreational vs medical
and all other commercial uses are now ignored
Thailand could have been the front runner for bio degradable plastics, sustainable paper, non-toxic paints
and so many more uses than just "recreational" or "medical"

*the medical industry do not want it used for medical, as it would stop sales of many of their products


"PRODUCTS WHICH CAN BE MADE WITH OR FROM CANNABIS 

medicine, fuel, paper, food, rope, maps, clothes, nets, lace, soap, sails, shoes, plastics, explosives, caulking, fiberboard (MDF), paint, sealant, methanol, gasoline, fibre for fuel, bricks, charcoal, auto bodies, packing mass, lubricants, oil for lighting, oil for fuel, oil for lights, animal food, furniture, mats, varnish, lotions, ointments, lacquer, salad dressings....

There are an estimated 50,000 commercial uses. Until about 100 years ago almost all the world's bibles maps, sails, clothes and books were made out of cannabis. Much of the world's population has survived by eating hemp seed, cooked into a porridge called 'gruel'."