Sawadee Everyone,
There was an interesting article in the Bangkok Post recently that reported on the Ombudsman demanding that the Ministry of Public Health not just explain, but justify, their policy on 5 methamphetamine pills being considered personal use with amounts in excess of that being considered distribution.
Honestly, it’s not great news for cannabis advocates because it’s a very drug war type stance, but I nevertheless found it interesting and felt it would be a good lesson.
Ministry told to justify five-pill limit
Anti-drug policy 'might do more harm than good'
The Ombudsman is demanding the Public Health Ministry justify its regulation that classifies people in possession of five methamphetamine pills or 10mg of crystal meth or less as mere drug users, as opposed to dealers, within 30 days.
The Office of the Ombudsman is looking to cancel the ministry regulation.
The Ombudsman's unusually assertive stance suggests dissatisfaction within law enforcement circles regarding the absence of a scientific approach to shaping the regulation.
It appears their concern is less about the methodology and more about the practicality of the plan, fearing it will complicate their duties.
Similar to the situation with cannabis, the Ministry of Public Health appears to be improvising its regulatory strategy. Instead of adhering to a scientifically informed approach, it seems they are fulfilling a political agenda, prioritizing the fulfillment of campaign promises over providing the Thai populace with well-founded policies.
Pol Lt Col Keirov Krittateeranon, secretary-general of the Office of the Ombudsman, on Saturday said the office is keen to know how the regulation will curb "social disobedience" as claimed.
The information will be used by the Ombudsman in its decision.
This suggests that the Ministry of Public Health is arbitrarily concocting justifications for its actions, as observed with cannabis regulation. The leaked drafts of previous cannabis bills promised outcomes that don't align with their strategies and made questionable assertions about the law's effectiveness in curbing recreational cannabis use.
For example, in an era where countries worldwide are recognizing the futility of the drug war and the failure of prohibition, the idea that simply enacting a law will eradicate recreational cannabis use is naive, given over seventy years of unsuccessful attempts.
Moreover, the challenge of defining vague terms like "social disobedience" and setting quantifiable objectives remains. A tangible goal would be something along the lines of "achieving a 10% reduction in methamphetamine users." However, the Ministry prefers to make broad statements about reducing social disobedience, which he can’t define, thereby avoiding any real accountability.
The order came after Pol Maj Gen Vichai Sangprapai, former deputy commander of the Metropolitan Police Bureau, submitted a petition to the Office of the Ombudsman on Friday regarding the regulation.
Pol Maj Gen Vichai said that the regulation violates Thailand's constitution and might do more harm than good.
This topic raises some concerns for me, particularly because there's no explanation of how it contravenes the constitution, leaving room for similar arguments to be made against cannabis.
What I find encouraging, though, is the implication that the Ministry cannot enact a regulation that conflicts with existing law. Essentially, laws take precedence over regulations, and the current law treats possession of any amount of meth uniformly.
Although I don't agree with equating the societal threat posed by someone possessing a single yaba tablet to that of an individual with a million tablets, I do concur with the principle that laws should supersede regulations. Regulations are often established unilaterally by ministers, who may not be elected officials, in contrast to laws, which are created by elected officials and require a majority vote to pass.
In the case of cannabis, the former Minister of Public Health, Anutin, approached the issue correctly by removing cannabis from the list of controlled substances, thereby exempting it from law enforcement jurisdiction. This was all done within the scope of his authority whereas the current Minister of Public Health seems to be overstepping his role in an effort to avoid having to go through the legislative channels.
However, Pol Maj Gen Vichai might be alluding to a constitutional principle such as "protecting the people," suggesting that this regulation could harm the populace and thus violate the constitution. This perspective is more troubling, as it could potentially be applied to cannabis as well, using the same rationale.
He said it could pave the way for addicts to turn to dealing and lead to more social harm, such as crime and disorder.
Moreover, the regulation could lead to an increase in bribery cases involving corrupt police who would intentionally overlook the amount of drugs people possessed in exchange for money, he said.
Dealers would then be categorised as users who need rehabilitation instead of being sent to jail, he added.
This caught my attention as it mirrors a point being raised by the Cannabis Future Network concerning the proposed cannabis legislation. They argue that the steep fines set for recreational use (60,000 baht) could potentially encourage police to solicit bribes.
At the same time, it's almost comical to hear a complaint from an officer that the law might lead to an uptick in bribery among corrupt officials. Perhaps the issue isn't with the regulation itself but with the corruption within the police force.
Maybe Cannabis Future Network should partner with Pol Maj Gen Vichai in a campaign to inform the public that these drug laws are only likely to increase police corruption.
However, it's valid to acknowledge that such regulations might lead to numerous unforeseen outcomes. A significant flaw in the war on drugs has been its ineffectiveness in eliminating the drug market; akin to compressing a balloon, pressure applied in one area only causes expansion in another.
Given that this regulation lacks a scientific foundation, its impact remains unpredictable. Drug users and sellers are likely to adapt and find alternatives, regardless of legal constraints.
Once you quit looking at drugs as a law enforcement issue, all sorts of new avenues present themselves. Yet, ironically, the one arm of the government that should be focused on the health aspects, the Ministry of Public Health, is instead focusing on the criminal and political aspects.
Not included in this news report is the fact that the government’s grand plan for forcing people into drug rehab treatment is to turn 52 army barracks into a drug treatment facilities.
But that’s not new, they already have tried this and it ends up being a prison, with mandatory treatment, physical abuse, mistreatment by staff, etc. Not exactly conditions conducive to kicking a drug addiction.
More importantly, these places have existed since Thaksin’s drug war and given the fact that Thailand is still losing the drug war, it doesn’t seem they were that effective (Pol Maj Gen Vichai makes a similar point later in the article).
And who came up with the magic number of five tablets? How was that number arrived at? What sort of studies have been done that show someone with six or seven tablets is definitely a drug dealer but someone with four is just some poor guy that needs “treatment”?
He said the regulation may not even help with drug suppression. It also does not reduce the number of prisoners as allowing drug users to go free can lead to an increased crime rate, he said.
He said anti-drug regulations should be more effective, noting that meth pills cause hallucinations and aggression no matter many a person consumes.
On average, each police station in the country handles five cases of violence related to meth on a daily bases, he said.
"If people are treated as patients, why does violence continue?" he said.
The government has no data on whether those who undergo rehabilitation go back to using drugs again, he said.
"[The health ministry] regulation is dangerous and I will fight it with all my might," he noted.
Pol Lt Col Keirov said Pol Maj Gen Vichai's petition seeks the cancellation of the regulation, which can be done if the Ombudsman agrees that the regulation opposes the constitution or other laws.
If so, the matter will be forwarded to the Administrative Court for a decision, he said.
He said the Office of the Ombudsman would send a letter to the Ministry of Public Health explaining the matter within 30 days.
The debate surrounding cannabis often overlooks a crucial perspective that deserves more attention. Unlike other substances, cannabis should not be lumped together with more harmful drugs due to its significantly lower risk profile. Even calling it a drug may be inappropriate as it invites comparisons.
Contrary to being linked with higher rates of violent crime like meth and kratom, evidence suggests cannabis use is associated with reduced instances of such offenses. Its potential for abuse is notably less than that of alcohol or nicotine, and its lethal dose is virtually unattainable; as David Schmader points out, one would need to ingest an impossible fifteen hundred pounds within fifteen minutes to reach a fatal level.
The impact of cannabis use predominantly falls on the users themselves, who typically do not resort to theft to support their usage, nor do they normally become aggressive or violent. Instead, they remain functional individuals benefiting from a substance that offers more medicinal advantages and safety than daily vitamins (yes, you can overdose on vitamins). The alteration of consciousness it induces should not concern others unless they are directly impacted (ie a patient being operated on by a doctor that is high, a bus driver that is high, etc).
Really, who is harmed by recreational cannabis use?
Cannabis advocates should push for a regulatory approach grounded in science. Questions should be raised, such as why the Ministry of Public Health deems recreational use illegal, who it harms, and how imposing a fine of 60,000 baht serves any purpose other than encouraging police to exploit tourists, who are often the easiest targets for corruption.
The definition of "recreational use" itself needs clarification.
With the World Health Organization reporting that 280 million people globally suffer from depression and 301 million from anxiety—the most common mental illness treated—alongside a third of the adult population experiencing insomnia symptoms, the potential for cannabis as a therapeutic solution is immense.
Cannabis has proven effective in treating these conditions, suggesting that a significant portion of the global adult population could benefit from its use. This is without even considering chronic pain, migraines, cancer, and other ailments affecting billions more.
This figure doesn't account for the undiagnosed cases, especially in countries like Thailand, where mental health resources are scarce and societal stigma around mental illness persists.
When considering the vast number of people who could potentially benefit from cannabis therapy, even after adjusting for overlapping conditions, between 70% to 80% of the world's adult population could be deemed suitable for such treatment.
Therefore, the distinction between medicinal and recreational use becomes arbitrary, serving neither a medical nor societal purpose. While political reasons may necessitate differentiating between the two in Thailand, from a scientific standpoint, no such distinction exists.
That’s the Catch-22 for the Minister of Public Health. If he acknowledges the health benefits of cannabis, which he implicitly does by making medicinal legal, he can’t scientifically distinguish between medicinal and recreational use anymore than he could separate eating broccoli for health or pleasure reasons.
The vast majority of the negative consequences of cannabis use are abuse related so a far more enlightened policy that was actually based on evidence would scrap crackdowns on recreational use and invest heavily in curbing abuse via treatment (not military detention camps) and education.
As far as everything else, it can be handled by targeting the behaviors the government deems "social disobedience." In other words, don’t make cannabis illegal, make the penalty for supplying cannabis to minors so punitive nobody would think of doing it (ie mandatory X years in jail). If you don’t want people smoking weed in public, don’t criminalize cannabis, ban the public consumption of weed. I don’t agree, but at least the ban is on a specific behavior that might infringe on the rights of others than saying that it’s okay if it’s medicinal smoke but recreational smoke is somehow different or more harmful which makes absolutely no sense.
Shouldn’t we expect science-based methods from the Ministry of Public Health?
Leave the politics to the politicians.
Stay lifted and enlightened,
Don’t forget that we’ve partnered with some dispensaries for exclusive deals available to members of this newsletter and the r/CannabisThailand sub on Reddit. Just type “Dank Deal” into the comments of any post and the AutoMod will send you the current discounts being offered.
Find us on: