Thai cannabis network urges coalition to change course on narcotic relisting

0
2892
Cannabis Future Network Leader Prasitchai Nunual said the ad-hoc committee was established prior to the election to explore the removal of cannabis from the narcotics list and study the systematic usage of the plant.

The Cannabis Future Network in Thailand has called upon three alliance parties, namely the Move Forward Party, the Pheu Thai Party and the Prachachart Party, to refrain from reinstating cannabis as a narcotic drug. The network, citing research conducted by the Ad-Hoc Committee on Systematic Hemp and Cannabis Resolution, argued that such a move would be counterproductive and could lead to additional problems.



Expressing concern on the issue, Cannabis Future Network Leader Prasitchai Nunual said the ad-hoc committee was established prior to the election to explore the removal of cannabis from the narcotics list and study the systematic usage of the plant. He noted that the committee comprised not only experts but also representatives from various political parties, all of which signed a working agenda on May 22.

Prasitchai deemed the parties’ intention to revise their stance on cannabis, including the reinstatement of its narcotic status, as contradictory. He contended that altering the agenda seemed motivated by the parties’ self-interest rather than the nation’s welfare, and moreover, it was not based on existing evidence.



While acknowledging the parties’ right to reconsider their positions in light of the committee’s earlier studies, Prasitchai emphasized that such decisions should be rooted in the committee’s findings rather than public opinion or personal political gains. He also cautioned that altering the cannabis policy solely based on public sentiment could lead to unintended consequences. (NNT)

Prasitchai deemed the parties’ intention to revise their stance on cannabis, including the reinstatement of its narcotic status, as contradictory and contended that altering the agenda seemed motivated by the parties’ self-interest rather than the nation’s welfare, and moreover, it was not based on existing evidence.