The issue of narcotics is not only a law enforcement and medical issue. It is also a historical, political and economic issue. A recurrent dilemma is whether personal, non-medical use of "weed" or cannabis (which is generally seen as a softer drug, when compared with harder drugs such as methamphetamine), should be legal. Thailand is still in the quest for a balanced answer, and this is shaped by political and economic ambivalence.
The 20th century witnessed various treaties to forbid the sale, trafficking and use of a range of drugs. There emerged the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, treaties to which Thailand is a party. They have shaped the various criminal laws on the drugs issue in Thailand, now with a new Narcotics Code effective from 2021.
Those treaties laid down the rules classifying various drugs as forbidden while regulating the flow of precursors, namely chemicals used in the manufacturing of such drugs. Weed was also prohibited under the first convention mentioned. However, later it was taken off the list of prohibited drugs which are used for medical purposes. The tone of those treaties still indicates that non-medical use, such as personal consumption, should be illegal.
One issue from that international framework is that it did not address adequately the perspective of the users or consumers from the health and human rights angle. The user might have a medical problem which needs to be treated. Rehabilitation rather than criminalisation would be the preferred approach.
Where the state itself is non-democratic or is under "rule by law" rather than "rule of law", putting too much power (under the guise of criminal law) in the hands of the authorities is also a recipe for corruption. Besides, small consumption of weed of low potency for recreational or personal use in a private setting might not be dangerous medically nor pose a threat to public interest.
Increasingly, therefore, a number of states are now opting to move beyond the criminalising approach emanating from the international treaties mentioned. The trend is that the non-medical use of weed at home, of limited quantity and with low potency, is becoming a permissible subject to some safeguards.
Importantly, instead of leaving the issue to be controlled by law enforcers, there should be more public participation in the process. There must be more room for doctors, chemists, psychologists, pro bono lawyers and members of the community to help oversee the situation from an administrative approach rather than criminalisation. A balanced approach thus requires inclusivity, not exclusivity. Essentially, this opens the door to the decriminalisation of non-medical use of weed while being subjected to various conditions.
In one European country, it is now possible to possess up to seven grammes of cannabis for personal use. However, public consumption is forbidden. Users can join clubs to cultivate the plant. There is a public board of doctors and other community members to supervise the situation. Violations of the rules ("infractions") concerning personal use lead to administrative fines imposed by that board. The police are involved at a later stage when the products need to be confiscated.
Various lessons emanate from that trend. Pilot testing for evidence-based options is preferred in the move from criminalisation to decriminalisation. The door will then be open to personal, non-medical production and use, subject to a limited amount and with low potency. Children must not be involved in the process. The consumption of weed must not be in a public space. A violation then leads to an administrative fine rather than a criminal sanction. Medical help and rehabilitation are available to address the addiction problem. The monitoring authority is drawn from the general public, with law enforcers helping as a last resort.
With Thailand, there are two basic questions of great relevance: Is the medical use of weed legal? Is non-medical, personal use legal? The laws on the issue have been amended. Formerly categorised as a class-5 narcotic, cannabis has now been legalised for medical use. From 2022, cannabis-derived products of low potency -- not exceeding 2% THC -- tetrahydrocannabinol -- are no longer classified as illegal, thus opening the door to limited personal use.
The cultivation of weed is also recognised under the traditional medicine law of Thailand with various safeguards in place, such as the need for a licence and the prohibition of involvement of persons under 20 years old. While the law does not specifically prohibit use of weed at home, it may give rise to claims of nuisance if such a use bothers other people. The use of cannabis in public places is forbidden. Thus the legality of non-medical, personal use is still subject to grey areas.
Various draft laws to clarify the situation, including those aiming to reclassify weed as a class-5 narcotic, have been shelved because of political quid-pro-quo. Yet for the future, the following considerations will have to be addressed.
First, there is a need to test proposals for reform to assess some of the evidence from the field before making an extensive decision on the matter.
Second, the criteria for permissible personal or recreational use should be clear about the amount of weed permissible as well as the potency of the product.
Third, there should be no public consumption of the product, and weed shops should be zoned away from schools and key public spaces. Fourth, various groups in a situation of vulnerability, such as children and youth, should not be permitted in the cultivation and consumption of weed.
All of this should be coupled with a humanising approach which targets preventive education, harm reduction and medical access and interaction, especially for those in need of care, such as addicts. Deinstitutionalisation should open the door to community-based solutions without the use of detention and incarceration in relation to possession and personal use. Importantly, the public should be more involved in the oversight process through administrative participation and regulation rather than leaving much discretion to the realm of law enforcers accustomed to a crime-based, detention-oriented and punitive approach.