OPINION

Flaws in weed policy

Re: "Industry up in smoke", (BP, May 28).

I am a keen supporter of most of the reform policies agreed in the MoU between the political parties that are hoping to form a coalition government.

However, the Move Forward Party's policy to recriminalise cannabis appears inconsistent with the platform of liberal reform, even more so when considered alongside the party's flagship policy to liberalise production of alcohol, which causes immeasurable harm to society without conferring any medical benefits.

The sight of Pita Limjaroenrat on TV trying to reassure a group of bemused-looking cannabis entrepreneurs that making possession of their product a criminal offence punishable by jail time would cause no disruption to their businesses without giving any details as to how he might achieve such an unlikely result highlights the lack of a properly thought through policy on cannabis.

Surely it would make more sense to pass detailed legislation to regulate cannabis properly and restrict where and how it can be sold in the same way as alcohol and tobacco without making it illegal again?

Re: "Industry up in smoke", (BP, May 28) & "Weed farms fret as MFP mulls-U-turn", (BP, May 25).

Well, I guess that many concerned educators like me really don't seem to know on what planet the Thai Ministry of Public Health has been living. Yet on a planet called Earth -- with a world medical authority far, far away, often known as the WHO -- "cannabis" (weed) is listed as a "U.S. Class I/U.K. Class B Narcotic". Cannabis has many very legitimate medical uses, and if prescribed by a licensed physician from a hospital (and not sold at the local 7-Eleven in a soft drink or baked into some child's cookies), I am very open to the medical use of cannabis, and rather liberal about parameters of medical cannabis use.

If there is a medical need, my view is to let Thailand's excellent physicians do their job at the hospital. For the public health minister's information (who last I heard is not a doctor), medical use of cannabis often focuses on using particular parts of cannabis for very particular medical reasons; not simply trying to limit the amount of THC; which I argue is an unenforceable policy.

Re: "Lawyer group calls to screen lese majeste complaints", (BP, May 27).

Although the lese majeste issue is important, there are other urgent ones.

The public is now giving knee-jerk responses that go directly against what our national father, Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej The Great, taught us when he said that using Section 112 "ultimately damages the monarchy".

The Move Forward Party should give us time to freely and vigorously discuss His Majesty's 2005 birthday speech.

What did the late monarch mean? Why would His Majesty drop lese majeste charges and free those convicted under them? Should we follow, modify, or reject His Majesty's advice -- and why?

The Royal Household Bureau should provide key input into the talks. While we're carefully crafting how to protect our monarchy, the MFP should attack key bread-and-butter and governance issues like de-monopolisation and decentralisation.

The Law Association's suggestion of screening LM complaints is good, but: (a) What legal power will it have? It must be more than a paper tiger. (b) If the Royal Household Bureau is not involved in the panel, how will we know of the degree to which we're following His Majesty King Rama IX's advice, taking the public discussions into account?