News

Why Thailand’s Having Second Thoughts About Decriminalizing Cannabis

(CTN News) – Wassaya Iemvijan didn’t always want to open a cannabis dispensary. The former lawyer in Bangkok, Thailand, initially used the plant as “alternative care” to alleviate stress and calm her nerves.

I was depressed for a long time,” Iemvijan stated. “Marijuana helped me… We took advantage of the legalisation by opening a shop.

On June 9th, 2022, two days after Thailand legalised recreational marijuana use for the first time in Southeast Asia. Nitikrist Attakrist, Iemvijan’s spouse and fellow lawyer, applied for a permission to cultivate and sell the plant.

In his profession, “we were under a lot of stress as lawyers,” Attakrist admitted. “We didn’t intend to open a cannabis store, but we did, and we wanted to educate people on how to maximise the positive effects while mitigating any negative ones.”

There has been a “green rush” in Thailand over the past year, with cannabis outlets opening in major and minor places alike.

It has always been possible to obtain cannabis in the country, but at some risk.

The renowned Golden Triangle, one of the world’s most productive drug production regions, is located in northern Thailand. However, despite this, individuals caught with cannabis faced severe penalties.

However, things shifted after cannabis was no longer illegal. As likely as they were to meet the pungent aromas of street food, tourists to Bangkok’s famous Khao San Road or the bougie areas of Thonglor were likely to face the waft of cannabis. Weed festivals were held in cities like Chiang Mai.

However, that may all be about to alter.

A little over a year after cannabis decriminalisation, there are concerns Thai law may be changed after an election brought a more conservative coalition government to power.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, newly minted Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin said his government would aim to “rectify” the law on cannabis within the next six months, implying that the plant would stay lawful exclusively for medical use.

Recently, the drug problem has been most pervasive in Thailand’s northern and northeastern regions. And, as Thavisin put it, “we don’t need another problem on top of that.Rewriting the law is necessary. It must be fixed immediately. We may have that restricted to medical use only,” he continued.

The future of Iemvijan and Attakrist, along with the hundreds of other cannabis-related businesses, pot cafés, and dispensaries that have launched in the past year, is uncertain.

However, prospects are dim.

“Cannabis has helped many Thais – from farmers to small business owners and workers behind the counter, and any U-turn policy will be the worst decision ever,” added Attakrist.

“We are strongly against any legislation that could hurt the industry.”

Although the use of marijuana for medical purposes has been permitted in Thailand since 2018, decriminalisation in 2022 removed all criminal penalties associated with the industry.

The 2022 amendment permitted for the sale of cannabis-infused foods and beverages at licenced establishments, provided that these items contained less than 0.2% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

However, the Public Health Act of Thailand still imposes severe penalties on people found smoking marijuana in public, including up to three months in jail and a fine of $800.

Thai Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul previously told CNN just before the decriminalization in June, “There has never once been a moment that we would think about advocating people to use cannabis in terms of recreation – or use it in a way that it could irritate others.”

In a country where enforcement of rules and the letter of the law can be spotty, much of the weed on the market is actually much stronger than 0.2% THC.

An increase in the public’s use of the plant has been noted, with some attributing it to the law’s fuzziness.

According to pot shop owner and Phuket resident Ley Singdam, “there hasn’t been a clear divide between smoking medical marijuana and getting high,” which has contributed to the surge in recreational smoking.

But Ley, like many business owners, thinks it’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

Ley argued that the government was mistaken if it thought reforming the Drug Control Act would reduce drug abuse.

Even if the government’s planned crackdown on recreational usage doesn’t deter consumers from smoking cannabis, it will certainly have a devastating effect on small enterprises, according to Attakrist.

He thinks the Thai government is ultimately to fault for the situation. He claims that his dispensary is typical of the cannabis industry as a whole, in that they have always been conscientious about checking customers’ IDs and informing them of the law.

Although the consequences of cannabis are less severe than those of alcohol and tobacco, Attakrist emphasised the need of following the law in Thailand. “From the get-go, the administration should have been more prepared. They did a poor job.

As the author puts it, “they created this legal vacuum and right now they are trying to push the burden on to the business owners and cannabis communities.”

Experts warned CNN that farmers, many of whom have shifted to producing cannabis from more traditional cash crops like rice, will also be severely impacted.

Kitty Chopaka, a cannabis entrepreneur based in Bangkok, said, “The industry has supported and created a lot of jobs for Thais, especially in rural areas,” and that she knew “many parents who were able to send their children to better schools.”

“In the end, it’s up to the people to decide. To paraphrase what Chopaka said, “I don’t think any other law in Thailand’s history is as big as this.”

“We’re talking about an industry that has medical and recreational uses, that’s ingrained in Thai tradition and culture, that impacts people’s ability to make a living, and that has significant long-term implications.”

“Prioritising medical marijuana while outlawing adult use was a common starting point for governments, but it would restrict the potential growth of the industry,” said Michael Zaytsev, a cannabis business consultant based in New York and the academic director of LIM College’s cannabis bachelor’s degree programme.

“Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent by tourists in a short amount of time,” Zaytsev added, and “thousands of cafes, stores, and other cannabis businesses have sprouted.”

As he put it, “navigating this complex, high risk and high reward industry is not easy,” and “regulatory risk can pose significant and even existential threats to cannabis industries.”

“The difficulty lies in striking a balance between oversight and encouragement.”

When compared to the rest of Asia, where drug prohibitions are often quite stringent, Thailand stands out. The death penalty is still in effect in several nations, such as Singapore and Indonesia, for people convicted of drug trafficking, possession, or usage.

Restricting cannabis to medical purposes alone will do more harm than good, according to Gloria Lai, regional Asia director of the International Drug Policy Consortium, who pointed out that stiff penalties were also the situation in Thailand until recently.

“It is evident that prohibiting or banning substances does not eliminate them and can have the opposite effect of what was intended,” Lai told CNN. As one expert put it, “it will be devastating if Thailand’s new government returns to drug policies that have clearly failed.”

Professor Zaytsev from LIM University elaborated, “Prohibition simply does not work.”

He hoped that Thailand would not follow the lead of Singapore, where drug traffickers face the death penalty. “I sincerely hope Thailand does not go in the direction of Singapore, for example, where people are executed for trafficking cannabis,” he stated.

It is unclear what legal changes Srettha Thavisin and his coalition government intend to implement.

His Pheu Thai Party, which ran on a platform of repealing the 2022 law, is now in government with the Bhumjaithai Party, whose leader, Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, has been a strong advocate of decriminalisation throughout his career in public office.

The party has long opposed efforts to reschedule cannabis as a Schedule I substance. However, it has promised to push for stricter regulation of the sector.

To return the trade from tax-paying businesses to the kind of organised crime cartels that flood Thailand and neighbouring countries with massive amounts of methamphetamine and other illegal drugs would also likely result in more people getting in trouble with the law, according to experts.

People may once again be arrested, forcefully tested for drugs, and branded criminals if criminal punishments including prison sentences are reinstated, Lai said.

Instead of making assumptions, “the Thai government should be gathering and presenting data so that decisions are based on evidence.”

Iemvijan claims that business has been solid so far despite the unknown future.

She also noted that the timing of the issue is unfortunate given the rising standards of cannabis grown locally.

Thai marijuana has steadily improved in quality in recent years. Compared to the past, “it is much cleaner and safer now,” Iemvijan remarked.

It’s a difficult situation in Thailand right now… “However, most small businesses like ours are not opposed to new rules if they are within reasonable frameworks and easy to comply with,” she noted.

News

Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion

Trudeau plans to purchase 2,063 firearm from legal gun owners in Canada - Rebel News Image

A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.

The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.

This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.

The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.

In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.

Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened

“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.

Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).

“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.

Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.

In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.

An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.

Enforcement efforts Questioned

By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.

“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).

The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.

The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.

“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.

Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem

Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.

“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.

Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.

Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.

“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.

“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP