logo
Thailand starts banning the sale of cannabis without a prescription

Thailand starts banning the sale of cannabis without a prescription

BANGKOK (AP) — Thailand has started banning the sale of cannabis to those without a prescription, three years after becoming the first country in Asia to decriminalize the plant.
The new order, signed by Health Minister Somsak Thepsutin earlier this week, came into effect Thursday after it was published in the Royal Gazette. It bans shops from selling cannabis to customers without a prescription and reclassifies cannabis buds as a controlled herb.
The order cited a punishment from the 1999 Act of Protection and Promotion of Traditional Thai Medicine Wisdom, in which a violation would result in a maximum one-year jail term and a 20,000-baht ($614) fine.
The Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine, in charge of enforcing regulations related to cannabis, held a meeting Friday with officials across the country to prepare them for the change.
The move to decriminalize in 2022 had boosted Thailand's tourism and farming industries, and spawned thousands of shops.
But the country has faced public backlash over allegations that a lack of regulation made the drug available to children and caused addiction.
Treechada Srithada, spokesperson for the Health Ministry, said in a statement Thursday that cannabis use in Thailand would become 'fully for medical purposes.'
She said shops that violate the order will be closed and the ministry will also tighten requirements for approval of a new license in the future. She said there are curently 18,000 shops that hold a license to sell cannabis.
The ruling Pheu Thai Party previously promised to criminalize the drug again, but faced strong resistance from its former partner in the coalition government, the Bhumjaithai Party, which supported decriminalization.
Bhumjaithai quit the coalition last week over a leaked phone call between Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and former Cambodian leader Hun Sen.
The move to restrict cannabis sales came after officials last month revealed that cannabis smuggling cases involving tourists had soared in recent months. Somsak told reporters Tuesday he would like to relist cannabis as a narcotic in the future.
Thailand's Office of the Narcotics Control Board said a study conducted by the agency last year found the number of people addicted to cannabis had spiked significantly after it was decriminalized.
A group of cannabis advocates said Wednesday that the change in regulations was politically motivated and that they will rally at the Health Ministry next month to oppose the change and any attempt to make it a criminal offense again to consume or sell cannabis.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books

Associated Press

time23 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at END PREP The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though none sent their children to public schools. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also expressed surprise that the school system was 'not respecting religious liberty,' especially because of the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics. Pressed repeatedly about why the school system couldn't reinstitute an opt-out policy, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said, 'It tried that. It failed. It was not able to accommodate the number of opt-outs at issue.' Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, Schoenfeld said. Justices referred to several of the books, but none as extensively as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in which a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who are on opposite sides of most culture-war clashes, offered competing interpretations. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor said, noting there's not even any kissing involved. Alito described the book as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he said. In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote. In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. 'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.

Hungary's LGBTQ+ community defies government ban on Pride march
Hungary's LGBTQ+ community defies government ban on Pride march

Associated Press

time23 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Hungary's LGBTQ+ community defies government ban on Pride march

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Hungary's LGBTQ+ community is preparing for a face-off with the country's autocratic government, and plans to push ahead with a march in the capital on Saturday despite a government ban and threats of legal repercussions. The populist party of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in March fast-tracked a law through parliament that made it an offense to hold or attend events that 'depict or promote' homosexuality to minors aged under 18. Orbán earlier made clear that Budapest Pride — marking its 30th anniversary this year — was the explicit target of the law. But on Friday, Pride organizers along with Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony, European Commissioner Hadja Lahbib and Vice President of the European Parliament Nicolae Stefanuta said the march will take place Saturday despite official threats of heavy fines for participants and even jail time for the liberal mayor. They expect the march to be the largest ever Pride event in Hungary. 'The government is always fighting against an enemy against which they have to protect Hungarian people ... This time, it is sexual minorities that are the target,' Karácsony told a news conference. 'We believe there should be no first and second class citizens, so we decided to stand by this event.' A crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights Critics of the Pride ban and other Hungarian legislation targeting LGBTQ+ communities say the policies are reminiscent of similar restrictions against sexual minorities in Russia. Hungary's recent law allows authorities to use facial recognition tools to identify individuals that attend a prohibited event. Being caught could result in fines of up to 200,000 Hungarian forints ($586.) Orbán, seen as Russian President Vladimir Putin's closest ally in the European Union, has in recent years prohibited same-sex adoption and banned any LGBTQ+ content including in television, films, advertisements and literature that is available to minors. His government argues exposure to such content negatively affects children's development. But opponents say the moves are part of a broader effort to scapegoat sexual minorities and consolidate his conservative base. Fines and facial recognition After police rejected several requests by organizers to register the Pride march, citing the recent law, Karácsony joined with organizers and declared it would be held as a separate municipal event — something he said does not require police approval. But Hungary's government has remained firm, insisting that holding the Pride march, even if it is sponsored by the city, would be unlawful. In a video on Facebook this week, Hungary's justice minister, Bence Tuzson, warned Karácsony that organizing Pride or encouraging people to attend is punishable by up to a year in prison. At the news conference Friday, Karácsony sought to dispel fears that police would impose heavy fines on Pride attendees. 'Police have only one task tomorrow: to guarantee the safety and security of those gathered at the event,' he said. Speaking to state radio on Friday, Orbán said that attending Pride 'will have legal consequences, but it can't reach the level of physical abuse.' 'The police could disperse such events, they have the right to do so. But Hungary is a civilized country,' he said. Right-wing counter-demonstrations On Thursday, radical right-wing party Our Homeland Movement announced it had requested police approval to hold assemblies at numerous locations across the city, many of them on the same route as the Pride march. Later, a neo-Nazi group said it too would gather Saturday at Budapest City Hall, from which the Pride march is set to depart. The group declared that only 'white, Christian, heterosexual men and women' were welcome to attend its demonstration. European officials respond Hungary's Pride ban has prompted a backlash from many of the country's partners and allies. Over 30 foreign embassies signed a joint statement this week expressing their commitment to 'every person's rights to equal treatment and nondiscrimination, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen posted on social platform X on Wednesday, calling on Hungarian authorities to allow Pride to proceed 'without fear of any criminal or administrative sanctions against the organizers or participants.' More than 70 members of the European Parliament, as well as other officials from countries around Europe, are expected to participate in Saturday's march. Lahbib, the European Commissioner, said Friday that 'all eyes are on Budapest' as Pride marchers defy the government's ban. 'The EU is not neutral on hate,' she said. 'We cannot stay passive. We cannot tolerate what is intolerable.'

Supreme Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements
Supreme Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements

San Francisco Chronicle​

time24 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Supreme Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act's preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans. The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare. The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved. President Donald Trump's administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor's law. The Justice Department said board members don't need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary. Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women. The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can't be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case. The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that ruling would still allow full-coverage requirements for some services, including mammography and cervical cancer screening. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store