You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 28, 2021

Outlook for Cannabis Liberalization and CBD Market Authorization in Laos

Subscribe to Updates

In recent years, many countries have begun exploring the pharmacological effects of the cannabis plant and the economic benefits of cannabis liberalization. For example, Laos’ neighbor Thailand has cautiously moved forward with legalizing both cannabis and hemp for medical purposes and to boost the Thailand’s economy. The authorities in Laos are likewise looking into the possibility of opening up some of the country’s strict prohibitions on CBD and medical cannabis. However, little has been done so far, and consumption, production, and commercial use of cannabis—including cultivation and commercialization of hemp-related products—remain strictly prohibited. Those who market products related to hemp or CBD in Laos currently risk criminal or civil liabilities.

Legal Landscape and Enforcement Risks

The cannabis plant (Cannabis sativa L.) is known mainly for producing two compounds: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is a psychoactive substance, and cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive compound with several beneficial pharmacological effects. A cannabis plant with a relatively high amount of THC exerting psychoactive effects is known as “marijuana” (Cannabis sativa L. subsp. indica), while a cannabis plant with very little THC is considered “hemp” (Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa).

Marijuana and hemp have not been defined under Lao law, and the Lao authorities usually take the approach that marijuana is synonymous with the cannabis plant, regardless of the percentage of THC in the plant. The Law on Narcotics No. 10/NA, dated December 25, 2007, prohibits narcotics from being used in Laos. The Decree on the Implementation of the Law on Narcotics No. 076/PM, dated March 20, 2009, declares the “cannabis plant” a narcotic-producing plant, prohibiting its cultivation and possession, and officially places THC on the country’s list of prohibited narcotics. As CBD is extracted from the cannabis plant, products containing the compound are therefore likely to be prohibited as well.

The Penal Code No. 26/NA, dated May 17, 2017, prohibits all activity related to marijuana (here meaning all cannabis) cultivation, trafficking, and possession, setting punishment for violations at three months’ to life imprisonment and fines of LAK 500,000–200 million (approx. USD 52–21,200), depending on the nature of the goods and the activity.

Outlook for Cannabis Liberalization in Laos

In 2019, the Lao government created an ad hoc committee to determine whether the legalization of hemp cultivation in Laos for medicinal use would be feasible, and whether the country might benefit from such a policy. In this vein, the country’s authorities have allowed some local companies to grow hemp in very specific zones under pilot programs, while maintaining the strict overall prohibition on cultivation and commercialization of hemp-related products.

This change in the authorities’ outlook on hemp-related products may evidence their interest in diversifying Laos’ sources of income. The country’s efforts to expand its market potential is not surprising, given that it has developed trusted labels to promote the “made in Laos” brand, and has registered geographical indications (e.g, Bolaven Coffee, Khao Kai Noy rice) to penetrate foreign markets. The market potential of hemp, the future of the CBD market, and the possible impact of these products may encourage the Lao authorities to liberalize cannabis, or at least production, extraction, and commercial use of CBD in Laos—the economic benefits of which could also ease COVID-19’s adverse effects on the Lao economy.

Globally, prospects for cannabis and CBD-related products are bright, with various countries (such as Canada and the U.S.) liberalizing regulations for cannabis and CBD-related products. In Europe, pressured by the EU Court of Justice’s recent decision, and region-wide advocacy for liberalizing restrictions and commercializing CBD products, a more tolerant approach to CBD products may soon be adopted in order not to contravene the principle of the free movement of goods in the European Single Market.

Meanwhile, in Laos, this global trend for recognizing the beneficial effects of cannabis, and specifically CBD, may incentivize the country to encourage development of high-quality products containing CBD and revise its legal framework for cannabis and CBD. Laos’ manufacture of these products could potentially bring further economic growth to the country through direct revenue, investment in research and development, establishment of scientific infrastructure, and the development of local expertise on the subject—all of which could foster sustainable foreign direct investment in the future.

This article was prepared with the assistance of international intern Keoni Williams.

Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Life Sciences

Practices

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of
Read More