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

September 3, 2025

Thailand’s New Cannabis Controls Impact Doctors, Dispensaries, and Growers

Subscribe to Updates

Liberal cannabis access in Thailand is officially over. On June 26, 2025, the Ministry of Public Health brought the inflorescence of cannabis back under tight control through its new Notification on Controlled Herbs (Cannabis) 2025 (“Notification 2025”). The message is that cannabis may stay in the marketplace, but only if strictly supervised under a cannabis prescription from a medical professional. Two main pillars now define compliance: (1) prescription requirements and mandatory reporting, and (2) Good Agricultural and Collection Practices (GACP). This article aims to summarize each essential element for the relevant parties.

1. Getting a Prescription: Digital Diagnosis vs. Real-World Paperwork?

Dispensaries, even those with a license to sell cannabis, can no longer sell cannabis to walk-in customers who don’t have a valid prescription. Sales are lawful only when the buyer duly presents a cannabis prescription issued by one of seven recognized professional practitioners, including medical doctors, Thai traditional medicine doctors, applied Thai traditional medicine doctors, folk healers, Chinese medicine practitioners, pharmacists, or dentists.

Notification 2025 does not mention teleconsultations or online prescriptions. Nonetheless, policymakers at this stage opine that an online chat or casual consultation, with the prescription sent via a social media platform or e-mail, would not comply with this latest regulation. In order to be eligible to issue cannabis prescriptions, medical doctors should be working in a clinic or hospital and should issue paper-based prescriptions. The official prescription form, called a PT 33, must be used. The prescriber has the discretion to indicate the cannabis strain (or product type), dosage, and intended duration of use, which cannot exceed 30 days per prescription. This ensures that the product matches the patient’s medical needs and aligns with professional treatment guidelines. In practice, each prescription will be valid for one-time use only and cannot be refilled; a new prescription will be required for each subsequent use.

Dispensaries must retain every prescription for at least one year and must be able to present the prescriptions immediately upon request for inspection by the Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine (DTAM) or by a police officer. Because the controlled herbs regime treats cannabis flowers as a potentially divertible psychotropic drug, any lapse in identity verification (e.g., lack of a medical practitioner license number), signature integrity, or recordkeeping can lead to the suspension of the dispensary’s selling license. If a dispensary fails to follow the prescription’s instructions and requirements, the dispensary and its proprietor may be charged with an offense punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment or a THB 20,000 fine.

2. GACP: Shift from “Any Farm Will Do” to Standardized Agricultural Field

Another game-changing requirement is that cannabis flowers sold or exported must originate from a cultivation site certified under Good Agricultural and Collection Practices (GACP). In practical terms, the DTAM inspectors will audit and certify a site by reviewing the soil, water, pesticide use, worker hygiene, and postharvest handling. Certification under GACP is valid for one to three years, with annual surveillance. Growers must keep seed-to-sale records, including seed provenance, fertilizer logs, pest-management reports, harvest dates, and quality-control tests. Without GACP-validated evidence, downstream licenses (for dispensaries and for exporters) are exposed to a possible suspension.

Practical Takeaways

These significant changes to Thailand’s regulatory regime for cannabis have far-reaching implications for various businesses and professionals:

  • Medical professionals and clinics: These parties must understand and use the correct prescription form (PT 33) and keep a copy of the diagnostic evidence, as inspectors are likely to increasingly cross-check medical files against prescription volumes.
  • Dispensaries and budtenders: The role of the budtender is evolving from a retail assistant to a compliance-focused professional. Budtenders must be trained to verify the authenticity of prescriptions and buyers’ personal information, as well as confirming that products have been derived from a GACP field, in order to ensure that the dispensed products match every prescription’s details. They are also responsible for maintaining records and supporting regulatory inspections.
  • Growers: There must be a shift to treat GACP as a full-scale quality-management system, which would mean keeping continuous logs, submitting to internal audits, and participating in annual refresher training to keep updated on the latest regulatory requirements—none of which would be optional practices for a grower hoping to maintain GACP certification.

Future Direction

With Thailand’s tightening of cannabis regulations, many dispensaries in the country are expected to transition into the cannabis clinic business, particularly specializing in traditional Thai medicine. This shift will require additional licensing (i.e., for clinic establishment and clinic operations), the presence of qualified medical professionals, and compliance with the required medical standards. The integration of cannabis into traditional medicine clinics is seen as a sustainable model for the future, aligning with Thailand’s heritage and regulatory goals.

Related Professionals

Practices

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 28, 2026
On September 15, 2026, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) opened a public consultation period on the principles of a proposed Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) notification establishing specific Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements for foods derived from cultured animal cells. The proposal would build on Thailand’s existing safety assessment framework by proposing GMP requirements specifically tailored to the production of cultivated meat. As cultivated meat advances toward commercial production, its unique manufacturing processes present food safety challenges involving aseptic conditions, starting cell quality, culture media, and specialized equipment. Thailand’s Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979) provides the legal basis for regulating food manufacturing, but no GMP requirements specifically tailored to cultivated meat have been issued under it. The proposed framework aims to address this gap. The Thai FDA has not yet released a complete draft notification, so the proposed requirements outlined below may change before adoption. However, they indicate the direction the regulator intends to take, and companies preparing to enter the Thai market can use them now to anticipate their compliance obligations. What Is Cultivated Meat? Cultivated meat, also known as cell-based food or cell-cultured meat (and referred to in the proposed notification as food derived from cultured animal cells), is produced by cultivating animal cells rather than raising and slaughtering animals through conventional meat production. The process generally begins with the selection of animal cells or stem cells, which are cultivated in an appropriate culture medium within a bioreactor to promote cell growth and proliferation. Scaffolding materials or other techniques may subsequently be used to develop cells into tissue or other forms suitable for consumption. Unlike conventional meat production, this process introduces specific food safety considerations relating to starting cells, culture media, production substances, contamination controls, and potential residues in the final product. Thailand’s Safety
Read More
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 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