Thailand meets new drug policy challenges in light of the upcoming national election

Thailand is entering another political transition with the general election scheduled for 8 February 2026. The outcome will significantly impact the country’s drug policy, as drug issues regain prominence. Amid concerns over cybercrime in Southeast Asia and its links to the drug trade, as well as a robust methamphetamine market, the current juncture offers an opportunity to go beyond discourses framing these issues as security threats. Instead of the narrow focus on law enforcement — which anchored Thaksin Shinawatra’s deadly 2003 “war on drugs” — Thailand has an opportunity to adopt a human-rights based approach to guide effective drug policies.

Reform and regression

Over the past decade, Thailand’s drug policy reform movement has seen significant development, particularly withthe introduction of the Narcotics Code in 2021 and the legalisation of cannabis the following year. These developments were shaped by the 2016 UNGASS, which marked a notable global shift towards a public health-centred approach to drugs. Seeking international legitimacy, the then junta government aligned itself with global standards and promoted what it described as a “balanced” approach, with less emphasis on punishment.

Despite its shortcomings, the adoption of the Narcotics Code — which replaced the 1979 outdated Narcotics Act — marked an important step forward by introducing depenalisation and diversion for non-serious drug offences (i.e. consumption and possession for personal use) and by explicitly recognising harm reduction in law for the first time, allowing such measures to be developed and tested.

Whereas reforms initially led to a steady decline in drug-related incarceration over three consecutive years from 248,125 to 203,287, this trend reversed in 2024 following new measures to increase the scope of punishment for simple possession. Drug cases brought before courts of first instance rose by 25%, from 303,884 in 2023 to 382,800 in 2024. Today, prison overcrowding in Thailand remains largely driven by drug-related criminalisation, which accounts for 70% of the total prison population.

Highlighting the disproportionate impact on marginalised communities, former Justice Minister Tawee Sodsong noted thatmost incarcerated individuals have not completed compulsory levels of education. Thailand continues to havethe highest incarceration rate in Southeast Asia andthe second-highest rate of female imprisonment globally.

Shifting political perspectives and 'health-based' solutions

During this election campaign, there has been a shift in how political parties present their drug policies, seeking to reflect a so-called “balanced” approach. Rather than relying solely on “tough enforcement”, candidates are increasingly referring to the need for health-based responses. The challenge, however, lies in the details of such health responses, as the current framework primarily characterises people who use drugs as “patients” needing rehabilitation and reintegration.

In practice, this conceptualisation has been punitive and harmful, over-medicalising drug use, and over-simplifying the distinction between drug use and drug supply, which in reality often overlap.

Under current drug laws, people found to be using drugs who refuse treatment or rehabilitation may face criminal prosecution, leading to conviction, imprisonment and/or fines. These measures often begin with urine testing by police, a practice associated with rights violations, including extortion, bribery, and physical or sexual abuse. Those deemed to have tested positive are then ordered into different programmes based on the results of their screening, which is conducted in sites ranging from outpatient community-based monitoring to specialised treatment hospitals and military-run rehabilitation centres. These interventions are driven by a framework that regards abstinence as the only criteria of success, an approach that is not effective nor necessary for everyone and ignores individual needs. Even against their stated objectives, many of these facilities fall short of international standards for the treatment of drug use disorders andviolate human rights.

Current approaches also tend to flatten the complexities of drawing clear distinctions between people who use drugs and those who supply them. In the context of transnational organised crime in the region, Thailand’s representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, Dr Bhanubhatra Jittiang,has framed the issue as a human rights crisis, highlighting how socio-economic vulnerability is a key factor driving involvement in these activities. The same dynamics apply to people involved in the supply of drugs, which underscores the need for holistic and human rights–based approaches to all drug-related activities, including the exploration of innovative responses.

Pathways beyond the stalemate

While the use of threshold quantities is often proposed as a quick fix, these should be treated as an indicative factor, rather than determinative of whether a person has the intent to supply. Other factors, such as the absence of commercial packaging or a history of drug use and prior referrals to health services, should also be considered.

The responsible legal regulation of drugs, which would establish formal government controls to reduce reliance on illegal drug markets, and has been recommended by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, should also be considered, amongst others. And Thailand’s prior experiments with kratom and cannabis offer useful lessons to leverage.

Cannabis policy, however, remains contested, largely due to its mobilisation during the Bhumjaithai Party’s 2019 election campaign. When party leader Anutin Charnvirakul became Minister of Public Health, with authority over narcotics scheduling, legalisation was driven more by political momentum than bythe kind of community participation and broad public consultation seen in the case of kratom.

Since 2022, cannabis regulation has shifted repeatedly, with flowers now classified as a controlled herb,limited to medical use and certified supply sources, while home cultivation remains permitted. Meanwhile, a comprehensive regulation bill has stalled for more than three years, constraining inclusive dialogue and policy coherence. In its absence, and amid growing public backlash, most political parties (including Bhumjaithai) now vow to limit cannabis to medical use only. This move has been criticised for favouring large market players while sidelining social equity for small-scale growers and entrepreneurs, even as broad recognition of the economic potential makes the relisting of cannabis as a narcotic unlikely.

Opportunities ahead

Over time, different political decisions have shaped drug policy reform outcomes in Thailand, making progress vulnerable to changes in leadership. Even so, the existing legal framework leaves room for innovative, health-oriented approaches. Civil society actors, namely the Reform Thailand Partnership which is coordinated by the Institute of HIV Research and Innovation, Foundation for Action on Inclusion and Rights, and the Health and Opportunity Network, continue to push for comprehensive harm reduction services as alternatives to criminalisation and abstinence-only treatment programmes, emphasising the need to address drug use alongside other needs often faced by people who use drugs including sexual and reproductive health, mental health, social welfare, and legal services. On the government side, Thailand has raised concerns about expanding markets for synthetic drugs internationally, including getting a resolution adopted at the 68th Commission on Narcotic Drugs on evidence-based treatment for stimulant use disorders. Its focus on accessible, voluntary, and non-discriminatory psychosocial treatment is a welcome direction.

As Thailand stands at another crossroads, the next government must uphold the health- and evidence-based approach to drugs that the country has been working towards over the past decade. Thailand should focus on expanding harm reduction services, which has proven to improve health, social and human rights outcomes. In parallel, government agencies must commit to engage meaningfully with communities directly affected by drug policies to ensure that policies are grounded in lived realities. Above all, political leaders must have the courage to communicate about this complex issue with care, avoiding over-simplification of drug-related issues and helping the public to recognise that a drug-free society is neither achievable nor useful. The true purpose of drug policy is, and should always be, to improve the health and welfare of people.