Cannabis in South Asia vs. Southeast Asia: Two Divergent Paths
Photo via Pexels.
Walk into a dispensary in Bangkok's Thonglor district and you're navigating a regulatory regime that's shifted shape three times in four years. Walk into a bhang shop in Jaipur and you're participating in something that predates the Indian state itself, a devotional practice tied to Shiva worship that colonial drug law never quite managed to erase. Same plant, two Asian regions, two entirely different relationships to it — and neither one resembles what most Western readers assume an Asian cannabis story looks like.
Thailand spent roughly four years as the region's cannabis frontier, the place where backpackers and biohackers alike could legally buy flower off a shelf. That window is closing, not through a blanket reversal but through a slow tightening of who gets to hold a license and what they're allowed to sell it for. Meanwhile, a few thousand kilometers west, Nepal's Gandaki province pushed through medical cannabis farming over the objections of its own federally appointed chief, and India continues to run state-licensed bhang shops that trace their legal logic back to scripture rather than public health policy. One region is unwinding a deregulation experiment. The other never needed one — cannabis has been embedded in religious and Ayurvedic life there for so long that the modern drug-war framework had to carve exceptions around it, not the other way around.
Thailand's Reversal: From Decriminalization to Controlled Herb
Photo via Pexels.
Thailand's decriminalization made it the first country in Asia to pull cannabis out of its narcotics schedule, and the effect was immediate and visible: tens of thousands of cannabis shops opened in a country that, a few years earlier, imprisoned people for possession. It became the region's odd one out, a green dot on a map otherwise defined by some of the harshest drug enforcement on earth, and tourism operators built entire itineraries around it. That status didn't last in its original form.
On June 25, 2025, Public Health Minister Somsak Thepsuthin introduced regulations that functionally re-criminalized recreational use, though the move was structured as a reclassification rather than a repeal of the original decriminalization itself. The mechanism was a Ministry of Public Health notification published in the Royal Gazette, reclassifying cannabis flower as a controlled herb under the Protection and Promotion of Thai Traditional Medicine Knowledge Act. That's a meaningful legal distinction — it keeps cannabis out of the narcotics schedule while still giving regulators the tools to require prescriptions, restrict sales, and shut down operators who can't demonstrate a medical or traditional-medicine purpose.
The on-the-ground effect has been a steady culling of the industry. Of the 18,433 cannabis shops operating nationwide, 7,297 had closed by February 2026 after failing to renew their licenses under the stricter rules. That's a significant share of the market gone in under a year, mostly smaller operators who couldn't absorb the new compliance burden. A draft Cannabis Act meant to give the industry durable legal footing remains stalled in parliament, while a vocal bloc of hardliners continues pushing to relist cannabis entirely as a Category 5 narcotic — which would effectively end the experiment outright rather than just narrow it.
The Next Cliff: Thailand's 2026 Licensing Squeeze
As of February 2026, about 11,136 cannabis shops in Thailand remain licensed and open, while roughly 7,297 have been shut down, highlighting significant industry contraction amid tightening regulations.
Just as the industry was adjusting to the 2025 reclassification, Thailand added another layer. A new Ministerial Regulation, No. 2 B.E. 2569, was published in the Royal Gazette on April 30, 2026, introducing an additional tier of cannabis-specific licensing on top of the traditional-medicine framework established the year before. For operators who'd already spent a year retooling their paperwork, it meant doing it again.
The timing compounds the pressure. Category 5 licenses issued under the original 2020/2021 regulations expire December 31, 2026, which means every existing license holder has to fully re-qualify under the new rules before the end of the year or shut down. There's no grandfathering — holding a valid license today says nothing about whether you'll hold one in six months.
What this adds up to is a market being steered, deliberately, away from recreational tolerance and toward a medical-only, traditional-medicine framing that fits more comfortably within Thailand's existing legal categories for herbal remedies. It's a framework regulators can defend domestically as consistent with Thai traditional medicine heritage rather than as a Western-style legalization experiment, which matters politically given how polarizing the original opening turned out to be.
The people absorbing the cost are the small growers and dispensary owners who don't have the legal or financial infrastructure to keep re-qualifying every time the Ministry issues a new notification. Each round of compliance — new testing requirements, new facility standards, new paperwork — favors larger, better-capitalized operators, which is gradually reshaping who can even participate in the market. And the biggest question still hasn't been answered: whether cannabis eventually gets fully relisted as a Category 5 narcotic, closing the door entirely, or stays indefinitely in this controlled-herb limbo, half-open and permanently provisional.
Nepal's Provincial Experiment Against Federal Gridlock
Photo via Unsplash.
Nepal's federal drug law leaves no ambiguity: the Narcotic Drugs Act bans cannabis cultivation and possession nationally, with penalties severe enough to function as a genuine deterrent rather than a formality. That national prohibition sits awkwardly next to a plant that grows wild across much of the country's hill terrain and has a documented place in Nepali Ayurvedic and folk medicine going back generations.
Into that gap stepped Gandaki province. Its Provincial Assembly unanimously approved a bill permitting regulated cannabis cultivation for medical and industrial purposes — a direct challenge to the federal government's hold on drug policy, passed by elected provincial lawmakers rather than imposed from Kathmandu. It's the kind of bottom-up move that federal systems are supposed to allow for, in theory, but rarely see tested on a subject as politically sensitive as narcotics.
The federal response came quickly. Province Chief Dilli Raj Bhatta returned the bill to the Assembly, citing conflict with national law — reportedly the first time in Gandaki's history that a chief had taken that step against provincial legislation. It was a clear signal that Kathmandu wasn't prepared to simply let a province legislate around federal drug policy without objection.
What happened next is the more interesting part: despite that pushback, the Gandaki provincial government proceeded anyway, and the measure took effect, legalizing medical cannabis farming at the provincial level even without full federal sign-off. Whether that holds up to a direct federal legal challenge down the road is an open question, but for now it stands as a working example of subnational cannabis policy moving ahead of — and in tension with — national law.
That dynamic is almost the mirror image of what's happening in Thailand, where a national ministry is tightening the rules from the top down. In Gandaki, the pressure is running the other direction: a region pushing open a door its own federal government isn't ready to unlock.
Shivaratri at Pashupatinath: Cannabis as Sanctioned Ritual
Photo via Unsplash.
For one night a year, the normal rules around Pashupatinath Temple quietly don't apply. During Maha Shivaratri — observed February 15-16, 2026 — sadhus and pilgrims gathered at the temple smoke and drink cannabis preparations as part of the festival's devotional observances, treating the plant as an offering connected to Lord Shiva rather than a controlled substance being consumed in defiance of the law.
This tolerance is informal, not statutory. Nepal's national drug law doesn't carve out an exception for Shivaratri; there's no permit, no licensed vendor, no legal defense a person could point to if police chose to enforce the Narcotic Drugs Act on temple grounds that night. What exists instead is a long-standing practical understanding — authorities generally don't intervene during the festival's night observances, and the custom continues on that basis of accepted practice rather than codified right.
That distinction matters because it's structurally different from how India handles the same impulse. India built actual legal infrastructure around devotional cannabis use — licensed shops, state excise frameworks, a statute that explicitly excludes certain plant parts. Nepal's Shivaratri tolerance has none of that scaffolding. It's a narrow, time-bound exception that exists because enforcement simply steps back for forty-eight hours, not because the law makes room for it.
Pashupatinath isn't a minor site where this kind of informal leeway would carry little weight — it's one of the most significant Shiva temples in Hinduism, drawing pilgrims from across Nepal and India for the festival. That significance is exactly what makes the tolerance culturally loaded even as it remains legally unprotected: it would be a very different story if Nepali police decided to enforce drug law at South Asia's most important Shiva site during its most important festival, and the fact that nobody expects them to says something about how South Asian societies have generally kept religious practice and secular drug enforcement in separate lanes — something Southeast Asian states, Thailand included, have tended not to do.
India's Bhang: A Legal Loophole Written Into Scripture
Photo via Pexels.
India's relationship with cannabis runs through a specific drafting choice in its 1985 drug law. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act banned cannabis flowers and resin — charas and ganja in the statute's own terminology — but left leaves and seeds outside the ban. That's the clause bhang lives in. Because bhang is made from the plant's leaves rather than its flowering buds, it sits in a legal category the NDPS Act never touched, giving India something few countries have: a cannabis product that's been continuously legal, in some form, since before the modern war on drugs even started.
Bhang's consumption isn't a fringe practice kept alive by a subculture — it's mainstream and seasonal, showing up in thandai during Holi and in offerings during Maha Shivaratri, framed explicitly as devotional rather than recreational, tied to the same Shiva mythology that animates Nepal's Pashupatinath tolerance.
Several states have gone further than simply tolerating it and built actual regulatory infrastructure around it. Rajasthan, Assam, and Bihar all operate bhang shops licensed under state excise law, treating it roughly the way other jurisdictions license liquor — a controlled, taxed, state-sanctioned product rather than a legal gray zone. Odisha has its own traditional allowances in specific districts, a patchwork that reflects how enforcement in India has always been regional rather than uniform, shaped as much by local custom as by the national statute.
That patchwork cuts both ways, though, and it's worth correcting a tourist assumption here. Goa and Maharashtra — states with reputations, fair or not, for a laid-back beach culture — actually enforce some of India's strictest anti-cannabis laws, with real criminal exposure for possession well outside the bhang-shop framework. The lesson is that India's tolerance is specific and scripted, built around particular products, particular festivals, and particular states, not a general national permissiveness that happens to exempt a few border regions.
Two Regions, Two Logics
Photo via Pexels.
Line up Thailand next to Nepal and India and the contrast isn't really about how liberal or strict each country is — it's about what question each one is even trying to answer. Thailand treated cannabis as a modern deregulation experiment, opened fast, got spooked by the social fallout, and is now rebuilding the whole thing around a medical-only, traditional-medicine licensing structure that gives regulators maximum discretion over who gets to participate.
Nepal and India never ran that experiment, because they never needed to — cannabis was already woven into religious and Ayurvedic practice centuries before anyone wrote a narcotics statute, and both countries' modern drug laws have had to build their exceptions around that existing cultural fact rather than invent tolerance from scratch. Bhang shops and Shivaratri observances aren't liberalization; they're continuity.
Gandaki's standoff with Kathmandu points to something else entirely, a third model neither region had fully produced on its own: not blanket prohibition, not national legalization, but localized, negotiated tolerance where a province moves ahead of federal consensus and dares the center to stop it. It's messier than either Thailand's top-down regulatory swings or South Asia's centuries-old religious carve-outs, but it may turn out to be more durable precisely because it doesn't require everyone to agree at once.
Put those three models side by side and it's clear Asia isn't heading toward one cannabis policy — it's generating several, running in parallel, each shaped by its own legal history and political pressure. Anyone assuming the region will eventually settle on a single approach, medical-only or otherwise, should expect to keep being surprised for a while yet.
Set Thailand's regulatory whiplash against India's bhang shops and Nepal's Shivaratri tolerance and the takeaway isn't that one region is more progressive than the other. It's that there's no single Asian cannabis model to converge toward — just a set of national improvisations, each built on a different legal and cultural foundation, moving at different speeds and sometimes in opposite directions.
Gandaki's standoff with Kathmandu is worth watching closely for reasons beyond Nepal itself. When a national government can't reach consensus on cannabis reform — and most can't, given how politically combustible the subject stays — a province or state moving first and daring the center to object may become the template other federal systems reach for, including ones well outside South Asia.
For now, the practical advice for anyone operating a business or traveling through the region is the same: treat every rule you read about Thai licensing, Nepali provincial law, or Indian excise exceptions as provisional rather than settled. Thailand alone has rewritten its framework twice in under two years. Check the current status before you plan around any of it, because the version that's accurate today may not be the version in force by the time you act on it.
