From leadership research to district action: Cannabis tourism in transition: operators’ perspectives on regulatory change and governance in Bangkok, Thailand

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. Proposed district actions are separate from the original authors’ findings and recommendations. Independent peer review of this guide is not asserted.

Read source Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and transfer

Education-related source: verify which participants, institutions and outcomes were actually studied before district adoption. Source publication type: research-article. License and identity checks do not establish study quality or causality.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the source license:

Objectives This study examines the perceptions and lived experiences of cannabis business operators in Bangkok as they navigated Thailand’s rapid transition from decriminalization in 2022 to a subsequent medical-only regulatory reversal. Methods Using a qualitative design, the researchers conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 13 key informants in Bangkok between 2024 and 2025. Participants included retail shop operators (n = 8), farm operators (n = 3), and policy advocates (n = 2). Data were analyzed using the six-phase Thematic Analysis framework supported by ATLAS.ti Version 21. Results Five primary themes emerged: (1) Navigating Regulatory Unpredictability and Legal Uncertainty; (2) Structural Inequity and Enforcement Disparities; (3) Market Segmentation and Economic Drivers; (4) Adaptation and Survival Strategies; and (5) Socio-Cultural Perceptions and Public Health. Analysis revealed that while international tourists comprise approximately 60% of the market, domestic customers (40%) are primarily motivated by therapeutic needs. Furthermore, the study synthesized six domains for evidence-based policy, including regulatory formalization, equity promotion, and sustainable cannabis tourism development. Conclusions The findings highlight that regulatory instability and the absence of a comprehensive Cannabis and Hemp Act place a disproportionate burden on small Thai operators, creating structural inequities. Additionally, in the absence of formal public health infrastructure, operators have emerged as informal harm reduction actors through proactive customer education and safety guidance. These results offer actionable insights for other jurisdictions navigating similar cannabis policy transitions.

Study methods

This study used a qualitative approach. To meet the research objectives of understanding how cannabis business operators perceive their experiences within Thailand’s post-decriminalization regulatory regime and identifying the major themes that characterize their adaptive responses, a qualitative inquiry was selected. Such depth of interpretation is not achievable with quantitative methods. Data were analyzed using Thematic Analysis (TA), as operationalized by Braun and Clarke (2006), a method widely used in health/health policy research for its capacity to generate theoretically rich, substantive findings from qualitative datasets.

Limitations

Several limitations of the present study merit acknowledgement. First, the sample size of 13 key informants, while consistent with established conventions for in-depth qualitative inquiry and sufficient to achieve theoretical saturation, necessarily limits the breadth of perspectives represented. Cannabis business operators in Bangkok are a heterogeneous population, and certain sub-groups—including undocumented or informal operators, foreign-national owners, and operators who exited the market prior to the fieldwork period—are unlikely to have been reachable through the purposive and snowball sampling strategies employed. The sample may therefore over-represent operators who remained in the market and were willing to discuss their experiences, potentially introducing survivorship bias into the findings.

A 90-day district inquiry

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Read the source methods, recruitment, comparator, outcomes and limitations. Record how the study setting differs from your district and which claim the design can support.
Days 16–30 · Design. Select one recurring district decision. Publish the decision owner, evidence requirements, consultation process and appeal route; test the process on a bounded low-risk decision. Agree participation, privacy protections, baseline and stopping rules before starting.
Days 31–60 · Observe. Collect the pre-agreed measures, keep a log of implementation changes and invite confidential voluntary feedback. Preserve existing support for staff and learners.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Track decision time, unresolved objections, documented reasons, appeals and access differences. Review whether the process changes who can participate and who carries the burden. Make a dated decision to stop, revise or extend the inquiry.

Board decision brief

Present the local problem, source setting, evidence limits, intervention, responsible owner, total cost, measured changes and uncertainty. Separate staff perceptions, implementation measures and student learning outcomes.

Attribution and reuse

Patreeya Kitcharoen; Shinnawat Saengungsumalee; Pattarachit Choompol Gozzoli. Cannabis tourism in transition: operators’ perspectives on regulatory change and governance in Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Cannabis Research (2026-06-16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-026-00462-4

Prepared 2026-11-07. Source authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract and source passages are attributed extracts; this editorial guide is offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license.