Former massage parlour tycoon-turned-whistleblower Chuvit Kamolvisit has celebrated the Civil Court's ruling to revoke its injunction, which had ordered him to suspend his criticism of the Bhumjaithai Party's policy of legalising cannabis, as a victory for the people.
The court ruled in Mr Chuvit's favour on Friday, citing the importance of expressing opinions on cannabis to raise public awareness about its benefits and harms.
The former politician posted the court's press release on his Facebook page on Friday and wrote, "Urgent! Victory for the people, not a political party. The court has revoked the temporary protection order. Chuvit can now launch a campaign against Bhumjaithai's cannabis policy. Thanks to the court for bringing justice to the people.''
Earlier, Bhumjaithai registrar Supachai Jaisamut said the Civil Court had issued the injunction against Mr Chuvit, requiring him to temporarily cease his criticism of the party and its cannabis policy. Mr Supachai is suing him in court, accusing him of damaging the party with his accusations and criticism of its policies.
In response to the party's lawsuit, Mr Chuvit stated that people have the right to oppose the uncontrolled use of cannabis. He added that the discrimination of cannabis was the work of Bhumjaithai and its leader Anutin Charnvirakul, who is a deputy prime minister and public health minister.
On Thursday, Mr Chuvit, who is waging a one-man campaign against the coalition Bhumjaithai Party, told a press conference that he respected the court's order to issue the injunction but decided to appeal because cannabis decriminalisation was a public policy subjected to scrutiny. He appealed the court's injunction on Friday.
To rule on his appeal, the court said on Friday that the defendant had given his remarks or expressed his views on cannabis in general. He showed the benefits and harms of cannabis in accordance with opinions and concerns by the Psychiatric Association of Thailand, the Royal College of Physicians of Thailand, physicians, and the Thailand Consumers Council.
The court found that the defendant did not speak or comment specifically to the plaintiff alone. The defendant's expression of his views on cannabis made people aware of the benefits and harmful effects of the plant, and this information was considered useful for people's health. Therefore, there were reasons to revoke the temporary injunction issued on April 5, according to the court's ruling.
