Add Row
Add Element
cropper
update
National Cannabis Newswire
update
Add Element
  • Home
  • Categories
    • news
    • trends
    • insights
    • industry
    • legalization
    • health
    • culture
    • advocacy
    • Brands
    • New Mexico Dispensaries
    • Arizona Dispensaries
October 06.2025
3 Minutes Read

Exploring Medical Cannabis Legislation in Indonesia: A Growing Debate

Legalization of Medical Cannabis in Indonesia emblem with silhouette.

The Shifting Landscape of Medical Cannabis in Indonesia

Amidst the long-standing prohibition of cannabis in Indonesia, recent movements herald a possible shift in the nation's legal stance on medical cannabis. The country has consistently categorized cannabis as a Category I narcotic under Law Number 35 of 2009, effectively barring its use for both medical and recreational purposes. However, historical precedents showcase cannabis's medical potential, evidenced by its regulated use in countries such as Thailand and Canada.

A Historical Perspective on Cannabis Legislation

Cannabis's regulation in Indonesia dates back to its colonial era, where international treaties began to dictate its status. The cannabis plant has been utilized for various purposes, including medicinal ones, for thousands of years. Yet, in the 20th century, with the rise of narcotics prohibitions, it faced mounting restrictions. Significant events like the United Nations reclassification of cannabis in 2020 highlight a growing recognition of its medical benefits, prompting discussions on its regulation in Indonesia.

Public Pressure and Legal Developments

The push for legalizing medical cannabis is not merely driven by historical context but also by significant social advocacy. Advocacy groups, parents of children with chronic illnesses, and health professionals are calling for the government to acknowledge the therapeutic potential of cannabis. This collective pressure recently led to a constitutional mandate requiring the National Narcotics Agency (BNN) to explore medical cannabis's viability. As discussions abound, the BNN plans to conduct formal studies assessing the medical uses of cannabis, signaling a potential shift in legislation.

Pros and Cons in the Legalization Debate

The debate surrounding medical cannabis legalization entails various perspectives. Proponents argue that cannabis can provide significant relief for patients experiencing chronic conditions when traditional treatments fall short. Studies from countries that have legalized medical cannabis report improved quality of life for patients suffering from ailments such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and chemotherapy-induced symptoms.

Conversely, opponents, including the National Narcotics Agency, emphasize the risks associated with cannabis use, particularly regarding its psychological effects and potential for abuse. They argue that legalizing medical cannabis could exacerbate existing problems by making it more accessible, particularly among youth.

A Path Forward: Research and Strategies

The Indonesian government’s ongoing research efforts could pave the way for stricter guidelines governing the medical use of cannabis. As the BNN conducts its studies in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, there is significant public interest in the findings. Advocates believe that robust scientific evidence can help inform a regulatory framework that safeguards public health while allowing access to medical cannabis for those in need.

Future Implications for Indonesia's Cannabis Policy

As discussions unfold within the BNN and among the public, Indonesia stands at a crossroads regarding cannabis policy. The implications of a shift toward legalization could transform not just healthcare practices but also economic opportunities as seen in other countries. The research outcomes and subsequent policy decisions could set a precedent for how Indonesia approaches one of the most litigated substances in its legal history, shaping its socio-legal landscape for years to come.

This critical juncture provides an opportunity for Indonesia to reshape its approach to cannabis, balance public health needs with individual rights, and potentially join a growing global trend toward recognizing the medical benefits of cannabis.

health

48 Views

0 Comments

Write A Comment

*
*
Related Posts All Posts

Corporate Interests vs. Grassroots: The Battle for Cannabis Equity

Update The Hidden Costs of Corporate Influence in Cannabis The cannabis industry is experiencing rapid growth in the U.S., but as highlighted by Griffen Basden on the Karma Koala Podcast, this expansion comes with its share of political and regulatory challenges. The intricate dance of legislative capture often favors corporate giants at the expense of grassroots entrepreneurs, threatening the very spirit of the industry. As we navigate this evolving landscape, it’s essential to understand how political interests shape market opportunities. Exploring the Regulatory Landscape Regulatory frameworks governing cannabis have been touted as models of equity and opportunity. New York's Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act, designed to prioritize equity and justice, has come under scrutiny as corporate influence starts to shape outcomes. Legal experts argue that while laws aim to dismantle barriers for historically marginalized communities, large corporations leverage lobbying power to manipulate these regulations to their advantage. This raises a critical question: Are we witnessing a return to a new form of feudalism where wealth dictates access and opportunity? Dismantling the Stigmas Despite overwhelming evidence supporting cannabis's therapeutic benefits, significant cultural biases persist. The perception that cannabis is merely for recreational use rather than a legitimate medicinal resource stifles progress. The battle for legalization should not only focus on legal frameworks but also on altering public perception. Educating stakeholders about safe practices and the medicinal value of cannabis can help dissolve prejudices, as Kim Anzarut highlights in her discussions of the barriers to acceptance. Empowering Local Entrepreneurs Local entrepreneurs often struggle to access the cannabis market due to bureaucratic hurdles erected by well-funded competitors. As Basden argues, the legislative landscape must underscore long-term support for those who have been most affected by prohibition. By prioritizing pathways for small businesses, particularly those owned by individuals from impacted communities, states can reshape the cannabis market into one that reflects true equity. Innovative Practices to Build Trust Building trust within the broader community is essential for the cannabis industry's reputation. Implementing Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) and other safety standards can not only ensure product safety but also appeal to “the squares” — policymakers and healthcare professionals critical for broader acceptance. When businesses demonstrate commitment to safety and quality, they not only protect their consumers but also enhance their legitimacy in an industry still plagued by skepticism. Future Predictions: A Call for Accountability The future of the cannabis industry depends on our ability to hold corporate interests accountable. Grassroots movements and the upfront policies supporting small businesses must gain momentum. As the industry matures, consumers and advocates must demand transparency and equity in all regulatory matters. This proactive approach will empower a new generation of entrepreneurs and safeguard the interests of communities devastated by the war on drugs.

The Tragic Murder in California's Cannabis Industry: A Complex Narrative

Update The Dark Side of California's Cannabis Industry In October 2019, the tranquil beauty of Santa Cruz was shattered when tech executive Tushar Atre was found murdered, execution-style, on his property. A promising figure in California's burgeoning cannabis sector, Atre’s life was cut short amid a backdrop of ambition, innovation, and crime. His tragic story highlights the murky waters that exist between the legal and illegal aspects of cannabis trade in the United States. According to investigative journalist Scott Eden, who chronicles Atre's tale in his book A Killing in Cannabis, the tension within this industry has profound implications for entrepreneurs trying to navigate a landscape that has often favored criminal elements over lawful business operations. Eden asserts, "The black market exists only because we decided that this form of trade should be illegal," highlighting a fundamental issue: the flawed legal framework surrounding cannabis in America. The Consequences of Ambiguity in Legislation The cannabis industry in California, despite being one of the first to legalize recreational use, has faced significant challenges. Eden discusses how most cannabis founders have struggled economically, which continues to foster a black market that some have turned to out of sheer necessity. The ongoing struggle between legality and illicit practices creates a breeding ground for violence and exploitation. For example, many entrepreneurs like Atre sought to participate in the industry to challenge stereotypes and innovate. However, many others—driven by profit—allow themselves to become entangled with dubious figures and practices. Eden's narrative serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating how ambition can lead one down dangerous paths. A Cautionary Tale for Future Innovators The death of Tushar Atre is a stark reminder of the potential perils lurking within the cannabis industry, particularly for those unprepared to face its darker sides. His story resonates with many who are drawn to California for the promise of opportunity only to find themselves unprepared for the risks that accompany those dreams. As the U.S. navigates the challenges of cannabis legalization, stories like Atre’s question whether the current approach sufficiently safeguards budding entrepreneurs and whether new regulations to address these issues truly reflect the reality of the market. This narrative underscores an urgent need for thoughtful legislation and robust support systems for those navigating this complicated landscape. Join the Discussion The complexities surrounding cannabis law are only beginning to unfold, and discussions about how to create a safer, more equitable industry are essential. Scott Eden’s insights into Tushar Atre’s life and demise offer a lens through which to view the immense challenges ahead, reminding us of the importance of fair practices, open dialogue, and responsible legislation. To explore more about how California’s cannabis journey intersects with opportunity, risk, and the shadows of the black market, listen to Scott Eden’s podcast episode and engage with the wider conversation.

Marijuana Businesses Beware: Internal Revenue Code Section 280E Challenges

Update The Growing Marijuana Industry and Its Federal Tax Challenges As the marijuana industry continues to expand across the United States, traditional expectations of business operations encounter glaring discrepancies. With an estimated $23.9 billion for adult-use marijuana and $7.6 billion for medical cannabis sales reported in 2025, the market is projected to top $39.1 billion by 2029. This significant growth has been propelled by numerous states that have eased restrictions surrounding both medical and recreational marijuana use. However, despite this positive trajectory, marijuana businesses are still grappling with burdensome tax laws that stem from federal regulations. Understanding Internal Revenue Code Section 280E At the center of this issue lies Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 280E, which is particularly punitive for marijuana businesses. Under this provision, businesses engaged in trafficking controlled substances cannot take notable deductions or credits. This reflects the federal government’s enduring classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). It's a complex and often frustrating scenario for entrepreneurs who are navigating a legal marijuana marketplace on the state level while being shackled by federal classification. Implications of 280E on Marijuana Businesses The prohibition on deductions means that, unlike most businesses, marijuana companies must report their gross income without offsetting expenses. They cannot deduct costs that many other industries take for granted, leading to significantly higher tax liabilities. While businesses can deduct the cost of goods sold (COGS), the limitations imposed by 280E mean that effective tax rates for marijuana businesses can soar as high as 70% or more in some cases. This financial burden can hinder expansion and operational effectiveness, raising the costs of consumer products despite strong demand. Current Legislative Climate: A Potential Shift? Interestingly, discussions on reform are emerging with numerous legislative proposals aimed at altering the restrictive measures of Section 280E. These proposals primarily focus on rescheduling or descheduling marijuana and could provide tailored exceptions for marijuana businesses. There is also a growing public sentiment advocating for reform, with many citizens and politicians recognizing the imbalance in how marijuana businesses are taxed compared to other industries. Constitutional Dilemmas and Challenges Unfortunately, historical challenges against the application of Section 280E have been largely unsuccessful. Efforts to legally dispute the constitutionality of Section 280E underscore broader issues regarding the powers of Congress and states, especially when it comes to the evolving consensus around marijuana use. As advocates push for reform, the reliance on constitutional arguments raises critical questions about the future of marijuana taxation and legalization. What Lies Ahead for Cannabis Businesses? The tension between federal law and state regulations surrounding marijuana use and business operations is likely to create ongoing challenges for the industry. However, if moved forward, proposed changes to federal policies will pave the way for marijuana businesses to thrive without the crippling tax constraints imposed by Section 280E. It remains to be seen how the legal landscape will evolve as advocates remain diligent in their quest for more equitable tax treatment.

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Core Modal Title

Sorry, no results found

You Might Find These Articles Interesting

T
Please Check Your Email
We Will Be Following Up Shortly
*
*
*