Getting Stoned In Belize

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by RabidRabbit

Murdering people sounds like thugs. If it looks like a duck, its a duck. I can understand sorta, if someone got my 12 year old sister hookd on heroin, then i killed him with a ax, I would expect to go to jail. But pot isnt heroin. So were back to thugs murdering people. Not cool.

Do you know how many people have been murdered in Mexico over Marijuana/drugs?

Mexico drugs war murders data mapped | News | guardian.co.uk

http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpre...gviolence4.pdf

[callmecrazy]

I knew this thread would get out of hand... Wrong place

As an ex-smoker, I wouldn't want it to be anywhere near my boat, even if the consequence is just a ticket.
But, some guy offering to smoke with you in belize is not going to get you thrown in jail. It's the whole buying/selling thing that gets people put in prison and killed and all that bad stuff. The worse that'll happen if you just smoke with somedude is you might go over your provisioning budget by the end of the day

[minaret]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

Do you know how many people have been murdered in Mexico over Marijuana/drugs?

Mexico drugs war murders data mapped | News | guardian.co.uk

http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpre...gviolence4.pdf

And this is your reasoning for the Phillipino's you mentioned NOT being thugs!? Comparing them to the Mexican narco-mafia? Hilarious. Anyone who murders someone for any reason at all is a thug. Shooting an unarmed man is about as thugish as it gets, whatever your reason. And shooting an unarmed man because your loser kids sell him weed to support their own habits is extra super thugish. Scum. Vile excuse for humanity. And I bet the same folks are extra religous as well, or claim to be. Hypocrites too. As usual...

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

The tone of this thread started controversial by calling foreign locals “savages”

The mention of "savages" is from the title of a book. A book entitled "getting stoned with savages". I don't think the OP was attempting to call anyone anywhere a savage.

[Celestialsailor]

I have worked in the field of chemical dependency and mental health. I have also been on both sides of the issue. But the issue was over 30 years ago for me. So I think I have a lot of information to share on the matter. No one ever dies from pot?...bullcrap! I had a female client (16) that was found dead upside-down in a garbage can. When I had her as a client she would tell me that she was only a pot smoker..."whats the big deal". I can also tell you that pot is a gateway drug. Go ahead and argue that all you want. I worked in the trenches. I doubt many here have.
I regards to my boat and my safety...I can smell a drug user and alky a mile away. I usually confront them before they board. I tell them..."I DON'T WANT IT ONBOARD"! To me...any mood altering chemical (alcohol included) is a drug. If a person shows up drunk and is stuck on stupid, they don't get onboard. Simple as that.
In my opinion, the OP made the right call. For all he knew, it could have been a set up. It's a lot easier to stay out of trouble than to get out of trouble!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by minaret

The mention of "savages" is from the title of a book. A book entitled "getting stoned with savages". I don't think the OP was attempting to call anyone anywhere a savage.

Thanks I didn’t know the reference beforehand as a travel writer’s marketing hook.

I don’t believe anyone is condoning murder (execution) but simply identifying the potential real risks in a 3rd world situation, where civil rights are trampled on.

I could care less what someone does in their own back yard, but when they can be perceived as representative of our sailing community in a foreign land, I hold them to a higher standard.

The irony of all this was that it was the USCG and Customs that first enacted a drug-war law in the 80’s, punishing one yachtsmen’s failure to report their knowledge of another’s drug use.

To protect yourself as a captain you had to demonstrate a proactive, zero-tolerance policy or be considered complicit.

This sent the message to other countries that they could be as heavy handed as they liked.

It just seems crazy to me, that if you are bringing your yacht to a foreign culture that you would endanger your own crew and our sailing brethren by taking that risk.

I think I have said all I can, so I am done here.

[callmecrazy]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

The irony of all this was that it was the USCG and Customs that first enacted a drug-war law in the 80’s, punishing one yachtsmen’s failure to report their knowledge of another’s drug use.

Not to argue here, but I'm pretty sure it was Nixon who declared the war on drugs, and subsequent administrations that enacted new laws and combined forces, bringing the USCG into the mix along the way... If the USCG was enacting laws and 'punishing yachtsmen' in the 80's, I'd like to see some reference material on that (just for curiosity).

[savoir]

Only one thing for it. Head off to Fiji and get stuck into the kava. Think of the benefits :
- legal
- organic
- no hangover
- biodegradable, including the coconut drinking shell
- support native industry
- meet the locals

Everyone's happy . . . . . . . . well maybe not that guy in Belize who lost a customer.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Not to mention seizing the boat and contents.
Promoting the idea that cruising sailors like to get stoned on a public site like this... is not only irresponsible but pretty dammed stupid!...

as plent of aussies in Indonesia and Thailand have found.

[SoulJah]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

;"punishing one yachtsmen’s failure to report their knowledge of another’s drug use.

Does this law still exist? Was anyone ever convicted?
I'll bet there's a lot more drunk skippers around than stoned, would anyone feel comfortable with a law that will punish you for failing to report a skipper who'd been drinking?
Many years ago Queensland enacted a law making it a criminal offence to be in the same room as somone smoking pot. It didn't work.

If this "war on drugs" cannot even stop drug use in jails, what is the objective of this "war"? What needs to be achieved before this "war" can be declared "won"?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by callmecrazy

Not to argue here, but I'm pretty sure it was Nixon who declared the war on drugs, and subsequent administrations that enacted new laws and combined forces, bringing the USCG into the mix along the way... If the USCG was enacting laws and 'punishing yachtsmen' in the 80's, I'd like to see some reference material on that (just for curiosity).

You also got me curious…. since I only remember it from magazine articles and events during the early 80’s when I was doing a lot of yacht deliveries.

What was important was that as Captain, you were advised to make each crew member read and sign a prepared statement that you supported the ‘war on drugs’ and would turn in any crew member found in possession…

....Otherwise US-Customs could still seize the boat even if you claimed you knew nothing about it and . They were very aggressive about it at the beginning

I still do that today as a form of policy and legal protection.

Happened to find this historical reference:
Zero Tolerance Summary | BookRags.com

Zero Tolerance and U.S. Drug Control Policy
Originally, zero tolerance was a federal drug policy begun during the War on Drugs campaign of the Reagan and Bush administrations (1981–1993). This policy was designed to prohibit the transfer of illicit drugs across U.S. borders. No possession, import, or export of illegal drugs was to be tolerated, and possession of any measurable amount of illegal drugs was subject to all available civil and criminal punishments. Zero tolerance was an example of a criminal justice approach to drug control. In this approach, the criminal justice system is responsible for the control of drugs, and the use of drugs is regarded as a criminal act.
Under the zero-tolerance policy, law-enforcement agents target users of illegal drugs rather than dealers or transporters. Zero-tolerance advocates argue that users create the demand for drugs and are therefore the root cause of the drug problem. A zero-tolerance policy is based on the idea that, if demand for drugs can be curbed by harshly punishing users, the supply of drugs flowing into the country will decrease.
The U.S. Customs Service, together with the U.S. Attorney's office in San Diego, California, initiated the zero-tolerance policy as part of an effort to stop drug trafficking across the U.S.-Mexican border. Individuals in possession of illegal drugs were arrested and charged with both a misdemeanor and a felony offense. Customs Service officials believed the policy was successful at reducing the flow of drugs across the border and recommended that it be put to use nationwide. Subsequently, the National Drug Policy Board, together with the White House Conference on a Drug-Free America, had all federal drug-enforcement agencies adopt the zero-tolerance policy in 1988, at all points of entry into the United States.
The policy did not require that new laws or regulations be enacted. Instead, it required strict interpretation and enforcement of existing laws. In practice, it meant that if any amount of drugs was found on any type of vehicle, including bicycles, transfer trucks, and yachts, the vehicle would be seized and the passengers arrested. The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs Service began to crack down on all cases of drug possession on the water and at all borders. If, during the course of their regular patrols and inspections, Coast Guard personnel boarded a vessel and found one marijuana cigarette, or even the remnants of a marijuana cigarette, they arrested the individual and seized the boat. Previously, the Coast Guard had either looked the other way or issued fines when personal-use quantities of illegal substances were discovered.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jeffknox

e So were here in Belize for two weeks of R&R and we stop by a local establishment to get a roast chicken for dinner. While chatting with the owner he mentioned the awesome lamb kabobs he was serving tomorrow night and by the way he had some really good "smoke" we were welcome to try I said I didn't smoke and he reiterated his meaning by saying good stuff while flashing the universal toking sign I said I really didn't want to do anything to extend my stay unwillingly and thanked him. Probably would have been fun

Sure you don't mean 'Savages getting stoned with Locals'......
So why not try the fun... never tried it... don't knock it...
Don't worry.... Be hay...

[conachair]

Originally Posted by oldjags

Smoking too much causes paranoia!

So does not smoking at all if you look at some of the posts on this thread.

Last time i was offered I did indeed politely decline. Mind you, it was several hundred kilos high up in the mountains in Morocco. Even if they were much more worried about you leaving with people there rather than some of their cash crops onboard.

Best avoided onboard for sure.

Which is a shame, as far as the effects go it's much more suited to cruising than alcohol.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

And just what we don't need is a few cruisers endorsing dope. Next we'll all start having boardings by the local authorities.

In the US they already have that - but I guess for some it is nice to have da Gubberment turn up now and again and remind them that they are "free" .

The War on Drugs is not intended to ever be won - more money made in the fight on the legal side than by the "Bad Guys". Money and religous "Morals" (fuggin Puritans ) is a powerful mix.

More chance of winning the War on Terror or the War on Stupidity .....and those chances are slightly less than nadda.

Could solve the Drug Problem inside a week, using a pen (and half a brain cell) and no need to legalise anything - just medicalise the problem (especially Heroin). Legalise Pot? I am not bothered either way, but not against it being sold over the counter (from Pharmacies?) - is it a "Gateway" drug, for some a packet of cough drops is a gateway drug but can't write the rules around numpties - Pot is principally a Gateway Drug (for some) because it is sold by folks selling other stuff (and often the two will get mixed up - cocktails are not simply an alcohol thing ).....when I buy Beer from an Off Licence or Supermarket I don't get offered home made spirits - which does kill people in large numbers around the world, simply from being badly made / made of crap.....same same for drugs. Won't say that Drugs are good for you long term!, but would be a helluva lot less likely to kill people if not made and sold by criminals (not known for quality control procedures).

Will people still die from medicalising drugs? Yeah, but I don't give a sh#t , but the numbers will fall radically (even if some of the people involved will differ - but that be own choice / tough luck) and the big plusses being that a) folk won't be robbing and killing me and b) my tax bill will drop ........FWIW, over here historically we never had a drugs problem - simply because most folks could afford there drugs, and that includes folks on some serious stuff working in jobs (adding to the tax take ) at all levels. Times are a changing here though economically, be interesting (?) to see how that goes........

Recreational Drugs are not a problem (for user and society) - illegal drugs are.

[SimonV]

I think this is the wrong place for a discusion which may align oneself with any drug use. Cannabis is illegal in many country's and in some possession will result in a fine, and in some death. If you do not travel outside your own Country and are comfy with the result of you choice, then so be it. But travel the world on your own keel and your choice could destroy yours and many lives around you. I follow the laws of the country that I am In and plan to stay free and happy. If you do drugs keep off my boat and keep away from me. In fact I don't even want to know you.