Jamaican vacation

44capnball

New member
here's a good link for your friends who are anti's.

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/Jamaican-War-Zone.htm

Jamaica's total gun prohibition is built on a special Gun Court. You can go to prison for life just for having a single bullet.

This was designed by Dr. Michael Beaubrun, president of the World Federation for Mental Health.

Mental health tribunals and abduction without trial, this is what makes gun control extremists salivate. So, why aren't the Gun Guys and the Chuckie Schumers all worked up in excitement about the success of gun control in Jamaica? Why don't they want to talk about Jamaica?

I'll leave that to you.
 
It's all a matter of perspective -

If you enjoy the right to firearm ownership, let's go to the U.S.

If you enjoy some of the finest coffee and weed in the world....every-ting is irie, mon...
 
I know you were trying to add a little humor, but Jamaica is the example that's supposed to show everybody what a good idea gun bans are.

So, why don't they hold it up as a shining example? Why aren't people the world over rushing to buy second homes in downtown Kingston?

Their total gun ban isn't working. Not only isn't it working, the place is one of the gun violence capitals of the world. Outside the tourist areas it's a place where shootouts are a daily occurrence and the police can kill you as they like.
 
So, why aren't the Gun Guys and the Chuckie Schumers all worked up in excitement about the success of gun control in Jamaica? Why don't they want to talk about Jamaica?

Probably because whatever happens in Jamaica has no relevance to the issue of the efficacy of gun control measures under our particular constitutional scheme.

Are you contending anything else other than the clear fact that under the particular circumstances of jamaica, draconian gun regulations do not have a measureable effect on Jamaican violent crime rates?

WilddreadlockrastaAlaska TM
 
Probably because whatever happens in Jamaica has no relevance to the issue of the efficacy of gun control measures under our particular constitutional scheme.

I'd wager a gun ban in the USA would turn out more like Jamaica or Brazil than it would England or Australia.

So yes it is relevant. America's culture has become very violent. It isn't because guns are available, it's because people are getting more prone to violence. Back when you could buy 20 mm antitank guns out of the newspaper, cpmplete with ammo, the violence was a lot less than it is now. Even when machine guns could be bought at the local hardware store, there was nowhere near the violence we have now. It is just plain stupid to ignore this. The drug and gang culture has a lot to do with today's violence.

But... here's the trap... culture shouldn't matter. According to the anti's a complete gun ban should be the answer anywhere there's crime. Well then why don't they hold up Jamaica to show us why gun control is good? That's all I'm asking.
 
Even when machine guns could be bought at the local hardware store, there was nowhere near the violence we have now. It is just plain stupid to ignore this. The drug and gang culture has a lot to do with today's violence.

Ya havent studied crime at the turn of the century evidently.

WildwearelessviolenttodayAlaska TM
 
My understanding is that the US murder rate spiked due to alcohol prohibition in the early 20th Century, then settled back down after alcohol was legalized.

Similarly, much of the violence in the US is caused by drug prohibition. Outlawing something that a lot of people want causes the price of that thing to skyrocket (basic supply and demand), which makes selling it very profitable. Thus, you have dealers fighting viciously over drug profits and "sales territory."

Most Americans haven't learned from the mistakes of alcohol prohibition and probably never will, so the drug war will continue. And of course our rights will continue to go down the toilet as a result.

I suspect a lot of this is intentional on the part of establishment policymakers. There's no way they don't understand by now that the drug war isn't going to work any better than alcohol prohibition did.
 
Gun bans may be why Jamaica is not a safe place. Most resorts have gone all inclusive since it is not safe for gringos to venture out into the contryside. Kingston has a terrible reputation for it's violence.

Jamaica promotes it's image as a tourist destination and it does have some nice beaches & resorts but outside those resorts it's a 3rd world danger zone. You think maybe their gun laws have made their citizens safer?
 
There's no way they don't understand by now that the drug war isn't going to work any better than alcohol prohibition did.
Yep, "they" accept all the violence just so they can take more rights away from you.:rolleyes:

The big difference is that drugs can effect you physically and psychologically much more seriously, perhaps permanently. Plenty of good examples around.
 
Yep, "they" accept all the violence just so they can take more rights away from you.
I wouldn't put it past them. Power is intoxicating to many.

The big difference is that drugs can effect you physically and psychologically much more seriously, perhaps permanently. Plenty of good examples around.
Prison can harm you physically and psychologically, too. As you may be aware, people get assaulted and even killed in prison.

Is that the idea? For the government to tell people, "Don't harm yourselves, or we'll harm you even worse!"?

I'm completely in favor of severe penalties for people who deal drugs to minors, operate vehicles while stoned, or otherwise risk the lives of others without their consent. But what people do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes is their business. Any other position essentially holds that people don't even own their own bodies -- the government does.

Besides, the harm done depends on the drug. Marijuana is nowhere near as toxic or harmful as alcohol. LSD also has low toxicity. Nobody ever ODs on these drugs, though they certainly OD on alcohol. And many legal ways of getting high (e.g., sniffing glue) are more harmful than just about any illegal drug (and addictive, too).
 
Besides, the harm done depends on the drug. Marijuana is nowhere near as toxic or harmful as alcohol. LSD also has low toxicity. Nobody ever ODs on these drugs, though they certainly OD on alcohol. And many legal ways of getting high (e.g., sniffing glue) are more harmful than just about any illegal drug (and addictive, too).
No one ODs on LSD? Have you researched this? I've seen it. Pot has very long lasting side effects. Regular use seriously alters your ability to perceive reality. At least with alcohol you sober up and can see clearly unless you abuse yourself to the point of brain damage.

Yes, jail is harmful but I don't see the analogy. You can't legalize taking drugs if the drugs are illegal. It's the possession part you can't get around, not so much that you are hurting yourself.
 
The illegality of marijuana causes environmental damage and endangers national forest visitors.

Adding cite:
http://www.redding.com/news/2007/jul/13/drug-czar-gives-warning/
The nation's top anti-drug official said people need to overcome their "reefer blindness" and see that illicit marijuana gardens are a terrorist threat to the public's health and safety, as well as to the environment.

Note that it is the "illicit" that causes the problems. If it is not illicit, these problems go away.
 
Last edited:
As an EMS worker I can tell you that if I go to an auto accident after midnight, I am guaranteed to have at least one drunk involved. Homeless camps? Mostly alcohol (some meth and heroin, but mostly alcohol)

The three most abused mind-altering, addictive drugs are:

1 Caffeine
2 Nicotine
3 Alcohol

Yet they are completely legal. Those three drugs cause more financial harm to society than all of the "illegal" drugs combined. We have been fighting the "drug war" for over 40 years. The harm that is caused by these drugs when compared to the methods used to fight them seems like no big deal:

In 2006, about 1 out of every 136 U.S. residents was incarcerated either in prison or jail. The total amount being 2,320,359, with 1,446,269 in state and federal prisons and 747,529 in local jails. When you take probation, parole, and house arrest into account, over 7.2 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year end 2006 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults. More than any other industrialized nation.

22% of those incarcerated are for drug possession or sale. In terms of federal prison, 57% of those incarcerated were sentenced for drug offenses. It makes me wonder how many that were sentenced for other reasons like robbery or violent crimes are related to drugs and the turf wars they cause.

We get no knock raids, warrantless searches, and police confiscating private property, like homes, cash, and cars, without even filing charges or giving the accused his day in court.

Would you say that the war on drugs is a success?

ETA: I love how the drug thing is now "terrorist"
 
It would be interesting to know how much the alcohol lobby / business spends to keep marijuana illegal. I suspect there would be a major decline in alcohol sales.
 
It would be interesting to know how much the alcohol lobby / business spends to keep marijuana illegal. I suspect there would be a major decline in alcohol sales.
Since there is no populous movement to legalize pot they don't need to spend a dime. Pot keeps you immature and paranoid, it would be criminal to encourage its' use. Most adults handle alcohol just fine, we don't need to dumb down society any further.
 
divemedic: Agreed on all counts -- except perhaps caffeine, which has literally NO effect on me. ;)

As for the "funding terrorists" angle, I agree -- you gotta love that. How much money would those terrorists be making from drug sales if drugs were legal? The reason drug sales are lucrative is that they're illegal.

If I were a drug dealer making all kinds of money, my worst nightmare would be legalization.

JaserST4 said:
No one ODs on LSD? Have you researched this? I've seen it.
I'm not talking about taking so much that you freak out, but about taking so much that your heart stops, etc. LSD has extremely low toxicity.

Pot has very long lasting side effects. Regular use seriously alters your ability to perceive reality.
Do you have a source for this claim? Please make sure it's unbiased (e.g., I won't accept anything from "Partnership for a Drug-Free America").

I have heard that THC remains in the fat cells of the brain for quite some time after pot is smoked. This chemical has a long half-life in the brain and body. Nevertheless, I've read studies that showed no significant decline in cognitive function even in quite heavy smokers.

One thing is sure: You cannot smoke yourself to death with pot. It's never happened. It's too non-toxic.

Do I think smoking pot is a good idea? Not at all. I think it's a pointless waste of time. But that's all it is -- unless the person is using it in a situation where he shouldn't be using ANY intoxicant, including alcohol.

At least with alcohol you sober up and can see clearly unless you abuse yourself to the point of brain damage.
Alcohol can kill a person quite easily, and I'm quite sure it destroys brain cells. Pot can't and doesn't.

Yes, jail is harmful but I don't see the analogy. You can't legalize taking drugs if the drugs are illegal. It's the possession part you can't get around, not so much that you are hurting yourself.
If we must live in a socialist society that insists on the right to regulate what people do with their own bodies and health, then I'd greatly prefer to see drug users sentenced to treatment programs rather than prison.

But what's next? Forcing people to exercise, like in Orwell's 1984? Mandatory health screenings for everyone, with fines for having too high a triglyceride count? Outlawing fast food?

Anyway, to get back on the main topic of this thread, I blame Prohibition I for the NFA of '34, and I blame Prohibition II for many of the gun laws that have been passed since then. And that's to say nothing of all the other violations of our liberties and privacy associated with this "war."
 
Do you have a source for this claim? Please make sure it's unbiased (e.g., I won't accept anything from "Partnership for a Drug-Free America").
Yes, I have a source. It's called reality, apparent to the drug free mind. I don't really care if you accept it or not. Everyone I know that kept smoking pot and everyone else I know that knows someone that kept smoking pot has the same observation. They haven't matured mentally, they have basically the same mentality they had in high school.
Alcohol can kill a person quite easily, and I'm quite sure it destroys brain cells. Pot can't and doesn't.
Ever heard of lung cancer? I don't know why you don't think pot doesn't damage brain cells, I sure do. If you are limiting your comment to just one evening, sure alcohol can kill you outright but you would need to give it a good effort. I'm more concerned with the long term side effects. I know plenty of people who drink without mental issues.
But what's next? Forcing people to exercise, like in Orwell's 1984? Mandatory health screenings for everyone, with fines for having too high a triglyceride count? Outlawing fast food?
That highlights the problem I have with drug legalizers. They can't distinguish a Big Mac from crack.
Anyway, to get back on the main topic of this thread, I blame Prohibition I for the NFA of '34, and I blame Prohibition II for many of the gun laws that have been passed since then. And that's to say nothing of all the other violations of our liberties and privacy associated with this "war."
I don't know about that but I'd rather fight a war against evil than surrender to chaos.
 
JaserST4 said:
Yes, I have a source. It's called reality, apparent to the drug free mind. I don't really care if you accept it or not.
Ah, I was waiting for the inevitable implication that because I'm in favor of legalization, I must be a drug user. Well, I'll have you know that I'm completely drug-free myself. I don't even drink much. So how is it that we disagree on what "reality" is if it's so apparent to the drug-free mind?

Everyone I know that kept smoking pot and everyone else I know that knows someone that kept smoking pot has the same observation. They haven't matured mentally, they have basically the same mentality they had in high school.
You do realize, do you not, that this is an extremely unscientific conclusion? How do you know that those people didn't keep smoking pot because they hadn't matured mentally, rather than the other way around?

Lots of people experiment with drugs and later go on to live healthy, productive lives. Look at Richard Feynman -- he experimented with acid, and he only won the Nobel Prize in physics. I have a friend who used Ecstasy (probably one of the more harmful illegal drugs) quite a few times in college, but nevertheless went on to get a Ph.D. in chemistry from one of the best grad schools in the country. I could give you plenty of other examples. What would have become of these people if "drug warriors" with half their IQs had busted them?

Ever heard of lung cancer?
Sure -- and tobacco causes it, too. Why isn't tobacco illegal, then? And how about all the diseases (including various kinds of cancer) that are associated with long-term alcohol abuse?

And again, what business is it of the government or society if an individual wants to hurt himself? It's his health and his business. Anything else is socialism.

I don't know why you don't think pot doesn't damage brain cells, I sure do.
Because studies have shown that it doesn't. For just one example:

Cognitive Deficits Associated With Heavy Marijuana Use Appear To Be Reversible
Research Findings
Vol. 17, No. 1 (April 2002)

By Margi Grady, NIDA NOTES Contributing Writer

Memory and learning problems caused by heavy marijuana smoking persist for at least a week after cessation of use of the drug, but they appear to resolve completely within a month, a NIDA-supported study shows. "Cognitive impairment from heavy marijuana use may linger for a week or longer, but it does not appear to be permanent," says Dr. Harrison Pope, Jr., who led the study at Harvard University's McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts. "Even if users smoke a lot, these tests suggest they can eventually recover," he says. As a followup to this research, Dr. Pope and his colleagues are using functional magnetic resonance imaging to determine whether the more sensitive assessment tool reveals cognitive effects that his pencil-and-paper tests could not detect.
Source: http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol17N1/Cognitive.html

In fact, I believe there was one study that showed pot use had a protective effect against certain kinds of dementia. (Not that I would use it for that reason.)

If you are limiting your comment to just one evening, sure alcohol can kill you outright but you would need to give it a good effort. I'm more concerned with the long term side effects. I know plenty of people who drink without mental issues.
Drinking kills brain cells if you do it enough, and it has other long-term health effects. Alcohol is unquestionable more harmful that pot in just about every way (except lung damage). Here's yet another study of note:

Study: Alcohol and Tobacco More Dangerous Than Some Illegal Drugs Like Marijuana or Ecstasy
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2975214

That highlights the problem I have with drug legalizers. They can't distinguish a Big Mac from crack.
Obesity causes a lot more health problems in this country than crack ever did. Most people have no desire to use crack, even when it's readily available (which it is and always will be).

I don't know about that but I'd rather fight a war against evil than surrender to chaos.
"Evil" is hurting others, not hurting yourself. And chaos is what we already have. Believe me, everyone who wants to use drugs is using them right now.

Drug laws are an example of people not being able to mind their own business and enlisting government to be the busybody on their behalf. That's basically what it boils down to: "I don't like you hurting yourself that way, so I'm gonna sic the Nanny State on you."
 
Back
Top