.... my guess is that he's heard about some bonafide bans in the Caribbean (you've seen them discussed here, I know.... .
Yes. And I agree that this is how ALL the well-meaning and sincere questions like this arise. Eg.: someone reads something scary. Ie.: someone else fetched a "no". Thus .... how can you blame someone for not wanting this further clarified ?
In fact, I agree so strongly with you, that I propose to you, that this phenomenon is: EXACTLY how these "balls get rolling" (to result in eventual actual clarified "rules")
IN THE FIRST PLACE., that eventually lead to the clarified rules.
... and wanted very much to stay out of a 3rd world jail cell. Starring in NatGeo's 'Locked Up Abroad' probably isn't on his bucket list....
And yes, just as you and I agree, an O.P. like this "heard something about", in posts and statements,
JUST LIKE THIS in your post here. Eg.: "3rd world jail cells with Bubba". Hence, ... OF COURSE ask about, hither and yonder, "Is it legal ?" . After all, who wants to go to a "3rd world jail cell". Right ?
And then someone else will see THOSE clarification seeking posts, and
THEY TOO will scamper to seek clarifications as well. And those seeing those future persons, will repeat the process. And so on, till infinity. Pretty soon, someone, to "put the matter to rest", will ask the highest up archies in that country. And ....... presto: A "rule to address this pressing issue".
See the evolution ?
.... Simple prudence to check before you go when the stakes can be costly...
Agreed. Why can't that "simple prudence" be to look up laws/rules for oneself ? And : If no rule or law said "no md'ing", then why can't that be sufficient to mean "not prohibited" ?