Did you purchase cocaine from Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe? It's possible if you have bought cocaine in the past...

john_stark says on Sep 17, 2007, 21:31:

Very old news. Can't you get something more up to date?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

coffee beaner says on Sep 17, 2007, 21:36:

GO URIBE!!!! ADELANTE PRESIDENTE!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Sep 17, 2007, 21:58:

por tres veces? beaner??

Well, I always figure Alvaro Uribe is getting his 'cut' one way or another.
Has he ever denied being in the mix, somehow, in the cocaine trade? I doubt it. And, I would doubt it, if he denied it.

Ciao! Gustav.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Sep 17, 2007, 22:14:

Oh Oh you mispelled COLUMBIA--wait 'til the Grammar Police here Hunt you down,,LOL

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Medellin Traveler says on Sep 18, 2007, 03:28:

Sorry John Starks, but this may not be old news to many of the new would-be travellers to Colombia nowadays, because certain media outlets seem to only want to report how beautiful Colombia is today.

MaimiMike, I was just being facetious with the typo.

Old news or not, still very interesting. Bring back memories of Joe Kennedy.

"Huevos Rancheros en Medellin, No Quiero Taco Bell." - www.medellintraveler.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

john_stark says on Sep 18, 2007, 05:56:

Look at the last line in the article: " With the president's approval ratings hovering above 70 percent, he's likely to get a constitutional amendment later this year to let him run again in 2006—and win." 2006? That's how old it is.

Do you think any traveller to Colombia cares about any of this? It's all about high quality chucha and partying. Maybe in a couple of years Colombia will be ruled by a pea-brained thug like Chavez. Will anyone care? I doubt it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 18, 2007, 09:13:

Double post

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Sep 18, 2007, 09:13:

Well GIB, as long as the gringo (and the European too by the way) has his unhealthy appetites, this pattern will keep going on and on ad nauseum. Demand encourages more supply, it doesn't get more ECO 101 than that. Same thing going on in Afghanistan too, with the poppies. I think most people who party with these drugs think it's a joke, and have no clue of where their money ends up going to, or don't care which is even worse. . .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 18, 2007, 09:14:

It's not only old news, which wouldn't be much of a problem, but an extremely simplistic and biased presentation of said news. That's the thing.

Now, I don't like Uribe, and that includes both his past, his friends and his present policies, to make a long story short.

But I don't pretend to know "the truth" about his "dark past" just by unilaterally and non-academically picking and choosing a couple of articles, books or what have you, ignoring everything else that may not fit in quite as "neatly". Just because something has been published doesn't mean it's unquestionable or immune to criticism, including that resulting from other published or non-published sources.

There are lots of unknowns but, considering what little is actually known, the opening statements and the articles posted here are full of information that is either circumstantial and incomplete, at best, or misleading and inaccurate at worst. Not everything, but a lot of it does fit that description.

The devil is in the details, for those that happen to care about that sort of thing, which have indeed been discussed before several times already. They can be discussed again if that's necessary, but it probably doesn't change much, in the end, unless enough new information appears.

So I'm sorry, but I can't agree with making up such a biased headline and making even crappier assumptions (several not even supported by the articles themselves, for that matter). At least not until there's something substantial enough backing them up, which is not the case here.

Thus I don't see how this is really going to be of use to anyone, but whatever...to each his or her own.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RonDubya says on Sep 18, 2007, 11:42:

My father was a sheet metal scupltor; not famous, but known a little bit. One day in his retirement the local newspaper sent a "reporter" to get his story. The reporter then went and published the "truth" about my father. I would say that the story was at least 30% WRONG. How could this happen after a one on one interview? The truth is that "reporters" don't report the facts, they report their spin on the facts, or worse they write their opinion and present it as truth - maybe to make it more interesting, or whatever. So do I read something by a reporter and believe it 100%? NOT! In everything there are always 3 stories - your story, my story, and the real story (which no one may ever know).

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Sep 18, 2007, 12:46:

"The other world deserves blame but the line is drawn when they here want to blame the US for the environmental and social problems caused by the drugs."

Well Sir, that's where I disagree with you because I KNOW if I were to purchase coke or heroin up here, my money becomes blood money. And I want absolutely nothing to do with that.

Like I said, a lot of recreational coke users don't have any appreciation for the consequences of their actions and not just on their bodies.

"They benefit economically from the drug trade which is why it goes on so with the paycheck comes the bill and that is all theirs."

In that, I agree with you although the benefit mostly goes to a "select few." The drug lords and the people who protect them or cooperate. The vast majority of Colombia's poor never sees a damn peso of that money. They'll certainly never step into any of that money-laundered property that's being constructed. :0)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Sep 18, 2007, 12:47:

"Sorry John Starks, but this may not be old news to many of the new would-be travellers to Colombia nowadays, because certain media outlets seem to only want to report how beautiful Colombia is today."


Medellin_Traveller,

So you want "certain media outlets" to only report about how terrible Colombia is or what? I sense a strong Anti-Colombian agenda from you and you'd better watch it!!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Medellin Traveler says on Sep 18, 2007, 14:23:

"Medellin_Traveller,

So you want "certain media outlets" to only report about how terrible Colombia is or what? I sense a strong Anti-Colombian agenda from you and you'd better watch it!!"

Yeah, your senses are correct. Here's your proof...
http://www.colombia-southamerica.com
http://www.medellintraveler.com
http://www.ilovemedellin.com
http://www.discovercolombia-news.com
and
http://medellin-colombia.blogspot.com

Juancegomez,
I understand what you are saying. I just thought that those articles where very interesting to read, regardless of how old they are. Personally, I have nothing against Alvaro Uribe. I sent him an email a few weeks ago complimeting him on his efforts to improve Colombia. I did get a reply from one of his aids.

You are also right for one to not believe everything they read just because it has been published, that goes without saying. But I don't need to know every single detail regarding the Invasion of Iraq by Bush(SHIT) and his greedy and power-hungry administration to know that the invasion had nothing to do with "they want our freedom" and "Hussein has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!" to make up my mind and form an opinion as to how I feel about all of it.

I'm no saint. I've experimented with coke in the USA and Colombia as well. I say, LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS!! Everyone gets what they want and you will definitely see a decline in violence.

Also, when Uribe was thrown out as Mayor of Medellin, it was by Colombianos not gringos.

And as the ol' saying goes... "where there is smoke, there is fire."

All in all, very interesting, at least to me.

"Huevos Rancheros en Medellin, No Quiero Taco Bell." - www.medellintraveler.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Sep 18, 2007, 14:24:

Ok, Mr. Traveller....todo bien.

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RUV says on Sep 18, 2007, 14:49:

MD,

Thanks for the post. I saw it earlier but did not get a change to read it till now.

Thanks again.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 18, 2007, 16:43:

Medellin_Traveller: Look, I'm not trying to change your mind. Your opinion is as inherently valid as that of anyone else, here, including me. That's one thing I always try to respect, even in the midst of polarizing debates.

All I'm doing is pointing out the flaws I see, from my own perspective and what I know so far. I think they are big flaws, so I can't keep quiet. Beyond that, I don't know what "the (real) truth" is and don't claim to do so. Only time will tell what's truly right and wrong, whether completely or partially.

Now, the age of the articles is not the problem, nor am I against criticizing Uribe, even in non-respectful terms, if there's something to clearly and accurately back that up.

You don't need to know every single detail about a person's life in order to criticize, no, but that doesn't mean that you can assume anything and everything about someone, or that any presentation of the facts is equally accurate and unquestionable. I see lots of questionable things in these articles, several of which have been brought up before.

You speak about smoke and fire, but smoke does assume different shapes, and not all fires are equal. I see the smoke, but I don't see the exact same shapes nor the same fires you're seeing, I think.

And that's fine, but just as you felt the need to post this, I felt the need to provide my own opinion as well. That's it.

As for drugs, I *can* honestly say I'm pretty much a saint as far as that goes. But I'm all for legalization as well, because prohibition doesn't work and causes too many additional problems. If people want to try something, it shouldn't be my business at all until there's a real reason for me to care.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Medellin Traveler says on Sep 18, 2007, 17:02:

Juancegomez,
No problema.

I also respect your opinion.

Todo bien.

"Huevos Rancheros en Medellin, No Quiero Taco Bell." - www.medellintraveler.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jorgegdiaz says on Sep 18, 2007, 18:55:

Now, tell me that Bush did´t know about no WMD in Irak or that Chenney really didn´t sell his shares in Halliburton or that the white house didn´t have a hand in giving the Irak reconstruction contracts to that company...

"To err is human - and to blame it on a computer is even more so."Robert Orben

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Sep 18, 2007, 21:27:

Ok, I'll tell you that jorgegdiaz. The fact is Sadam used WMDs in the past. Most of the rest of the world agreed Sadam had WMDs. If Bush was being dishonest to begin with, regarding WMDs, why would he then not have had WMDs "found"? I mean, if the WMD issue is the big lie, why didn't Bush cover his ass and simply plant WMDs in Iraq, with them being conveniently found later? You get what my point is? And yes, Cheney sold his shares of Haliburton. So? That is what one does to avoid a future conflict of interest. It was the appropriate thing to do. And he would have profited much more if he had kept them for a few more years. And yes, Haliburton was given contracts. They are one of the best companies in the world for doing that kind of work. There are also dozens of other companies that have gotten contracts for reconstructing Iraq.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Sep 19, 2007, 00:58:

Quote: But I'm all for legalization as well,

Legalize what group? All?

Crack Cocaine, Basuco? Meth? Pills, the list is endless and as soon as the list is complete and new substance or combination will be found.

Who pays to house, feed and rehabilate all those poor souls who "have an addictive personality" !!!!

Suppose next the U.S. will not only provide medical, food and housing to the poor but now they can stay at home stoned all day. You know they'll be watching the kids.

Quote: Many women do not realize the dangers drug use or addiction can present to children during pregnancy. These dangers can result in a lifetime of problems for children. Any alcohol or drug use by a pregnant woman means a child has been “drug-exposed� during the pregnancy. When drug use creates problems that are apparent at the birth or during the first weeks of a child’s life, the baby is considered “drug-effected�.

Alcohol and drug use during pregnancy is never a good idea. Problems caused by alcohol and drug use may not be apparent at birth but can show up later. They can include a range of issues from major physical problems to mental or behavioral problems that emerge as late as the child’s entry into school.

Many drugs cause low birth weight and small body size, withdrawal symptoms and increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

Methamphetamine is the most prevalent and dangerous drug related to child abuse and neglect. Other commonly abused drugs include alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, heroin and other narcotics, and prescription drugs

Who volunteers for duty at the childcare center so someone can watch the kids?


Not me.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Sep 19, 2007, 01:53:

As horrible as it sounds - and I can't believe I am saying this - I agree with Rubi. Legalize it all. Make it as pure as fresh fallen snow. And let God sort 'em out. The cost of rehabilitating people that genuinely want to quit drugs won't change the medical costs. People already can access those services here in the US (and do). It is already free. If you have good insurance, you can be put up in a nice resort and hang out with other addicts for 28 days, have sex, and then you are "cured". If all drugs were instantly made legal tomorrow - it would have ZERO impact nationally pertaining to health care costs. Nationally, police agencies would save billions. The prison systems would save billions. Violent crime would dive. The government would have a new source of tax revenue. I don't get it ... but I have been accused of being simplistic and an optimist.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Medellin Traveler says on Sep 19, 2007, 03:18:

:Ok, I'll tell you that jorgegdiaz. The fact is Sadam used WMDs in the past. Most of the rest of the world agreed Sadam had WMDs. If Bush was being dishonest to begin with, regarding WMDs, why would he then not have had WMDs "found"? I mean, if the WMD issue is the big lie, why didn't Bush cover his ass and simply plant WMDs in Iraq, with them being conveniently found later? You get what my point is? And yes, Cheney sold his shares of Haliburton. So? That is what one does to avoid a future conflict of interest. It was the appropriate thing to do. And he would have profited much more if he had kept them for a few more years. And yes, Haliburton was given contracts. They are one of the best companies in the world for doing that kind of work. There are also dozens of other companies that have gotten contracts for reconstructing Iraq." - Robert Jorge

I hope you were being facetious.

"Nationally, police agencies would save billions. The prison systems would save billions. Violent crime would dive." Robert Jorge

Again, I hope you are being facetious.

"Huevos Rancheros en Medellin, No Quiero Taco Bell." - www.medellintraveler.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Sep 19, 2007, 07:58:

Quote: The solution, legalize it and make sure the shit is so pure people die by the millions from it. MANY problems solved at once!

Humm,, well, if people would “die by the millions� I’d not have much of a problem but I am sure you meant DO NOT die by the millions.

The problem isn’t dying and the “make sure� part seems to indicate some “authority� will perform this function. There will be a small price and distribution costs. Ie: Methadone.

Many people reach a “comfort level� and DO NOT progress past that point.

Nothing wrong with being poor but happy but if the family suffers then that becomes a problem. There are many problems NOW that are not associated with the cost of obtaining drugs.

People will NOT work if they can maintain some level of self induced bliss while they become a barnacle on the ass end of society. Who buys the food and provides shelter for the family?

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Sep 19, 2007, 08:42:

Nobody starves in rich countries, though. The lonely addict in the example above can:

- go to a homeless shelter or sleep under the bridge

- go to soup kitchens or food banks

- go to a hospital for emergency medical treatment and even go to free clinics or mobile clinics (buses) for dental care and minor stuff

- become a Social Security Disability fraud case. Supposedly they're cracking down on these but it used to be that chronic alcoholism or drug abuse might get you a monthly check

- steal

So...taxpayers (collectively) are picking up the cost whether he goes to a country club rehab clinic or survives "high but happy" on the street.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Sep 19, 2007, 09:27:

Quote: Nobody starves in rich countries,

I think "starves to death" is more like it.

I'm back in the U.S. and made a big mistake. I stopped for breakfast and bought a U.S.A. Today paper because reading the financial section gives me something to do while drinking coffee.

I need to either quit buying the paper or immediatly throw the paper away after removing the financial section.

A front page article stated that school systems were giving their students FOOD to take home for the WEEKEND and this isn't just a few schools.

Yep, there are some who had NOTHING to eat,, or good to eat? at home.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-13-backpack_N.htm

So, pot isn't the MAIN problem and I can't see legalizing EVERYTHING and who/what will be budgeted to assure the people suffering from the DUMB ASS will be protected from the latest evil.

My opinion is that there will be no money saved, just different problems requiring different solutions.

The minute some city has a budget problem the first thing to get attention is TRASH PICKUP, or so it seems. Now what? No money to feed starving kids? Can't afford to close down every meth labs?

The U.S. has less than 5% of the worlds population. China has 1.3 billion folks. That's ONE BILLION more concentracted in an area that is slightly smaller than the continental U.S.

Imagine, a country that has the equivilent of 330 MORE cities the size of Chicago. I can see where it might take a substantial staff in china just to keep track of the names and locations. Will China do something similar?

When I see China and India going the legalize route I'll go along with their plan.

Unless of course China has users signup for free drugs and several years later uses the list to "purge" the country.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

la campiña says on Sep 19, 2007, 19:18:

10 grand pesos of course maybe gringo prices on sexta cali ' roket fuel naughty but nice

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Sep 20, 2007, 18:15:

But GIB, you are getting into the never ending argument, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" Ok, if there was no production, there would be no consumption. But if there was no consumption demand, then there would be no motive for production. Macro Econ 101. Or was that micro? College was a long time ago.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Sep 20, 2007, 22:11:

""""""As horrible as it sounds - and I can't believe I am saying this - I agree with Rubi.....Ok, if there was no production, there would be no consumption. But if there was no consumption demand, then there would be no motive for production. and,..."""""""

Rob, you're LIVING IN A MAKE-BELIEVE WORLD THERE... ANDDDD... agreeing with rubito.

Two counts against ya, dude. jajj
Hope you were able to sleep after that, ... early. ...... tonight ;)

Ciao! Gustav.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Sep 20, 2007, 22:13:

after seeing another picture of this Uribe guy, I think I did buy a gram from him, yeah, it was back in the 80's. no big deal

admittedly, arriving can feel great too

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwmte7 says on Sep 21, 2007, 15:47:

yawn! comparing la coca with meth is a bit of an aside. GOD made la coca; the nazis made meth in 1937, referring to it as 'marching powder'.

as a bolivian elder once commented, 'i don't know what your problem is, la coca is divine...a gift from GOD.' a very good point.

the same applies to peyote, and the mysterious, magical mushrooms; as well hyajuasca. in my own experience and opinion, these divine plants are a gift from our common father and should be treated as such. man made chemicals can certainly be deliterious when played with, without caution and discipline.

i've done my share of the above, but not being an addictive personality, i feel the experience far outweighed the paranoia. the use of entropics opened my eyes to man's inherent capacities and potential. realities i would have no idea of had i now opened to the experience.

as for public costs...the costs born by the public as a result of corruption and white collar criminality, are infinitely in excess of medical/rehabilitational costs born by the public,for drug use. one reason the indiginous peoples of the world rarily have problems with the magical plants, as their elders/socities give them a working knowledge of natural pharmacology. we might try the same. education, vis a vis horror/scare tactics i.e 'reefer madness I never saw the movie, but i can imagine from the trailers it's content.
it was the forsight of one of colombia's greatest presidents, in my opinion, that the possession of these substances was decriminalized. he pointed out that the 'coca' was a part of the culture for 10,000 years before the colonists came. it still is. he also noted, that colombia didn't have a 'drug' problem, it had a 'drug dealer' problem.

nuf said.

dwmte

0 funny, 0 helpful.