[rodolphoarruda]

Yes, this is very complex and there are a lot of points we could discuss from a factual perspective.

It's very hard to know what's the most profitable LOB of crime organizations here. What is well known is that they operate on a wide "portfolio" of products and services since there are strong dependencies between them. Drugs, weapons, bank robbery, ATM stealing, truck robbery, kidnapping... the list is long.

Drugs is a relevant LOB because it employs a great deal of terror on the human structure of the organization. Debt with a drug dealer is usually seen as a death sentence. So the dealer knows he can manipulate those who cannot pay their debts by forcing them to commit various crimes as compensation. Dealers don't need money to finance crimes, they do it mostly through terror. Drugs are just the foundations.

Black market. If the legal drug is sold for $15, drug dealers would sell the same amount for $10. Like the do with stolen medical drugs sold mostly in slums.

Government/private companies would have a hard time trying to sell legal drugs anywhere near slums. Not only the dealers would exterminate the workers of those places, but would also steal the products to resell them.

I'm pro drug decriminalization. I believe people should be free to experiment anything they want in their lives, of course, being properly accountable for that. But my problem is with people that generalize the success of ANY decriminalization campaign only because Portugal made it right. There are so many variables in this game, so many social and cultural pre-requisites that we cannot treat this subject with just a couple of lines.

I appreciate you time articulating your ideas while commenting my point. I think that's the type of exercise that this subject deserves.

[MichaelGG]

>Debt with a drug dealer ... Dealers don't need money to finance crimes, they do it mostly through terror.

So if the people are working for them to pay off a debt, then the dealer paid for the service still. Additionally, someone has to buy weapons to hijack shipments.

>If the legal drug is sold for $15, drug dealers would sell the same amount for $10

Going along with fictional numbers, currently they're getting, say $100 for the same amount. Legalization might bring it to $15, and black market guys might sell at $10. That's still 1/10th of the revenue flowing in. They'd have to have very thin profit margins to benefit from a major reduction in prices.

>Like the do with stolen medical drugs sold mostly in slums. ... . Not only the dealers would exterminate the workers of those places

Sounds like this is a problem with slums and Brazil's law enforcement capabilities in general than anything else.

If your point is that Brazil will still have massive problems after legalization, yes, sure. Legalizing all medications won't solve hunger, either. Legal sales reduce criminal pressure on end-users (maybe not an issue in Brazil) and reduce revenues to criminals.

Why would a policy of open drug sales make things worse in Brazil?

[rodolphoarruda]

> ...someone has to buy weapons to hijack shipments

Yes, "soldiers" pay off debts by robbing banks and handing over money to dealers, whom in turn buy weapons on the cheap in Paraguay (country) or from corrupt police forces (aka milícias[3]).

> Sounds like this is a problem with slums and Brazil's law enforcement capabilities in general than anything else.

That's my point.

> Legal sales reduce criminal pressure on end-users

Absolutely, for the middle class alone. Can't say it for the poor.

> Reduce revenues to criminals

Not for the big organizations like PCC [1] or Comando vermelho [2]

> Why would a policy of open drug sales make things worse in Brazil?

I don't know if it would make it worse. But I'm almost sure it wouldn't make it better to most of the population (basis of my point) simply because violence wouldn't be reduced. Organized crime finds its ways to keep its dominance, and it has been like that for decades.

Thanks for the "debate". :)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeiro_Comando_da_Capital [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comando_Vermelho [3] http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil%C3%ADcia_(Rio_de_Janeiro) (use a translator, sorry)

[MichaelGG]

Sorry to persist - how does it not reduce revenues? If the illegal restricted rate of a certain opiate is $1/mg, but the free-market, competitive rate is $0.10/mg, then the revenues will drop approximately to 1/10th.

In the slums, is Pepsi, alcohol and ibuprofen priced at obscene rates? Why or why not?

Either way, even if it doesn't benefit the poor class (because they're totally fucked either way), it doesn't harm them, and is the right thing to do. So it does seem simple to state: yes, legalize everything.

[rodolphoarruda]

> how does it not reduce revenues?

It may reduce revenue of smaller groups, but not of large organizations. As I said, they have a wide portfolio in crime. If one thing has reduced revenues, they would intensify on another thing, thus violence is kept at the same level.

> In the slums, is Pepsi, alcohol and ibuprofen priced at obscene rates? Why or why not?

Pepsi is VERY expensive for them, so they opt for a myriad of alternative brands that cost a 1/3 of the price. Alcohol, same thing, they consume strong drinks at around R$1/bottle. Medicine drugs, they rely on those given for free by the government. If they are not free, they go for the black market, which is too bad because they often but fake medicine... another huge issue.

> Either way, even if it doesn't benefit the poor class (because they're totally fucked either way), it doesn't harm them, and is the right thing to do. So it does seem simple to state: yes, legalize everything.

Well, that's a way to see things. Government would invest loads of tax-payer's money in the process, the poor would say exactly where they are and the middle class/elite would benefit greatly. Thank goodness I'm part of the latter.