|
|
|
|
|
|
by MichaelGG
4605 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.