Combined force in Río de Janeiro

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Drugs? Maybe Pot, but none of the other illegal drug serve a purpose but to addict people and kill them.

There are lots of drugs (mostly psychedelics) that are neither addictive nor particularly lethal. For example MDMA (ecstasy) killed 63 Americans in the year 2000. That same year saw 85,000 Americans killed by alcohol and 435,000 Americans killed by tobacco.

[Excalibur]

I thought in Brazil it is legal to get guns, just getting permits and licenses.

And as I said before, legalizing drugs won't solve the crime problem. Why do you think in the US, people are saying that is a stupid idea. Sure taxing it would raise a lot of money and would surely make it hard for the organized crime to lose their hold on it, but saying you can go into a store and buy cocaine and meth because it's legal now is a very bad idea.

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

There are lots of drugs (mostly psychedelics) that are neither addictive nor particularly lethal. For example MDMA (ecstasy) killed 63 Americans in the year 2000. That same year saw 85,000 Americans killed by alcohol and 435,000 Americans killed by tobacco.

Have you seen what Coke can do you you on the first try? Meth? LSD? X? I've seen people die from THAT SHIT! I knew people! I have friends in law enforcement and their lives destroyed by drug corruption! Don't tell me it is not addictive nor NOT particularly lethal! I don't care if it'll send you off to your "happy place" and then bring you back. Why don't you take a shot of heroin or some coke up your nose and tell ME how you fucking feel!

I don't want any drugs no addictive or otherwise to be legal. It's already illegal to smoke in bars and a lot of restaurants and college campus. They can't can't get rid of something that is already so wide spread and legal for decades.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by k9870

There not strolling around guns blazing, there occupying and setting up security, and only shooting in defense. You make it seem like there hosing anybody in the street.

And legalizing RPGs and belt fed MGs will not stop gang violence.....and cars are legal, the gangs still steal them. As to human trafficking, im waiting for your response.

Stealing a car isn't a crime of possession. It's not illegal to have a car, just to have somebody else's car without their permission. Whereas drugs are illegal no matter how you obtained them. So you're argument that "cars are legal and people still steal them" doesn't really make sense.

Anyway, if you take away the massive profits from drugs, you're left with a whole host of other crimes. Though none of them are able to maintain the level of presence and influence that criminal organizations currently have. Nobody ever threatened national security with an auto theft ring, there just isn't enough money in it.

And human trafficking? Take all the money spent on the drug war and spend it on fighting that instead. You're still not going to need an entire battalion of mechanized infantry to do it.

[Markost]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

People with a secure position in society don't form street gangs.

You´re wrong, we´re not talking about Central America Maras, we´re talking about organized crime. Just like the russian mafia or mexican drug cartels.

And no this doesn't make it "safe" again. They've just created a vacuum that will shortly be filled by the next gang, and they're going to go into it even more violently then the last one. Unless they just bulldozed the entire favela and built proper housing over it. And even if they did that, they'd have a shitload of displaced impoverished people. Wonder what they would do to survive then? Oh right, commit more crimes.

Dude, in the favelas you´ll find the criminals and gangster, but many people are honest and hardworking (in fact, there are more workers than criminals). The Alemao was an example of that: a gang controlling an entire zone. Once you defeat the gangs, the police and later the goverment controls the area. Just think about your neighborhood after 20 years with no government presence or police.

Oh, and about the bulldozing, there´s a plan being developed since Lula´s government to urbanize the favelas. But seriously, can you build schools, houses and streets while everything is being controlled by gangs? I don´t think so.

You're still not going to need an entire battalion of mechanized infantry to do it.

You realize that you need mechanized infantry when your enemy can shoot down helicopters... ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjywM4BBpE )

[Swordfish941]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Although I disagree with Burt that it's wrong for the Marines to take part in this operation, you are wrong about this last part. They aren't going to be able to "wipe out" the drug gangs. As long as there is poverty and drugs are illegal, the gangs will always exist. By occupying the favelas, the BOPE and Marines will be able to repress the gangs, but it won't be permanent. As soon as they leave (which they'll have to do eventually, because military occupations are expensive, especially for a country like Brazil), the gangs will return.

So gangs are like cockroaches (figuratively). No matter how many times you flush them down the toilet, they always climb back up the bowl.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

And as I said before, legalizing drugs won't solve the crime problem. Why do you think in the US, people are saying that is a stupid idea.

Because they've been sold on the propaganda and people in general are afraid of changing the status quo. Most people (LE personnel excluded) who campaign and crusade against drugs are very ignorant of the realities of drug using behavior, preferring to view it as a singular monolith of depravity out to snatch their children.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Sure taxing it would raise a lot of money and would surely make it hard for the organized crime to lose their hold on it, but saying you can go into a store and buy cocaine and meth because it's legal now is a very bad idea.

If people want to wreck their lives, I'd rather the profits go to publicly held corporations or legitimately run private companies instead of criminal organizations that will use the money to corrupt cops, judges, and legislators, kill people, blow up cars, and enable violently sociopathic behavior amongst their associates.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Have you seen what Coke can do you you on the first try? Meth? LSD? X? I've seen people die from THAT SHIT!

Yes, people die from alot of things. It's part of living in a free society. We are all personally responsible for ourselves. People wreck their lives in many different ways; gambling, prostitutes, bad investments, not buying proper insurance. You can die the first time you go skydiving. You can die walking down the street. Life is dangerous.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I knew people! I have friends in law enforcement and their lives destroyed by drug corruption!

Sounds like they fucked up then. It happens. And when you say "drug corruption" do you mean they got involved with criminals and it didn't work out for them? If that's the case then I have no sympathy, corrupt cops are scum and deserve whatever they get coming to them, even more so than regular criminals.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Don't tell me it is not addictive nor NOT particularly lethal!

Not all drugs are the same.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I don't care if it'll send you off to your "happy place" and then bring you back. Why don't you take a shot of heroin or some coke up your nose and tell ME how you fucking feel!

Made my nose feel a bit tingly, felt a little lifted for a few minutes, then everyone around me became very annoying and I had a panic attack. Can't say I enjoyed it, but to each his own. That was 4 years ago, I haven't touched it since. Why am I not breaking into peoples houses or performing sexual favors? Oh right, I have the ability to make informed decisions about my own life and my own actions and I value my health and sanity over fleeting moments of chemical euphoria. If other people don't, that is not my problem.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I don't want any drugs no addictive or otherwise to be legal.

If you really believe that, then you've got a lot of molecules to outlaw, including almost every drug that is already a controlled substance, because unless it's on Schedule I, it's still legal under certain circumstances. Do you want to ban Vicodin and Oxycontin? What about Fentanyl? Fentanyl is far more dangerous than Heroin, being lethal in microgram amounts, but for patients in advanced stages of cancer it's manna from Heaven. Benzodiazepines like Xanax, Valium, and Ativan are very addictive, but absolutely necessary for people with severe anxiety and insomnia.

Do you want to ban dextromethorphan? (Robitussin) Do you want to ban dimenhydrinate? (Dramamine) What about nutmeg, should we ban nutmeg? Dust Off? Nitrous oxide? Gasoline?

Originally Posted by Excalibur

It's already illegal to smoke in bars and a lot of restaurants and college campus. They can't can't get rid of something that is already so wide spread and legal for decades.

How can you actually believe this statement and the previous statement? That's quite a blatant case of cognitive dissonance. MDMA is not allowed even though it is neither addictive nor very lethal (a majority of deaths are caused by overexertion or toxic impurities, not an overdose of the MDMA molecule) but it's perfectly acceptable for Joe Citizen to drink himself into a coma because, why the hell not, everybody's doing it?

The argument that you can't ban tobacco and alcohol because "They can't can't get rid of something that is already so wide spread and legal for decades." doesn't hold up in against history. Drugs being illegal is a very recent phenomenon. The use of opium, coca, cannabis, ephedra, psylocibin, and DMT go back just as far as alcohol, millenia into prehistory. And still today the use of drugs is far more widespread and popular than anyone really wants to admit. It was never not widespread. Of all the factors that lead to decreased drug use in populations, legislation and enforcement is the least relevant.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by Markost

You´re wrong, we´re not talking about Central America Maras, we´re talking about organized crime. Just like the russian mafia or mexican drug cartels.

You think those organizations were born of bored rich dudes? They all started with a few impoverished individuals deciding they didn't want to follow the rules anymore and that they would get rich or die trying. The Russian mafia is an evolution of medieval bandit guilds. I don't know the exact origins of the Mexican cartels, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a weekend project for some listless industrialists.

Originally Posted by Markost

Dude, in the favelas you´ll find the criminals and gangster, but many people are honest and hardworking (in fact, there are more workers than criminals). The Alemao was an example of that: a gang controlling an entire zone. Once you defeat the gangs, the police and later the goverment controls the area. Just think about your neighborhood after 20 years with no government presence or police.

The gangs only have that capability because they make so much money from drugs.

Originally Posted by Markost

Oh, and about the bulldozing, there´s a plan being developed since Lula´s government to urbanize the favelas. But seriously, can you build schools, houses and streets while everything is being controlled by gangs? I don´t think so.

That sounds like a good idea, but only if they allow the displaced population to remain. You can't kick people out, pave over everything, and then build mansions. They'll just start up a new slum somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Markost

You realize that you need mechanized infantry when your enemy can shoot down helicopters... ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjywM4BBpE )

Human trafficking and auto theft doesn't yield enough money for that sort of thing. That was the point I was trying to make.

[k9870]

Gun running gets huge profits and has the hardware necessary for shooting down a helicopter or taking out a patrol all over.

[Markost]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

That sounds like a good idea, but only if they allow the displaced population to remain. You can't kick people out, pave over everything, and then build mansions. They'll just start up a new slum somewhere else.

Who the hell is talking about kicking people?

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by Markost

Who the hell is talking about kicking people?

What exactly is the plan? How can you urbanize the favelas if you don't tear them down first? All the buildings look pretty rickety to me.