Hate to sound too nationalistic about this, but Portuguese criminals and organized crime have never exactly struck fear into the hearts of the citizenry. American gangs are a lot more violent and well organized.
The fantasy that legalizing all drugs would get rid of crime is exactly that--- a fantasy.
As Binary_Digit pointed out in post #59 below, it's the prohibition largely driving much of the violence, at least in terms of drug dealers killing each other or shooting innocent kids by accident. As well as they don't respond like banks and credit unions when you owe them money and your late on payments. Kind of like mafia loan sharks did not respond like bankers to those that don't pay their financial debts to them. Do you need to make loaning money with interest illegal or do you simply have to keep the mafia out of it so as to reduce the chances of broken knees, people beaten with bats, or people shot for not making payments? That's not really the US Bank operates.
But I should point out here for sake of clarity that
Portugal did *not* legalize drugs. They *decriminalized* drugs. I used to mistake the two as the same too. They are not the same though. Cocaine, heroin, meth and so on are still to sell in Portugal or to even posses in X quantity. What decriminalizing does it basically operate to make
addictions or recreational use no longer criminal and punishable by jail or prison time. You are allowed to have X quantity on you in Portugal (can't remember what that quantity is).
Legalization would make it legal to sell and I suppose have an unlimited quantity on you or in your residence.
But equally important to the Portugal plan of decriminalization was/is there tactic of reintegrating drug addicts into the workforce. Whereas they are discriminated in and driven from the workforce in the USA. One might argue the latter approach only increases the likelihood or rates of petty thefts.
That would hardly be an "ideal world".
I don't think legalizing or decriminalizing drugs will get rid of crime. First of all, "crime" encompasses abroad range of things that can land you in jail. Defrauding investors, cheating on taxes, shooting cops, sexually molesting children, stalking a woman and raping her, driving while intoxicated over the legal limit.
The people in that Milwaukee article link were likely not gang members or if they were likely not shooting each other over something gang related. Very little gang related shooting and killings go on in Milwaukee any more, even among active gang members. Most shooting and murders in Milwaukee result from petty disputes (e.g., someone looked at you funny or for too many seconds, arguments over a girl, or you're selling drugs but some other drug dealer you "fronted" drugs to did not pay you back).
Actual heroin and crack addicts carry out very little (only a tiny fraction) of the violent crimes in Milwaukee. They do a lot of petty thefts though. But most *armed* robberies are carried out by thugs and gangsters not hooked on heroin or crack or meth.
Not that there aren't violent drug addicts. There are. Just as their are violent drunks. But drug addicts vary just like alcoholics. Look at the fat former mayor of Toronto who was a crack addict and considered by many to have been the best mayor Toronto ever had. And you have some alcoholics that are dirty, living homeless on the street. Some drug addicts like some people molest physically abuse their children. Some don't just like some people don't.
What I'm trying to say is one can make laws to prohibit things based out of a fear of what every single individual will do. Like say... alcohol or guns. You could prohibit both out of a fear of what might happen if any person in the country were in possession of either. But instead we arrest people if they shoot someone illegally, or if the drunk drive. Therefore, if a guy is high on heroin in his apartment why arrest him? If he drives high then arrest him. That kind of thing.
