Questões: Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais (UEMG) — com gabarito

            Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

      For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

      “The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

      For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

      In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […] 

      Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

      First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

      Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

      Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly. 

      With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

      In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

       Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

      […]

      We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.” 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> . Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

            Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

      For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

      “The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

      For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

      In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […] 

      Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

      First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

      Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

      Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly. 

      With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

      In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

       Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

      […]

      We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.” 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> . Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

            Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

      For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

      “The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

      For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

      In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […] 

      Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

      First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

      Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

      Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly. 

      With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

      In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

       Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

      […]

      We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.” 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> . Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

            Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

      For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

      “The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

      For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

      In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […] 

      Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

      First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

      Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

      Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly. 

      With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

      In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

       Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

      […]

      We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.” 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> . Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

            Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

      For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

      “The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

      For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

      In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […] 

      Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

      First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

      Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

      Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly. 

      With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

      In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

       Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

      […]

      We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.” 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> . Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

Apaga o fogo, Mané

(Adoniran Barbosa)

Inês saiu dizendo

que ia comprar um pavio

pro lampião

Anoiteceu e ela não voltou

Fui pra rua feito louco

Pra saber o que aconteceu

Procurei na Central

Procurei no Hospital e no xadrez

Andei a cidade inteira

E não encontrei Inês

Voltei pra casa triste demais

O que Inês me fez não se faz

E no chão bem perto do fogão

encontrei um papel

escrito assim:

“Pode apagar o fogo, Mané, que eu não volto mais”.

(http://goo.gl/BYWps. Acesso: 24/12/2012. Adaptado.)

Tendo-se em vista a linguagem usada, o bilhete reproduzido no texto está inserido em

Nessa tirinha, o contexto retratado tem a intenção de evidenciar que

UM CÃO, APENAS

Subidos, de ânimo leve e descansado passo, os quarenta degraus do jardim — plantas em flor, de cada lado; borboletas incertas; salpicos de luz no granito —, eis-me no patamar. E a meus pés, no áspero capacho de coco, à frescura da cal do pórtico, um cãozinho triste interrompe o seu sono, levanta a cabeça e fita-me. É um triste cãozinho doente, com todo o corpo ferido; gastas, as mechas brancas do pêlo; o olhar dorido e profundo, com esse lustro de lágrima que há nos olhos das pessoas muito idosas. Com um grande esforço acaba de levantar-se. Eu não lhe digo nada; não faço nenhum gesto. Envergonha-me haver interrompido o seu sono. Se ele estava feliz ali, eu não devia ter chegado. Já que lhe faltavam tantas coisas, que ao menos dormisse: também os animais devem esquecer, enquanto dormem... Ele, porém, levantava-se e olhava-me. Levantava-se com a dificuldade dos enfermos graves: acomodando as patas da frente, o resto do corpo, sempre com os olhos em mim, como à espera de uma palavra ou de um gesto. Mas eu não o queria vexar nem oprimir. Gostaria de ocupar-me dele: chamar alguém, pedir-lhe que o examinasse, que receitasse, encaminhá-lo para um tratamento... Mas tudo é longe, meu Deus, tudo é tão longe. E era preciso passar. E ele estava na minha frente inábil, como envergonhado de se achar tão sujo e doente, com o envelhecido olhar numa espécie de súplica. Até o fim da vida guardarei seu olhar no meu coração. Até o fim da vida sentirei esta humana infelicidade de nem sempre poder socorrer, neste complexo mundo dos homens. Então, o triste cãozinho reuniu todas as suas forças, atravessou o patamar, sem nenhuma dúvida sobre o caminho, como se fosse um visitante habitual, e começou a descer as escadas e as suas rampas, com as plantas em flor de cada lado, as borboletas incertas, salpicos de luz no granito, até o limiar da entrada. Passou por entre as grades do portão, prosseguiu para o lado esquerdo, desapareceu. Ele ia descendo como um velhinho andrajoso, esfarrapado, de cabeça baixa, sem firmeza e sem destino. Era, no entanto, uma forma de vida. Uma criatura deste mundo de criaturas inumeráveis. Esteve ao meu alcance; talvez tivesse fome e sede: e eu nada fiz por ele; ameio, apenas, com uma caridade inútil, sem qualquer expressão concreta. Deixei-o partir, assim humilhado, e tão digno, no entanto: como alguém que respeitosamente pede desculpas de ter ocupado um lugar que não era seu. Depois pensei que todos nós somos, um dia, esse cãozinho triste, à sombra de uma porta. E há o dono da casa, e a escada que descemos, e a dignidade final da solidão.

(Cecília Meireles. Janela mágica. São Paulo: Moderna, 1988.)

Entre as palavras e expressões destacadas no texto, estão listadas abaixo aquelas que se referem ao cãozinho:

I. “Eu não lhe digo nada (...)”.

II. “Deixei-o partir, assim humilhado (...)”

III. “(...) um cãozinho triste interrompe seu sono (...)”.

IV. “Até o fim da vida sentirei esta humana infelicidade (...)”.

V. “Gostaria de ocupar-me dele: chamar alguém, pedir-lhe que o examinasse (...)”.

Os trechos em que as expressões negritadas referem-se apenas ao cãozinho são

Considere a concordância nas seguintes frases:

I. A moça usava uma saia verde-clara.

II. Muito-obrigada, disse ela, meia confusa.

III. Eles mesmo foram enganados pela espertinha.

IV. Fomos nós quem pintamos a casa, mas fui quem pintou o muro.

São corretas apenas as frases:

Observe a reprodução de 4 diferentes textos.

Esses gêneros textuais, segundo a ordem numérica acima, podem ser encontrados nos seguintes suportes: