The Instigator
DarkerThanBlack
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
benito_felipe
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Prohibition should be reenacted

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
DarkerThanBlack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 575 times Debate No: 48072
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

DarkerThanBlack

Pro

I believe that the prohibition of alcohol, or just prohibition, should be reenacted in the United States. The debate will last three rounds, excluding the first, which will just be for acceptance of the debate. Let's have a clean debate!
benito_felipe

Con

I REALLY don't think that's a good idea. Look at history...prohibition didn't have much of an effect. If anything, it was a HUGE drain on tax dollars to fight the distribution of alcohol. It kind of reminds me of the "War on Drugs"

If you try to take away alcohol, there's no doubt the people would rebel. And this results in good people ending up behind bars.
Debate Round No. 1
DarkerThanBlack

Pro

Is a transient rebellion really going to justify the deaths of multiple innocent people?

Alcohol is a huge problem, especially in America. However, it doesn't really seem like one. It is actually more of a shock that people don't drink in today's society more than ever. "Sixty-seven percent of U.S. adults drink alcohol, a slight increase over last year and the highest reading recorded since 1985 by one percentage point." (1) Alcohol is now an accustomed mannerism in American society.

This, though, does not mean it is something that is good. Alcohol consumption steals the lives of many Americans, delegating it one of the largest cause of death: "Excessive alcohol use is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States each year, accounting for approximately 79,000 deaths annually resulting in approximately 2.4 million Years of Potential Life Lost." (2) This isn't the only issue however, as violence and medical issues are greatly associated with alcohol. A Harvard School of Public Health research group discovered "Drinking levels are associated with severe criminal behavior, as well. Heavy- and binge-drinking youth were significantly more likely to report shoplifting, drunken driving, drug trafficking, and having been arrested or booked for legal violations." (3) Furthermore "in general, the risk of cancer increases with increasing amounts of alcohol." (3) The complications of alcohol have influenced several American lives, but society often focuses on the exciting allurements of the drink. These degrading effects on the families and health of America all circulate around alcohol and its use. I'll try to hit all of these points in the next two rounds.

There is, of course, the argument that it is not alcohol, but people who do the actions. There is a common argument, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." This is continued when it comes to alcohol; as the phrase is now, "Alcohol doesn't kill people. People kill people," as if to say that pulling a willing pulling a trigger on a gun is equivalent to drinking some beverage, but not when it comes to harming others. However, alcohol is not something that can be remotely compared to guns and other weapons. Guns do not cause of loss of rationale and coordination from the user using it, but that is the case with alcohol. The right to bare arms is a completely different topic, but there is still a case to be made. The effects of alcohol are what causes a person to kill. Here is a short example "A Louisville man is charged with murder after police say he caused a four-vehicle accident that killed one person... Police say Gurley smelled of alcohol and admitted he had been drinking. His Breath Alcohol Content was .295, according to the arrest report. Despite the seriousness of the incident, police say Gurley showed "no remorse" for his alleged crime. The report states that after the accident, a witness saw Gurley step out of his vehicle and demand a light for his cigarette. He never walked to the front of his vehicle to see the damage that was done, or check on the injured, according to the report. Gurley is charged with murder, operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, four counts of wanton endangerment and one count of failing to maintain required motor vehicle insurance." (4) There are many other accounts of drunk drivers and drunk people in general who make big mistakes that can end another's life. These people might actually be good people, they might have good self control, but alcohol is what makes them do what the did. This Gurley guy might have been a great and fun guy, but now he is a murderer.

There is a very thin line between being tipsy and being drunk, and many people don't know their limits. Alcohol creates a altered conscious that is not actually aware at all. A person cannot reason whatsoever in this state of mind, and anything they do is their responsibility, but what makes them do that action, one of which they would never do if they actually if they understood what was about to happen? Alcohol. A simple case can be seen in this video, although I caution you because it has a lot of cursing and some violence.
This drunk guy obviously does not understand the situation, even though his friend is desperately trying to help him. Who knows what would have happened had his friend not been there. That guy could have murdered someone.

If Prohibition can be brought back, even though it did not have a huge effect, with more reinforcement, we can at least save two lives: the drunk and the victim. Is a tiny drink really worth all of these lives?

Later on in the debate, I'll try to hit the topics of violence, death, and medical factors caused by alcohol, just in case you wanted to know.

(1):http://www.gallup.com...
(2) http://benthamscience.com...
(3) Alcolism Sourcebook by Amy L Sutton (you can find one a your local library.
(4) http://www.wdrb.com...
benito_felipe

Con

I think we're both on the same page in one aspect: alcohol in large amounts has a negative effect on humans

I would support banning it, except for one thing: money

It would cost BILLIONS to keep alcohol out the United States, and control its consumption. Not only would it be nearly impossible, but the attempts to prohibit it would be a huge drain on resources.

The cost of maintaining this prohibition would be astronomical.

So yes, I agree that alcohol is dangerous. It would be nice if it was outlawed, but it just isn't realistic.
Debate Round No. 2
DarkerThanBlack

Pro

I agree with your point, and while mine isn't necessarily realistic, I would still say that I fully support increasing alcohol restriction, not just complete prohibition. The United States lost a ton of money during prohibition, and would likely lose around 20-30 billion dollars if Prohibition were reenacted. I still don't believe it stills justifies to say that just because it costs a lot of money, we will allow innocent people to be killed. If we counted all deaths attributed to alcohol in the US annually, it would triple the current leading cause of death in the United States, according to Amy L Sutton. Are all those lives not worth a couple billion dollars? I do agree with you, but I also believe that we could eventually disintegrate alcohol from American society.

In order to save the lives of many Americans, researchers have proffered strategies to reduce alcohol consumption. In Xu Xin and Frank J. Chaloupka"s study, the two found that "Price increases can help reduce the risk for adverse consequences of alcohol consumption and abuse, including drinking and driving, alcohol" involved crimes, liver cirrhosis and other alcohol"related mortality, risky sexual behavior and its consequences, and poor school performance among youth." (5) Potential changes in the marketing of alcohol would alter the future of many Americans. Furthermore, a basic increase in enforcement of alcohol shows beneficial effects: "Effective enforcement of the law can substantially reduce youth alcohol access. In addition, strengthening existing laws to further restrict youth access to alcohol shows promise in reducing underage drinking and related problems." (6) An important member of American society, the young, benefits directly from decreased alcohol consumption. However, a crucial portion of alcohol awareness and limitations lies within the public image of alcohol: "Other strategies such as drinking and driving media campaigns, random alcohol screening, brief interventions delivered in the primary care, school districts, college, or inpatient setting can reduce harmful drinking and the resources expended may be cost effective." (7) As alcohol"s public image deteriorates, a decrease of deaths will reflect the changed representation of alcohol consumption. Many approaches to restrict alcohol usage exhibit very advantageous results for the American people.

Just the advertisement of alcohol can cause future alcohol drinkers. This is definitely something we can stop, and it could slowly take alcohol out of the American system we know today. If you read through this website, it gives a much further in depth look a what just advertising can do. http://www.camy.org...

I am tempted to say that you probably have won this, as I've kind of backed down on the whole "complete Prohibition"
idea. I will still make my own case as to why alcohol should be disintegrated from the American society.

(5) http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...
(6) http://www.lhc.ca.gov...
(7) http://www.camy.org...
benito_felipe

Con

I'm agreeing with a lot of what you're saying. Alcohol is VERY harmful, in a number of ways.

If anything, we should make it less accessible (meaning, bump up the price on it). And let's be realistic here...wealthy people are less likely to abuse their alcohol.

And this makes me think of Europe. They don't have this problem on the scale that we do. It's because children there are taught from a young age to drink responsibly. Perhaps we should improve alcohol education in the US. And possibly lower the drinking age.

Do you have a better alternative? Anything that eventually removes alcohol from our society? Or at least makes it less of a harmful thing
Debate Round No. 3
DarkerThanBlack

Pro

Well, I'm not 100% sure about what could be done, but less advertising, and like you said, have some alcohol education.

I think we have basically just agreed with one another, and, of course, things might take a while to change for the better. So I guess this might as well be the end. Good debate and thank you.
benito_felipe

Con

Wow! I'm so happy! This was a successful debate. I had fun (even though it didn't last very long)
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
I guess if someone wants to self destruct... You let them and prey it doesn't kill them! I agree that more education and less dogmatism and demonization! Why are we so freaking ignorant?
Posted by DarkerThanBlack 2 years ago
DarkerThanBlack
It is not the same, though. Alcohol is considered a depressant, where activity to the nervous center is lowered. This lowers the ability to make rational decisions. I have not made a stance on other drugs, but just alcohol. While we may be able to get people out of jail and "save their life," we can't control how the drug will affect their life. Cocaine and heroin can cause years of recovery needed. If anything, allowing them access of this stuff will just ruin their life once again.
Posted by mymom51 2 years ago
mymom51
Prohibition was the cause of many deaths and the rise of organized crime in America. Without the money made during prohibition the so called "Mob" would never have become a power player in this country.

Many people drink wine, beer and other spirits without causing any problems. Most substances that we have deemed worthy of prohibition cause more problems with the struggle. If we legalized them all, we could save millions of dollars as well as millions of lives just in keeping them out of prison. The money saved could be used for mental health treatment. Portugal legalized all drugs over a decade ago and their crime and drug problems have dropped like a rock. They have a smaller percentage of people smoking marijuana than we have using cocaine, all due to legalizing all drugs and treating the addictions instead of incarceration.

This is not a defense of drugs and alcohol as I do not use either. It is a matter of doing the best thing for the community in general. Putting sick people where they can get help makes infinitely more sense than wasting resources prosecuting them.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
DarkerThanBlackbenito_felipeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro put more effort into this debate! Even though prohibition is a horrible idea. It would have been nice if they put the same attention on the bootlegging of alcohol in the 20's and 30's as they do with marijuana now. Maybe we could have gotten somewhere!
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
DarkerThanBlackbenito_felipeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Much as you both agreed to some of the points Con made at the end of the debate, Pro's argument stand as strongest in the rounds. Con has to do more than simply suggest that there are a number of possible other routes (and do so before R3, for that matter), instead taking an advocacy or simply arguing against Pro's. I simply haven't seen the arguments I need to see for why prohibition causes distinct harms beyond base assertions without much in the way of support. Pro presents enough in the way of harms to support prohibition, and much as it is obvious that there may be some enforcement issues, it's never actually argued by Con. Pro was the only one with sources (most of them solid), and thus he gets those points as well.
Vote Placed by Taylur 2 years ago
Taylur
DarkerThanBlackbenito_felipeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I disagree with Pro, it didn't take long for Con to essentially forfeit in their stance and agree that prohibition would be a good idea. Pro made the better arguments and supported it with sources.
Vote Placed by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
DarkerThanBlackbenito_felipeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro contradicted their own resolution and started agreeing with cons rebuttals then completely abandoned the resolution all together