The Instigator
Inspired
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jvava
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Resolved: Prohibition should be made law again

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 2 votes the winner is...
jvava
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 40295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Inspired

Pro

Prohibition: the legal act of prohibiting the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages. The term can also apply to the periods in the histories of the countries during which the prohibition of alcohol was enforced.

I'm not sure if I totally agree with the Pro position, but I thought this would be an interesting debate. I expect sources as well as an opinion from my opponent. First round is acceptance with main points. The second round is your arguments with points. The third round is your rebuttal.

My main points for Prohibition becoming law once again.

- The number of drunk drivers is increasing.
- The only reason Prohibition was repealed was because the government wanted to increase taxes.
- If Prohibition was enforced, it would have worked.
- The laws for drunk driving are not consistent as it is, and there needs to be a change.
jvava

Con

Hello. I am glad to be debating with you on this subject of prohibition.

Just wanted to make my opening statements in this round.

Alcohol accounts for so many jobs and so much tax revenue in this country, it would be an economical disaster to make it illegal. Another point that I would like to make is that Prohibition was not successful in the 20's with a booming economy and a more conservative populace. How could we enforce it in a nation with an unstable economy and a populace that is much more liberal than 90 years ago?

I am going to make many more points. This is just an opening statement.

Looking forward to a very controversial debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Inspired

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.

The number of drunk drivers is increasing

"Drunk driving showed a long, slow decline between 1993 and 1997, from 123 million incidents a year to 116 million. But according to a new national survey, from 1997 to 1999 that increased 37 percent to 159 million and that rate continued in 2002.The survey, published in the May 2005 issue of theAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine, also found that four out of five episodes of alcohol-impaired driving were reported by people who also reported binge drinking, defined as consuming five or more drinks or more than one occasion."

http://alcoholism.about.com...

This issue in itself calls for the need to change. If Americans cannot control themselves while under the influence, they present a danger to the general public. In a campaign address in Sea Gift, New Jersey on August 27, 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt made this comment on Prohibition,

"It is increasingly apparent that the intemperate use of intoxicants has no place in this new mechanized civilization of ours. In our industry, in our recreation, on our highways, a drunken man is more than an objectionable companion, he is a peril to the rest of us. The hand that controls the machinery of our factories, that holds the steering wheel of our automobiles, and the brains that guide the course of finance and industry, should alike be free from the effects of over-indulgence in alcohol."

The only reason Prohibition was repealed was because the government wanted to increase taxes


When Prohibition was repealed, it became a severe problem immediately. My opponent has brought up the fair point that it would be an economical disaster to make alcohol illegal because of tax revenue and jobs. I ask the question, why not simply raise the tax in other areas? For example in tobacco? This would cause people to avoid cigarettes as well which would be beneficial to the health of American citizens. There are also numerous areas in which taxes could be increased in small amounts and make up for the New Prohibition. If the states truly supported the issue, as they did before, it would happen.

If Prohibition was enforced, it would have worked

I ask my opponent how was Prohibition not successful in the 20's? I answer it with one word, inefficiency. The Prohibition Bureau had only about 3,000 agents to control illegal liquor traffic, and some of these were inept or unethical. Therefore many people took advantage of this fact. If the New Prohibition was enforced with governmental support, I have no doubt it would work. Could you imagine? Only 3,000 agents to control the nationwide problem of speak-easies, moonshiners, bootlegging, etc. Of course it wasn't effective.

The laws for drunk driving are not consistent as it is, and there needs to be a change

The punishment for drunk driving depends greatly on many factors such as how much the person was drunk at the time, if they were caught, damages done, etc. Most drunk drivers get off easy. Some, yes, are put into prison temporarily, but soon they are free to go to cause more damage. People who drive drunk simply don't care enough about the safety of others. Prohibition would take alcohol off the shelves and drop the number of drunk drivers considerably.

You may ask, how could we enforce it in a nation with an unstable economy and a populace that is much more liberal? That is the question. But one step at a time. The first issue is to bring these facts into public attention and make people aware of the dangers of alchohol. Thank you for reading and debating. I truly enjoy researching and debating this topic.
jvava

Con

Making Alcohol Illegal Increases Drunk Driving.

If we make alcohol illegal, then folks that consume it illegally must go out to a speakeasy. They will eventually return home, drunk.

Making alcohol illegal will not decrease drunk driving rates - it will increase those statistics. At least now, people are free to drink alcohol at home, free of driving, or are allowed to ask someone to drive them home - like a manager.

What I am getting at is that making alcohol illegal will put more people on the streets, drunk, because they must go out of their home in search of it.

Abuse of rights.

"The hand that controls the machinery of our factories, that holds the steering wheel of our automobiles, and the brains that guide the course of finance and industry, should alike be free from the effects of over-indulgence in alcohol."

This is a part of the statement that FDR made. I want to point out a part - where he says "should alike be free from the effects of over-indulgence in alcohol."

How about those that consume a moderate amount of alcohol? What about those that don't abuse their right to drink?

"According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,1 moderate alcohol consumption is defined as having up to 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men."

This is pulled from a CDC article about alcohol - http://www.cdc.gov....

Now, obviously, this is the majority of people. A majority of people consume an average amount of alcohol, or no alcohol at all. Should we take away their rights just because others abuse theirs? No. It is basically the same as banning knifes because some, but not all, abuse their rights to own knifes and hurt themselves or others.

Banning alcohol is an abuse of rights - should we take away the rights of those that drink responsibly and keep it under control? No.

Economic Disaster.

Banning alcohol would be an economic disaster. The alcohol industry makes billions each year. The tobacco industry also makes a quite a bit as well:

"The tobacco industry consists of several different companies, all of which make
different amounts of money. The highest ranking tobacco company in the Fortune
500, Philip Morris International, reports a yearly revenue of $27,208,000,000.
The second-highest ranking tobacco company, Altria Group, makes $16,892,000,000
of revenue each year."

Pulled from http://www.ask.com....

Now, how much exactly do you plan to tax this industry? Because if you take it too high, it will collapse as well - resulting in two huge industries falling. Do you realize how many people would loose their jobs - and turn to illegal alcohol? These people working in factories or in shipping yards or in the offices would loose their jobs.

People turn to alcohol for relief. Not only would banning alcohol and taxing tobacco result into two huge industries collapsing and the economy going into ruins, but it would result in lots of unemployed people turning to now illegal alcohol.

It's a never-ending cycle.

Prohibition didn't work in times of success.

The policy of the 20's was inefficient - but let me remind you that the 20's were a time of economic success for America and other countries. Stocks were soaring sky-high. It was a great time for the economy.

Yet, the policy of prohibition wasn't fully enforced in good times - how would we pay for it in times of a poor economy like the one today? If the riches of the 1920's couldn't afford to end the illegal sale of alcohol, how could we manage it now?

With two industries now collapsing and an expensive government program to make sure one of these industries isn't selling anything, what would that do to tax rates in this country? How could we afford these burdens?

And with the additional taxes, companies would have to let folks go. People going through tough times, such as those who are unemployed, tend to rely on alcohol to carry them through the struggles. More people drinking illegal alcohol.

It just doesn't work.

*Some* health benefits.

Drinking alcohol in moderation can offer some health benefits. These include:


    • Reduce your risk of developing heart disease
    • Reduce your risk of dying of a heart attack
    • Possibly reduce your risk of strokes, particularly ischemic strokes
    • Lower your risk of gallstones
    • Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes



I pulled this off of http://www.mayoclinic.com....

What I'm saying is that alcohol in moderation is not bad, and in fact can offer some health benefits.

"The first issue is to bring these facts into public attention and make people aware of the dangers of alcohol."

This is a statement you made.

We have been telling the public the effects and dangers of alcohol - through the Surgeon's General, through the D.A.R.E program, and other such measures. My question is: what more do you have in mind?

What we should be teaching the public is that alcohol is okay, at least for your health, in moderation.

My stance is that making alcohol illegal will only increase drunk driving rates because people will have to go out in search for it. Banning alcohol is an abuse of rights for those that handle their rights responsibly. We should be stricter on those that abuse their rights, but we should not limit the rights of those who are responsible. Banning alcohol would bring finical ruin - not only for the alcohol industry, but also the tobacco industry, as you suggested an additional tax, and the national economy as a whole. With more people out of work, they will turn to illegal alcohol. Prohibition didn't work in times when the US had a booming economy - how would it work now? You suggested we do it in steps; yet, the plan as whole would still cost us. Drinking in moderation does bring some potential health benefits. That's what we should make aware to the American people - that alcohol is okay in moderation. This would keep the alcohol industry stable and not cause finical ruin.

I like debating this topic as well. May the voters decide who eventually wins.
Debate Round No. 2
Inspired

Pro

I also enjoy debating this topic, sir. Thank you.

You stated that your main stance is that banning alcohol will only increase drunk driving rates because people will have to go out in search for it, and also it should not be taken away from those that drink responsibly. You also mentioned that alcohol has health benefits, which I whole-heartedly agree with.

I apologize, I should have defined alcohol at the beginning of the debate and what exceptions there might be, that is my fault. I should have stated that alcohol for medicinal purposes is acceptable.

The CDC article you mentioned stated that 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men is considered moderate. I ask you, what is considered 1 drink? A tankard? A shot glass? Many people have different standards when it comes to size, and end up on the floor as a result.

"A majority of people consume an average amount of alcohol, or no alcohol at all."

You did not attach a source to this, but if it is true it only supports my argument. If many people drink moderate to no alcohol, most people wouldn't miss alcohol once it would be illegal, thus making your argument for more drunk drivers void.

"It is basically the same as banning knifes because some, but not all, abuse their rights to own knifes and hurt themselves or others."

Knives, in my opinion, cannot be compared to alcohol. For one thing, knives have far more purposes than alchohol. Also, banning knives would be next to impossible to enforce. Practically anything short of a blunt stick would be considered a knife. I fail to see how that compares.


"What I am getting at is that making alcohol illegal will put more people on the streets, drunk, because they must go out of their home in search of it."

This goes back to my argument for enforcement. If we had more than 3,000 agents nationwide, and the government truly cared about enforcing new prohibition, those numbers would not be as high as you might think. Although I wouldn't know since this is only a prediction on what might happen. The same laws that apply to drunk drivers today would still apply, if not be even more strict. That would discourage drunk driving considerably in my opinion.


"Banning alcohol would be an economic disaster. The alcohol industry makes billions each year. The tobacco industry also makes a quite a bit as well: "

You seem to have the idea that banning alcohol would bring the country to a stand still, yet, sir, you have already stated that a majority of people consume little to no alcohol. This means that consumer taxing would not be that high to begin with. Tobacco on the other hand I can see as a considerable tax source. How many people do you see smoking on a day to day basis? And yet it kills many Americans. I won't quote the statistics, but we all know the numbers suffering and dying from lung cancer is far greater than we would care to know about. Why not raise the tax on tobacco and end the problem? If anything, this would drop the number of those with lung cancer and give hospitals the chance to treat others rather than those who abuse their bodies. If anything, I ask how tobacco companies can justify the production of tobacco to begin with since it holds zero health benefits.


"Now, how much exactly do you plan to tax this industry? Because if you take it too high, it will collapse as well - resulting in two huge industries falling."

I'm not an economist, but in short taxing done in moderation and an increase in other sources would make up for the absence of alcohol.

"Yet, the policy of prohibition wasn't fully enforced in good times - how would we pay for it in times of a poor economy like the one today? If the riches of the 1920's couldn't afford to end the illegal sale of alcohol, how could we manage it now?"

This goes back to those 3000 nationwide agents and enforcement. The riches of the 1920s had nothing to do with it. It was simply the number of those enforcers that weren't doing the job to begin with. If anything, prohibition mended families that were suffering from alcoholics and brought together broken homes. I believe the benefits would far outweight the cost involved.

Alcohol does have health benefits, but people can live long happy productive lives without it. The old saying goes, eat right, stay fit, die anyway. I would rather stay away from the consumption of alcohol than say it is good for my health and become an addict. Also, the number of those suffering from "alcoholism" would drop to zero.

Prohibition did work. It simply wasn't put into effect in the right way.


jvava

Con

"I should have stated that alcohol for medicinal purposes is acceptable."

You make it sound as if alcohol can be used as a form of medicine. My argument is not that alcohol can be used as a medicine, but that drinking it moderately can come with some small benefits.

Simply, my stance is summed up in one word: moderation. If used in moderation, then alcohol can comes with some benefits.

"Many people have different standards when it comes to size, and end up on the floor as a result."

People end up on the floor as a result of overuse of alcohol. I have stated quite clearly that I support the use of alcohol in moderation.

Should we limit the rights of the responsible just because some abuse their rights to drink? No.

"If many people drink moderate to no alcohol, most people wouldn't miss alcohol once it would be illegal, thus making your argument for more drunk drivers void. "

A person can love beer, wine, liquor, etc. without becoming an alcoholic. A man or woman may love a drink, but drink in moderation. This is not to say that they will miss the drink - they may miss it very much. So your argument stating that those who drink alcohol in moderation will not miss it once it is banned is largely false.

Second, my point about drunk drivers is a whole other argument.

Under the current system, alcoholics are free to drink to at home or ask a manager in a restaurant to drive them home. Under a Prohibition system, however, alcoholics must go to illegal speakeasies and other such bars in search of a drink. They will become drunk, and must return home.

My point is that, currently, alcoholics can drink in an area where they don't have to drive home. But, under Prohibition, alcoholics would have to go out, on the streets, in search of alcohol. There is no denying, that even in the best of systems, some alcohol would still remain or be smuggled in this nation.

Marijuana is illegal but still is used by quite a few people. Meth is illegal but is still used by a quite a few people. Alcohol would be illegal, but quite a few people would still drink because of the formation of black markets.

"Knives, in my opinion, cannot be compared to alcohol. For one thing, knives have far more purposes than alcohol. Also, banning knives would be next to impossible to enforce. Practically anything short of a blunt stick would be considered a knife. I fail to see how that compares."

This was just an example. I wanted to show how silly it is to limit the rights of of responsible citizens because a few abuse their rights.

You say that knives have far more purposed than alcohol - true, but alcohol is a very lucrative industry. I am simply trying to point out that, while knives have more conventional purposes, the alcohol industry has a quite few purposes in the economy.

"If we had more than 3,000 agents nationwide, and the government truly cared about enforcing new prohibition, those numbers would not be as high as you might think. Although I wouldn't know since this is only a prediction on what might happen."

Even in the best of situations, agents could never completely banish alcohol. We spent millions, billions, on the War on Drugs, and people still smoked and drank and did whatever else. Our police force keeps a careful eye on the use of marijuana and other such drugs, yet it is still heavily prevalent in society.

And, alcohol is much more used than drugs such as weed. It would impossible to completely banish it; and with this small amount, a black market would form, and the want would increase for alcohol. Folks would pay more for it - that it why weed is so expensive.

It is a prediction, too - you cannot base your entire stance on it.

No matter how many agents are in working and how many laws are put into place, alcohol cannot be banished. Making alcohol illegal would cause the opposite to occur - a black market would form, and the want and price for alcohol would increase.

"You seem to have the idea that banning alcohol would bring the country to a stand still, yet, sir, you have already stated that a majority of people consume little to no alcohol."

I did not say little to no alcohol. I said a moderate amount or no alcohol. And just because I made this statement does not invalidate the fact that the alcohol industry generates "more than $65 billion a year in revenue and spends more than $1 billion a year on advertising." (http://www.health20-20.org...)

Also, just to confirm this fact - "About a third of Americans choose not to drink at all, a third drink moderately, and about a third drink regularly. Ten percent of the drinking-age population consumes over 60 percent of the alcohol."

Pulled from that website.

You cannot deny that the alcohol industry makes lots of money, and its collapse could result in finical troubles.

"Tobacco on the other hand I can see as a considerable tax source."

"The tobacco industry consists of several different companies, all of which make
different amounts of money. The highest ranking tobacco company in the Fortune
500, Philip Morris International, reports a yearly revenue of $27,208,000,000.
The second-highest ranking tobacco company, Altria Group, makes $16,892,000,000
of revenue each year."

Pulled from http://www.ask.com.......

Both industries are important to our economy. Just because the tobacco industry makes more does not mean that the billions that the alcohol industry makes it worth nothing. Both are important to our economy, and provide jobs; their ruin could ruin the economy.

"If anything, prohibition mended families that were suffering from alcoholics and brought together broken homes. I believe the benefits would far outweigh the cost involved."

No, alcoholics frequented speakeasies. Just because it was illegal doesn't mean they couldn't get it.

And that is what would occur today, if it were enforced. Alcohol cannot be banished entirely, and the option of smuggling it in still exists. A black market would form. That is what has happened to drugs such as marijuana and meth. And these drugs have been under heavy scrutiny by the government and the police, but still continue to be heavily prevalent in society.

"Alcohol does have health benefits, but people can live long happy productive lives without it."

I agree - however, my argument was that alcohol is moderation is not bad for you, that it can offer some potential health benefits.

"I would rather stay away from the consumption of alcohol than say it is good for my health and become an addict."

People handle things in different ways. While some can be responsible with alcohol, some can not.

My argument proves this. We should protect the rights of those who handle them responsibly. Those who cannot hold them responsibly are the ones we should punish - not the ones who do no wrong.

"Also, the number of those suffering from "alcoholism" would drop to zero."

Marijuana is illegal. Many people are addicted to it. Meth is illegal. Many people are addicted to it.

Making alcohol illegal will not drop the number of alcoholics. It will simply set up a black market, where the price is determined by the want of the drug.

Voters - vote for the debater which offered the more statistics. Vote for the debater which offered fact rather than opinion. Vote for the debater who's argument is not based on emotion but rather fact. Vote for the debater which offered the more logiical, and sensible, argument.

Best of luck to my opponent. May the voters decide who ultimelty won.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
InspiredjvavaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's hard to say for sure. But I give the 3 points to con simply for stating the consequences of making Prohibition a law again. But both used reliable sources so it's hard to say.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
InspiredjvavaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con largely missed the obvious argument: alcohol is so culturally ingrained in our society that a ban would have no chance of success. con did say that a black market would develop, which is surely an understatement, and that Pro needed to show that enforcement would be effective. Pro had the burden to prove that effective enforcement was practical, and given the lack of success with far less socially-acceptable drugs Pro would have to made a very good case -- which he did not. In order to realize the claimed benefits, Pro would needed to make the case for practical effective enforcement and his failure to do so resulted in losing arguments. Possibly there is some country that has banned alcohol that could provide data ... or perhaps not. Con won the economic argument. There is also a personal freedom argument untouched by either side. Another point is that alcohol is a food as well as a drug, so that people enjoy the flavor, especially wine, more than the drug effects.