Late studies have proved that alcohol is more harmful than any other drug, on both the users and society. So banning the sale and consumption of alcohol is definitely going to have positive consequences. It is just a matter of time for people to get used to it. Http://www.Theguardian.Com/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack
While few people possess the ability to have two beers and stop lets be honest with ourselves most of us dont! Alcohol is proven to be the third leading cause of death behind smoking cigarettes and malnutrition about 40,000 innocent people are killed a year in alcohol related car accidents the other about 30,000 more from health issues and still there are who think there isnt a problem? Thats 70,000 maybe more who knows how the statistics are now and while there are plenty of arrogant people who refuse to acknowledge they have a problem if anything over 2 to 4 beverages is considered a problem then we are all doomed! In conclusion I think serious reform should be considered regarding alcohol sale not prohibiting it completely as that may be disastrous to our society but increased alcohol taxes is obviously not enough maybe consider Australias approach where they get stamped for every drink at social establishments and after 3 stamps your done or limit sales of hard liquor period but something must be done because our current approach is obviously a failure considering the appalling statistics!
The invention and discovery of alcohol was probably one of the worst in the world. The problem with alcohol, and not other drugs, is that it is legal to consume (if the consumer is above the age of 21 in the U.S.). The accessibility and underage consumption of alcohol is out of hand. Many crimes can be attributed to alcohol consumption. The prohibition of alcohol would be a good thing. The only problem with alcohol prohibition is the possibility of illegal trafficking of the prohibited alcohol.
Yes I agree that the governments should prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol in an effort to fight crime. When people drink or consume alcohol, they lose their mind and they are not aware of what's right or wrong and finally they commit crime. Alcohol is one of the causes of crime in the world. Sale and consumption of alcohol should be prohibited in an effort to fight crime.
Prohibiting the use of alcohol is an important tool for fighting crime because those prohibitions can help to curtail all of the negative behavior that accompanies excessive drinking. The negative behavior that accompanies being under the influence of alcohol is well documented. It is a documented fact that drinking alcohol increases aggressive behavior, removes inhibitions, and impairs judgment. All things that can lead to crime and violence.
Even if the consumption and sale of alcohol was prohibited, there would be crime. Even if it was prohibited, it would still occur. It was prohibited in the 1920's, and it was still purchased and consumed, even if not legally. Plenty of crimes are committed without the influence of alcohol. I believe that prohibition of alcohol may even make things worse, rather than helping with the crime situation.
The government would be fools to prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol. That would be an outright threat to national security. We have so many limitations on us already, taking that away would create chaos. Plus, I doubt the lobby of alcohol would allow it. It would increase crime, not fight it. They should, however, be more strict with drunk driving, and local governments, no matter how small, have to step up with after-bar-hours public transportation systems and ideas.
The government has interceded before with the sale and consumption of alcohol, with disastrous results. The National Prohibition Act of 1919 only served to foster a boom in organized crime, which revolved primarily around the illegal production, transportation, sale and consumption of alcohol. Currently, the majority of crimes committed as a result of the sale and consumption of alcohol revolve around selling to minors and car accidents where the driver's blood alcohol content is over the legal limit. The laws are in place to protect the public from these crimes. However, the enforcement of the law is lax. Only when the punishment for the crime is harsh enough to prevent the crime will the laws be followed more closely.
I do not believe the government should have the ability to prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol. People should be allowed to make their own decisions, but this does not mean they are not to be held accountable for their actions. If someone breaks the law while under the influence, they should still be punished; however, simply prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol will do nothing to fight crime.
Prohibiting alcohol by the government will not contribute to fighting crime. I feel that would bring about even more crime. During the prohibition era, people found ways to drink alcoholic beverages, regardless of the law, and people will resort to other crimes just to get the alcohol. There are many people who use alcohol responsibly, and they shouldn't be penalized due to those who use poor judgment while drinking. I am also against the ban because of the effect it would have on our economy. The alcohol industry provides millions of jobs for people, and those citizens would suffer with the loss of these jobs.
The banning of alcohol during the 1920's in the era known as Prohibition was a failure. People still drank alcohol and it led to a huge underground criminal movement smuggling in liquor and selling it illegally. Instead of the government reaping benefits in the form of taxes on alcohol and controlling the purity of the substance, only the criminals made money.
Changing things now won't make a difference. People are too used to being allowed to obtain alcohol that they would become irrational trying to obtain it when it is made illegal. Just look at the actions people took to obtain it during the 1920s.
If the government prohibits the sale of alcohol, people will go back to the days of moonshine and start making their own alcohol. The issue is making people take responsibility for their own actions and know when enough is enough. Being overweight is a very big problem in this country, but controlling alcohol would be like controlling food. People have to learn to know when to stop.
Businesses would be affected by the prohibition of sale of alcohol. Yes, alcohol does result in some horrendous fatal accidents, but the effort it would take to ban alcohol is wasted. In order to fight crime, efforts need to be geared more towards, the ban on guns and the influence of gangs. They run rampant in LA and take over neighborhoods. That is the real problem, not someone wanting to buy a 6 pack.
We know from history the effects of prohibition. It would be silly to repeat our mistakes. Prohibition has been proven to be ineffective. Encouraging moderation is the way forward.
There is no solid evidence that prohibiting the sale and consumption of liquor would have a positive effect on society and lower crime. If anything, the situation would then become similar to the situation we face with marijuana. People who want to drink alcohol socially will be made to feel like criminals or law-breakers for no reason. The small number of people who commit crimes while drunk should be monitored or jailed but regular people should be able to consume as much as they feel is safe.
History has shown that one of the best ways for the government to create the conditions for criminal activity is to make something that people want illegal. This, of course, is what happened during the great experiment with Prohibition during the 1920s. America's porous and lengthy borders easily allowed alcohol to enter the country forcing the police fought a never ending battle to enforce the law. The same is true today, of course, with our war against drugs. So putting aside whether or not this is effective social policy in the first place, I oppose such a ban because it is simply not enforceable.
Anyone remotely familiar with American history knows that there was once a constitutional amendment that prohibited the production and purchase of alcohol. During this era, criminal organizations stepped in to meet the demand. Much violence resulted, but few people actually reduced consumption. The constitutional amendment was later repealed for these reasons. This idea is one that has already been tried, and there is empirical, real-world evidence that this is a bad one.
As a general view, I see that a lot of crimes are not that of being drunk. Some are, but there are a greater quantity of larger crimes that are not. Plus, if it is regulated, then people will just start fighting it by 'breaking the law'. It will be become the next drug market if regulations were to come into effect.
The prohibition of alcohol proved to be a complete failure in the early 20th Century for reasons that would apply again if the government were to attempt it again as a way to fight crime. The vast resources required to adequately enforce alcohol prohibition were unavailable to the government in the 1920s, and would be unavailable today. Prohibition would again result in the expansion of criminal enterprises involved in the illicit business, which would thus increase, and not reduce crime.