Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

My opponent first states that alcohol is an economic necessity because it is heavily taxed. This contention could apply to absolutely anything; if we were to legalize cocaine and heavily tax it, should it be impossible to prohibit it again in the future because the tax is so high? A harmful substance is a harmful substance, period, and this tax money can easily come from other sources. Even if Americans themselves must be taxed, the ends justify the means. In my opponent's next contention, he fails to provide any solid numerical data to support this point. Thus, we cannot weigh this argument in today's debate. My opponent begins his rebuttal by making a comparing the abuse of alcohol to a luxurious mansion. If mansions had the same effects that alcohol did, then my opponent's analogy would be applicable. However, whether it be an alcohol-related accident or a drunken father beating his wife and children, the abuse of alcohol has devastating effects. A more applicable analogy would be to compare alcohol to cocaine or meth; two drugs that aren't "legitimate necessities" and thus are illegal because of the harms they impose. My opponent responds to my second contention by referring to the Prohibition. However, the conditions of the Prohibition Era no longer exist. A large factor behind the failure of the Prohibition was widespread corruption in local police. It was so extreme that "Al Capone's Chicago organization reportedly… had half the city's police on its payroll." [1] Fugitives such as Al Capone would not have been able to rise to power without corrupt law enforcement on their side. Such corruption is not possible today. If it were, then corrupt police would have already bought into drug wars – and they haven't. With such a large factor in the failure of the Prohibition missing, it's more than safe to assume that a 21st century Prohibition would be a success. We must keep in mind that drunk driving takes a life every 15 minutes, and alcoholics inflict harm on others ever more frequently. A new Prohibition would result in a sharp drop in both; a clear reason to affirm. My opponent wrongly states that I said the ban on drugs in the US has worked. I quote from my case, the Prohibition "won't be a perfect system; people will get away with sneaking [alcohol] into the US, producing it at home, and abusing it, but like drug-abusers, these incidents will be both rare and obvious." My opponent then remarks that during the Prohibition, 1 million gallons of alcohol were brought into the nation illegally. Keep in mind my point about the current condition in America. National security is at an all time high; it's nigh impossible to sneak large amounts of alcohol as it was during the 20s. And unlike a marijuana plant, large-scale production of alcohol would be impossible to disguise. My opponent's response to my fourth contention ignores the fact that illegal alcohol use will dissipate. Let's compare this to how marijuana use has dissipated over the past several decades. During the 60s, "use of [marijuana] became widespread in the white upper middle class". [2] Marijuana use today doesn't come close to rivaling its use in the 60s. Data provided by the Office of National Drug Policy states that in 1979, 37.8% of 12–17 year olds had reported any illicit drug use. In 2001, this number declined to 28.4%. However in 1979, 11.8% adults over the age of 35 had reported any drug use. In 2010, that number rose to 38.4%. [3] Why? Because the "marijuana-generation" of the 60s had hit age 35; the current generation doesn't use the drug nearly as much as the previous one, and this trend will clearly continue. Likewise, the number of individuals using alcohol will gradually decrease after a new Prohibition. Recently, in my hometown of Almaden, an 18-year-old was killed in an alcohol-related accident. The driver of the vehicle was drunk; the vehicle hit a light pole and burst into flames. The driver ran out of the vehicle, and in his drunken stupor was found by authorities hiding a few hundred yards away. The 18-year-old passenger was stuck in the car and burned to his death. Family members of the victim stated that "he was an only child, and [his] death has devastated his parents." She said, "They are going through so much pain." [4] The only valid impact my opponent has given you is that a high tax exists on alcohol; an impact which has been refuted by the fact that this money can easily stem from other sources. But when we look at the turmoil Almaden residents are in now, turmoil that is mirrored by tens of thousands around the nation, we must ask ourselves; is this the price we must pay so that we can ensure a high tax remains in place? [1]http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... [2]http://www.a1b2c3.com... [3]http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... [4]http://www.mercurynews.com....