Prohibition (18th Amendment)

First, thanks to my opponent for the acceptance, prompt argument, cleverity, and respect. I look forward to the aftermath, and hope I may adapt and adopt some of your perspectives. 1) Although my opponent is indeed correct that consumption was not banned by the 18th Amendment, the sole purpose of the bill was to slowly disband people from consuming. The government did not force the sacrifice of already purchased alcohol, as this would have been a violation of the 4th Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure). Doing such a thing as taking away the alcohol would be similar to taking candy from a child. The 18th Amendment stated: After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. -By banning manufacturing, you allow now more alcohol to be produced, there weaning people away from the possibility of consumption. -By banning sale, you illegalize the possibility of sales from any remaining alcohol produced prior. -By banning transportation, the simple giving, sharing, or any other notion was banned, therefore allowing no possibility of consumption. Conclusively, you can pick apart the official clause, however, it is obvious that the bill was intended to ban consumption, all while attempting to avoid violating the 4th Amendment. 2) In refute to my opponents objection pertaining to his/her point on Prohibition-similar laws nationwide. While this is true to a certain degree, lets not forget the differing circumstances. Prior to the 18th Amendment, many solitaire COUNTIES has enacted "dry laws". As we can all tell, there is a significant difference between a country and a whole nation. Additionally, in the situations in which states as a whole voted to enact such laws, this was a states choice. Again, looking back to the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment protects powers of the individual states. These states that voted in favor of such laws had their sole right to do so. However, the nation theoretically violated the 10th Amendment by enacting the 18th Amendment. Even to this day, most laws pertaining to alcohol are left to the state, and often to individual counties, as well. 3) In reference to the decreased consumption per gallon after initiation, this was only partially true. Alcohol consumption did indeed drop tremendously the first year of the law (1921), however, from 1922-, consumption increased dramatically, to levels eventually higher than prior to 1921. (Source: http://www.pulpedu.com... ) 4) Although the stats my opponent brings to the table when it comes to the budget, the spending seems minimal. However, this spending by multiple agencies increasing in size, leading to problem we are often faced upon today; government control. The Customs Agency, for instance, increased overall employment by over 120%. The budget of the Coast Guard lept over 500%, and increased employment by over 100%. This is left to your personal views on government involvement. In my opinion: less government, happy me. 5) Alcohol poisoning solely increased during this time due to the lack of regulated and safe sources of alcohol. Regardless of your source, if you want alcohol, you will get it. Why abolish the legality of something, when you can rather regulate its safety, while simultaneously taxing the hell out of it? If the government wants control, it damn well be in order to protect the better good of the people; and deregulating alcohol left thousands dead. 6) The issue of obtainability is unstatistical on both ends. Useless to argue. 7) Although the crime rate prior to alcohol use was increasing, the ironic part was the steady decline after the revocation of the 18th Amendment. Soon after the revocation, crime, especially organized crime, suffered dramatic downfall. (Souce: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1975), part 1, p. 414.) 8) In my arguments, I hate to mention personal voice. However, the time seems right. Let me make this clear to the reader and my counterpart: I do not drink, nor have I ever consumed a full alcoholic beverage. I. myself, just advocate for what this country was founded on; freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless of risks, what right does my neighbor have to tell me what I can drink? If drinking makes me happy, and you take that away from me, that violates the constitution. Additionally, if a group does, as a majority, wish to ban alcohol, let it be done on more minimal, smaller scales. As it mainly is today, let it be a country ruling. The nation is too different throughout to set one rule for everyone. Lastly, I am beyond against the correlation of church and state. However, as displeasing as it is, we are directly connected to Christianity. The Bible itself mentions alcoholic beverages multiple times, allowing the consumption. Therefore, if we are going to relate to Christianity, it only makes sense to make alcohol legal. Again, I thank my opponent. I respect you and your clever perspectives.