Alcohols use as a socially acceptbale narcotic should be banned forthwith

I do believe however, that my opponent has not proven their position as multiple assumptions are made. I would like to lay out these assumptions before I reiterate my case. Assumptions My opponent has assumed that grape farmers will commit suicide as they will suffer immensely. However, this dismisses the fact that grapes are not only used for wines, but also as table food and in dried fruit/jam. Additionally, to make this jump to the case in India is a false argument as the India case has a lot to do with over lending from dubious money lenders and the opening of markets to global competition. This comparison is a false analogy as it has nothing to do with their crops not having use, it has to do with crops not been able to be sold. Again my opponent assumes the disposable income will be used to buy illegal alcohol. This could be valid if my opponent can refute my arguments made for a stronger more efficient police forces and dropping crime rates. In fact my opponent needs to show that police are becoming more inefficient and the crime rate is growing which would be counter to the evidence presented so far in this debate. Regarding whether Marijuana users tell the truth. I think this makes sense as how would the statistics be gathered if they did not? My opponent has only been able to make an assumption that users will not tell the truth. In the last round my opponent asks me to expand on the point of what do I mean by more police activity. This means a more efficient police forces which translates into a drop in crime as the statistics provided show. This also means that the correlation to Prohibition and organized crime is flawed. In the wold today as I pointed out in the previous round crime is decreasing, violent crime is decreasing and organized crime is decreasing. There is no rational reason to expect an increase in crime with the prohibition of alcohol. Regarding the comment by my opponent that “perhaps we should ban burgers and french fries because of the growing obesity problem”, perhaps we can debate that at another point in the future as this is not the topic under debate at present. Lastly, my opponent creates an analogy between extremists in Islam and Christianity as being the same as alcoholics or alcohol abusers. I do not think this analogy is justified as religion is a psychological issue and alcoholism/dependence/abuse is a genetic issue. As such this analogy fails to make its impact and I would like voters to remember that in their decision and not be swayed by an emotional plea. My Case While my opponent likes to draw parallels between Prohibition and organized crime/illegal alcohol as the only outcome of banning of alcohol, he has no addressed any of the arguments which I have presented in both my previous rounds. For example he has not adressed the fact that there are factors that are beyond the control of most people that drive them into alcoholism and we should protect them. This means these people are not displaying free will (free choice) as my opponent would have you believe. In fact, my opponent refuses to consider that alcohol in fact has dramatic effects not just on a personal level but a large societal impact. This impact is important to consider when I have shown using various studies that alcohol has been shown to be more harmful than both heroin and cocaine. Additionally, I have shown that alcohols lethal dosage is lower than that for heroin, cocaine and Marijuana. My opponent just brushes this off by saying “but alcohol is good for you …. It may reduce your chance of getting diabetes …. .. it reduces your chance of stroke…. .it reduces the development of heart disease. . ” which is fine but as I said in the opening statement this debate excludes the prohibition of alcohol in research and medical related fields. Additionally, my opponent has to preface his statement by saying alcohol “in moderation” which is a problem as I have pointed out as some people are unable to drink alcohol in moderation. Its these situations of not drinking in moderation which create the societal and personal problems I have explained. My opponent has also dropped my argument against sin tax and equality, maybe it will get addressed in the last round. In closing when my opponent says “Just because some people who drink alcohol become drunk drivers and abusers and at times kill people, does not mean that prohibition is the best solution. ” Then my opponent surely has to push for the legalization of any substance that people want to use even if we know said substance is extremely harmful as only “some” people will abuse it. This is absurd, as a society we are meant to care not only for society in general but also individuals.