Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

Neg Voters: 1. Economy Right off the bat, Pro concedes that a Pro vote means $5.6 BILLION more in taxes. Every year for the foreseeable future. Pro states that the money can come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the salaries of hardworking Americans. If you don't like raising taxes, especially during a recession, you should vote Con. Next, a Pro vote means losing 3.9 million jobs, $89 billion in wages, and $390 billion in GDP. Pro claims prohibition "wouldn't be an overnight change," but it is. One day alcohol is legal so 3.9 million Americans have jobs; the next day alcohol is illegal so no more jobs. It's that simple. Pro also claims that the alcohol industry "would turn to other beverage industries to stay afloat." This makes absolutely NO sense. When your profession is brewing beer, how can you switch to making soda and expect to make profit when competing with the other 5000 new soda companies that are ex-breweries? The answer is you cannot. Banning alcohol means losing 3.9 million jobs, $89 billion in wages, and $390 billion in GDP. That's a simple fact. Third, a Pro vote means spending an additional $1 trillion+ on a War on Alcohol, just as we are spending right now on the War on Drugs. Pro argues that I do not specify how much money the US is actually spending in the US and gives the example of the drug wars in Mexico. There are multiple problems. (1) The resolution asks should alcohol be prohibited in the United States. Since the consequences of a ban include a War on Alcohol, just like the consequences of a ban on drugs includes the War on Drugs, all the money the US federal government spends on the War on Drugs should be counted. (2) The Mexico Drug war, which is by far the largest foreign consumer of the War on Drugs budget, costs $1.4 billion [1]. That means the US has spent over $990 billion in the US to fuel the War on Drugs. Keep in mind, Pro tries to muddle up my contention by talking about Prohibition under economy. Nowhere do I talk about a "War on Alcohol that will mirror the conditions of 1920s Prohibition-era." The War on Alcohol will be just like the War on Drugs that's happening right here, right now. 2. Alcohol Consumption I asked for ANY evidence that alcohol consumption will decrease after a ban. Pro tells me this: "after the prohibition of marijuana, its use decreased." Once again, I ask, where is the evidence? Marijuana officially became illegal in 1937; but no records of marijuana usage exists from that time. The next best thing is looking at what happened before and after the government began cracking down on drugs, aka the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs started in 1971. In 1969, 4% of Americans tried marijuana; in 1973 12% of Americans tried marijuana; according to Pro's own evidence, in 2001 12.6% of Americans tried marijuana in the past year; in 2009, 8.3% of Americans tried marijuana last year [2]. This proves 2 things. (1) After 30 years of cracking down on drugs, the percentage of Americans using marijuana DOUBLED. (2) Marijuana's usage is like a graph of the economy, it goes up and down but the general trend is upward. But this holds true for any illegal drug. In my 2nd and 3rd speech, I outlined that there are 600,000 heroin addicts, 1.5 million cocaine addicts, and 4.7 million meth addicts. These are addicts that need a daily intake of these drugs. This does not even factor in how many more millions of Americans who have tried these illegal substances. Pro's evidence from the Office of National Drug Policy agrees with me! The percentage of Americans who have tried illegal drugs increased from 39.7% in 1999 to 41.7% in 2001, a 2% increase! Clearly, the War on Drugs results in MORE drug users. The War on Alcohol will result in MORE alcoholics. Conclusion: A Con vote saves 3.9 million jobs, $5.6 billion in taxes, $390 billion in GDP, and prevents more people from consuming alcohol. Pro's Voters: (1) "there is no legitimate need for alcohol." Fine. If you believe you should ban something just because it's not a "legitimate need" go ahead. Ban alcohol. Ban cigarettes. Ban guns. Ban TV ads. (2) "Alcohol related deaths would be significantly reduced." I ask, once again, evidence? Because history proves otherwise. Under Prohibition, 10,000 people died because of contaminated alcohol; homicide and crime rates increased by 13%; alcohol consumption increased. Pro never explains how the US that is already incapable of handling a drug war will be able to handle a drug war AND an alcohol war at the same time. (3&4) "Alcohol use, much like marijuana use, will gradually dissipate." Please refer back to the 2nd Con voter issue as I am out of characters. Conclusion: A Pro vote bans alcohol because it's not a legitimate need. [1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... [2] http://facts.randomhistory.com... Thank you for the entertaining debate.