There Should Exist a Licence System for Drinking Alcohol

Thanks for a thorough and quick response. My opponent has mistaken my position right off the bat. He has claimed that the basis of my position is "because someone must pass a test and hold a licence to drive, they must also pass a test and hold a licence to consume alcohol." This is not my position, and I merely used the driver's licence as something to provoke familiarality in my opponent and the voters. Let me state the basis of my position: "there should exist a licence system for drinking alcohol." This has nothing to do with the fact that there also exists a driver's licence; I just believe of all the ways to regulate alcohol consumption, licences are the most practical, and age limits are about the least practical. CON: "Driving is an activity that requires spacial awareness, perfect vision, knowing road signs, etc, in short, intelligence of how it works and how to do it properly. This is why it requires a licence and a test. All that alcohol consumption requires is a digestive system, that everyone is born with." --- My opponent has really shown his age with this comment, voters. To claim that all alcohol consumption requires is a digestive system is like saying all tight-rope walking requires is a set of legs. Alcohol consumption (at least RESPONSIBLE alcohol consumption, the type society condones and therefore wants legal) requires maturity, the physical and mental capacity to handle a drunken state, self-respect, self-restraint, and so on. CON: " PRO cites the government claims to have good intentions with the idea of age of consent. He then goes on to say the government should put in place a licensing system with this so called wisdom he claims they have." --- I don't understand your problem here. Everything the Government does (or at least wants to appear to be doing) is make decisions in the best interest of society. I never said the Government was wise, and indeed the fact that I'm suggesting an alternative to their alcohol laws indicates that I don't think they're particularly wise. CON: "PRO says that it is regardless whether or not they have shown they are capable of taking alcohol. How would such a test be performed? Would the applicants be forced to drink until drunk, and then the effects monitored? I would like PRO to explain the application system that would occur for such a license." --- I would propose something like this: - Nobody under 16 could apply. - People 16-18 must be accompanied by a parent/guardian who is also licenced. - Applicants would visit a Government-appointed doctor, who would administer throughly-planned doses of alcohol. Vital signs and blood-alcohol content readings would be recorded, and the applicant would be placed in a number of situations one might find themselves in while out on the grog. - A number of factors would be taken into account to decide whether or not the applicant is successful, including how much they drank before asking to stop, how much they drank before they spew, get violent, pass out. The applicants could stop drinking at any time, but this may affect their chances of getting a licence. Please note that this is a static plan and can change as soon as a better idea arises. Obviously the Government would spend a lot of time talking to a lot of experts before they came to a decision. CON: "PRO mentions this would be irrespective of age. Are you saying we will now allow 5 year olds to go around a pub with glasses of wine or a pint of whiskey? There would, like driving, have to be an age limit for this to apply successfully. Otherwise, a country that allows a 10 year old into a bar and denies a 44 year old fully grown man a pint in the local is surely outrageous." --- Age-laws and licences are not mutually exclusive; why not have both! We still have to be sensible about this. When my friends and I were 16, we were outdrinking the old boys. Same amount of grog, them spewin' and fightin', us laughin' and smokin'. This is something you'll obviously have to take my word for, but you yourself are at an age where you will no doubt be drinking soon (or already are!), and you will notice that what I'm saying is true. Once you reach a certain tolerance for alcohol, you've got that tolerance, and it doesn't seem to matter whether you're 16 or 40. CON: "If this is concerning that people should be able to handle something, why should we not give a licence for people who want to consume high calorie foods who are able to consume them responsibly without becoming overweight, and cigarette smokers be disallowed to smoke until such a time as they can prove they can smoke it without contracting lung cancer. Licence for Alcohol consumption ---> Licence for High calorie Food consumption ---> Licence for cigarette smoking." --- Haha, of course not. The difference is that the damage done by the consumption of fatty foods and cigarettes is done to the consumer, and the consumer alone. You may say healthcare and second-hand smoke, but come on; the damage done to society by idiots who can't handle their alcohol is ridiculous. The ones who are beaten, raped, robbed, killed, spewed on, sworn at, or in any other way abused by people who, 3 hours ago, would have shaken your hand and said "how do you do?" Alcohol turns a certain type of people into animals, and these are not the sorts of people the Government should sell drugs like alcohol to. CON: "PRO says "devoted enough to the practice of drinking alcohol". Is this saying people have to have a certain amount of alcohol a week to keep their drinking license?" --- No, what I meant was that you would start your licence with a certain amount of demerit points, say 12, and if you wished to continue consuming your drug in public, legally, then you would have to hang on to those points. Say you get drunk, start a fight and urinate on a barmaid, you would lose 3 points. And so on. CON: "==#1 IT IS IMPRACTICAL==........etc." --- I don't see why the line for drinker's licences would be any longer than the line for driver's licences. In fact, I'd say a larger percentage of society drives than those who drink publicly. If not, it'd be a close tie. And it may be a huge loss for alcohol companies, but it'd be a big win for society. CON: "==#2 IT INVADES PRIVACY==........etc." --- It would not include consumption on personal property. CON: "==#3 IT PROMOTES CRIME==........etc." --- I don't think this follows at all. If you lost your licence, you'd do what every 16 year old kid does; you'd go to the bottleshop and ask a bunch of strangers to buy your sixer. If they said no, then that'd be your drag, but either way you're not gonna see mobsters on the corner selling Bacardi. Alcohol would still be equally accessible and legal, and my opponent's argument here would be better suited to a debate about prohibition. PRO ARGUMENTS 1. I've noticed my opponent is from Ireland, where the legal drinking age is 18 in public, with no age limit for private use. In Italy it's 16 and here in the States is a ridiculous 21 [1]. Doesn't this show you the subjectivity of these laws, when we have to ask ourselves who has it right? And how can you answer such a question? The answer is, of course, none of them. They all have it wrong, because they are relying on something which has nothing to do with someone's ability to drink alcohol responsibly in public, their age. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...