There Should Exist a Licence System for Drinking Alcohol

What I have firstly noticed is a huge flaw in his argument. PRO says: >>It would not include consumption on personal property. << Therefore, if this did not apply to private establishments, then it means a license is required to drink in public. Private (personal) property is excluded from this system, therefore people are still allowed to consume alcohol in bars. Reading PRO's argument reveals he intends for this to apply in bars, pubs, clubs, etc. , therefore it is a contradiction. ======= REBUTTAL ======= ==PRO:== >>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. << ==REBUTTAL:== A comparison of tight rope walking to alcohol consumption is inaccurate. Whereas tight rope walking requires a set of legs as minimum standard, it requires hefty training to do it successfully. Alcohol consumption requires a digestive system as a bare minimum, but learning responsible drinking is not required to do it successfully. Tight rope walking =/= Alcohol consumption. My opponent's has also shown his age of intelligence with his comment. He clearly underestimates me. ==PRO:== >>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. << ==REBUTTAL== My opponent has misinterpreted my comment. I was questioning that if he feels the government are not component in their current handling of the situation with alcohol, what is to ensure their handling with a new system will be more adequate. ==PRO:== >>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. << ==REBUTTAL:== I find numerous problems with this system of applications: 1) It requires applicants to vomit, faint, and in short, become ill. I fail to see how this should effect someone's chance of getting a licence for alcohol drinking. Almost everyone vomits from drinking too much alcohol, including: soft drinks, juice, and anything that can be digested. I fail to see how measuring how many drinks it takes for someone to vomit affects the decision on whether or not they should be able to consume it. Not to mention the variables that are involved such as what has been previously consumed by the drinker. 2) It requires the person to be put in a situation(s) of violence under the effects of alcohol, which could easily bring harm to the doctor, nurse and patient involved. ==PRO:== >>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. << ==REBUTTAL:== My opponent claims that the amount of people harmed by other through alcohol consumption is greater than through second hand smoke. Deaths by other through alcohol > Deaths through second hand smoke. However, second hand smoke causes approx. 50,000 deaths a year in the U. S. (. http://www.lungusa.org...). I so far fail to find a similar links for deaths fuelled by alcohol consumption of others. I feel this is somewhat proof the lack of such deaths. ==PRO:== >>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. << I fail to see how this would be a huge win for society. It would benefit people who do not drink alcohol. It would however: - Affect the jobs of any industry involved with alcohol, including: (i). Breweries (ii. ) Farming (iii. ) Bars (iv. ) Restaurants I fail to see how the loss of jobs, which my opponent concedes, is positive for society. ==PRO:== >>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. << My opponent basically concedes a huge flaw in his system (which already exists), which is that people still have access to alcohol illegally by asking someone else, and them passing it on. This is the basic idea of the bootleg alcohol I mentioned. ==PRO:== >>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. << ==REBUTTAL:== My opponent has claimed age has no merit in whether or not someone should be allowed consume alcohol. And t oan extent I agree. However, I disagree with my opponents idea of how it should be handled. Forcing someone to endure physically to have a beverage is unjustified. Fin.