Prohibition is a good social policy.

You are technically supposed to be pro because you are for this topic and not against it. If you renamed this debate to something you would disagree or go against, then you should be con. But nonetheless, I will begin the debate and determine whether or not prohibition is good or bad. Well, since you think that it is good for society, then I will state why it is a bad social policy. I agree that prohibition is a bad social policy. It prohibits or prevents people from using, accessing, or witnessing something that they want or desire. Similar to a ban, if they do attempt to do it, it is considered illegal and they have to pay the consequences. Most of the time, it is basically a meaner way of saying to not break certain laws that many break without realizing or caring about. But other times, it is just a ban but not as serious but is still the law. And what happens if something is prohibited? People will most likely find ways to do it even though it is against the law simply because the government is denying them of doing it even though it may seem normal to them. Basically, when a prohibition is put into effect, people will do their best to illegally do what the prohibition tells them not to do, because humans are wired to be defiant at times. Other problems that prohibition causes is the increase of crime. Since it is now considered illegal to do it, more and more people will try to break the law in order to get or do what they are prohibited from doing. They are now considered criminals for doing it. But usually that is not the case unless it is like a ban and prevents people from using or accessing something such as alcohol and drugs. As it becomes "viral", many gangs and other criminal organizations will try to find ways to start illegal businesses to sell such prohibited items to the regular citizen at ridiculous prices. Since it is banned, it is better to pay for it at a high price than not having it at all, and criminal organizations know this. Many criminals will earn bug bucks from them and will most likely result in conflicts with other illegal businesses leading to other crimes. Finally, the government will also most likely not make as much of a profit as people will be trying to purchase said illegal items. (If the prohibition is preventing laws from being broken and not item bans, then this doesn't apply for it.) Since it is now illegal, the government cannot tax it, and will not make direct profit out of it. Sure, they can tax citizens for it, but what's better for them and the people: higher taxes or taxes for the banned items? Also, stores and businesses cannot sell or manufacture and will not be able to make profit as well. Eventually, it will disrupt the economy, and in rare occasions, it will force the government to lift the ban. (But if the prohibition is banning on something that cannot be made any profit off of, then this will be invalid as well for this debate.) Before I finish my rebuttal, there are some mistakes that you made throughout your opening introduction. I will be listing them down below so you can pay attention and improve on your next rebuttal: -It is too short and too vague to be even understood or interpreted by the average person. -You are con when you should be pro as you agree with the topic. -Because you are vague, I am not sure if you mean like a ban or as a crime prevention law. -Social policy is too general; either put as morals and ethics or as law.