There Should Exist a Licence System for Drinking Alcohol

Thanks again to my opponent for a thorough rebuttal. CON: "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: I don't know how my opponent got confused here, as Ireland has a similar system, but perhaps I should have worded it better. What I meant was if you wish to drink in public (bars, clubs, sporting events, etc.) you would need a licence. If you wish to drink in the privacy of your own home, you would NOT need a licence. This would be impossible to police and an invasion of privacy. CON: "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." REBUTTAL: My opponent has essentially said "learning to drink responsibly is not required in order to drink responsibly." This is a clear contradiction. The tight-rope was an analogy, and a good one at that. Drinking responsibly takes FAR more than a digestive system, just as walking a tight-rope takes FAR more than a pair of legs. My opponent has tried to turn this analogy to make it not follow, but it does. PRO: "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." REBUTTAL: Haha, now my opponent has misinterpreted MY comment. I haven't said the Government's handling of the current system is flawed, I'm saying the system ITSELF is flawed. That's the part I would like to change. PRO: "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." REBUTTAL: It doesn't require the applicant to do ANYTHING they don't want to do. But if you wish to consume your favourite drug alcohol in a public place, you need to be able to prove you can handle it. Perhaps even a system whereby if the applicant refuses alcohol in the test when his/her BAC reading is 0.1, then this person would only be licenced to drink until 0.1 in public. Doing drugs legally is a privilege that the Government grants us (with alcohol at least), and as a great man once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." CON: "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." REBUTTAL: CON has unwittingly helped my point here. If you drink alcohol and get violent, you SHOULD NOT be allowed to do it in public. These drug and alcohol laws are there to promote responsible drinking and to protect the public. If somebody has 4 rums and goes out searching for someone's head to stomp, they should not be granted the privilege of drinking in public. CON: "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." REBUTTAL: Who mentioned deaths? I mentioned harm to society, which alcohol wins hands-down. CON: "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." REBUTTAL: Once again, my opponent has made an argument against the PROHIBITION of alcohol, not against my plan. I don't see why my plan should cause the loss of any jobs, but that is up to the people who wish to consume drugs legally and in public to do so responsibly. My plan allows for several mishaps and mistakes (which happen to all of us), but if you constantly and consistantly make a nuisance of yourself, you will have your licence taken away. If the result of weeding violent drunks from bars is a few (it wouldn't be as many as my opponent will try to tell you) jobs lost, I'm still all for it. CON: "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." REBUTTAL: No, my opponent tried to insinuate that the Mafia would come in and start selling six-packs on the street corner to those who have lost their licence. His argument here was that my plan would increase crime. This would clearly not happen in any way, due to the reasons I gave. If that person has lost his licence, he will only be able to drink alcohol in the privacy of his own home. How he attains that alcohol is none of our or the Government's business, but at least we know he won't be out beating people up. CON: "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." REBUTTAL: I thank my opponent for conceding the point that age (at least to an extent) has little to do with someone's capacity to drink alcohol in public and remain responsible. And nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. You wish to consume drugs in public, you prove to society that you won't harm it by doing so. It really is as simple as that. Cheers!