Prohibition (18th Amendment)

There are a few issues with his points though.1. ConstitutionFirstly, a constitution can not violate itself. Further, they could have banned possession which would have made enforcement easier since they couldn't dispute when they purchased the alcohol. It would only violate the 4th amendment if the government went door to door confiscating it without warrants. Further, criminalizing consumption would not violate the 4th amendment just like the banning of heroin consumption.2. Dry LawsActually, as stated earlier before the 18th amendment 27/48 states (56%) of states had statewide prohibition. This just shows you can not link such things such as a rise in crime due to the 18th amendment since prohibition was already here, and is still here and there are no claims that these are causing rapid crime. Once again a constitution can not violate itself. The 18th amendment didn't violate the 10th amendment any more than 13th amendment, which abolishes the states ability to have slavery, does.3. ConsumptionThat source my opponent provided uses the same information as my opponents first reference to consumption. It is the only source that claims this, most sources say something like "alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent" [1].4. BudgetMy opponent brings up budget issues again, but it important to note increases in such agencies like the coast guard were not all to enforce prohibition. It is also strange my opponent complains about increased employment, such employment could have help people in the depression have jobs. My opponent has not proved that prohibition was excessive spending.5. Alcohol PoisoningTrue, it did increase because there was a lack of a legal supply. However, to claim people will get what they want anyway is a self defeating way of thinking. In that case why prohibit any thing such as Murder, we could just sell licences to kill, and regulate the process? People are going to do it anyways. Also, it is important to note my opponents opposition to abortion, which is strange since people are going to do that anyways why not make is safe and legal? Anyways, the reason the government prohibits such things because they have immense social cost which are not covered by excise taxes. Social cost include addiction, health issues, and drunk driving. Further, excise taxes are incredibly poor at raising money because that is not their intent. For example, the excise tax on tobacco, the most revenue generating excise tax, made 17.5 Billion in 2010, and is estimate to decrease every year [2]. This contributed 0.8% of the federal budget that year. This could not even fund the department of Justice.6. obtainableThen this should not influence the winner of this debate.7. CrimeIt is true that homicides dropped in the early 30s, but "Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after" [1]. Megan Sasinoski of the Carnegie Mellon University explains why homicide rates dropped in the 30s [3]. She list many possible factors including "the government began to provide those who were unemployed with financial relief and new jobs, and the National Recovery Act was enacted to help stimulate the economy. Additionally, the government began to recognize the rights of unions, issue loans to businesses that were struggling, and grant subsidies to farmers, all of which helped to ease tensions that had been rising along with the homicide rate in the decades earlier" [3]. Also immigration could have played a role "First, people began to feel the economic impact of the Great Depression and immigration decreased as a result. Second, there was a drastic change in government enforcement at the time" [3]. Further, "it is important to consider and account for the impact of racially motivated lynching crimes in the American South before and after the Civil War" [3], and such lynchings dramatically decreased during this time also [3]. Sasinoski goes on to state that is probably was a combination of these factors that contributed to the decrease in homicides in that time.8. Drunk Driving, Addiction, Health IssuesIt is strange to justify such things as freedom. Drunk driving isn't a freedom it is crime and menace to society, and such things should be prevented. Your neighbor has the right to tell what you can drink when it interferes with their rights. Further, banning alcohol doesn't violate the constitution or all those counties with dry laws would be illegal, but they are not. Further, the government can restrict "freedoms" in cases where it can hurt society such as having opposition to euthanasia.9. ReligionChristianity and alcohol is a interesting perspective. It is important to not that the bible condemns drunkenness as a sin in Ephesians 5:18 [4]. Further, religion was one of the driving forces behind prohibition. For example, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Which is "concerned about the destructive power of alcohol and the problems it was causing their families and society" [5]. In conclusion, there are many myths surrounding prohibition, and I hope some were exposed here. There is a compelling case to support prohibition such as drunk driving, health concerns, and addiction. Sources[1] . http://www.nytimes.com...[2] . http://www.whitehouse.gov...[3] . http://repository.cmu.edu...[4] . http://biblehub.com...[5] . http://www.wctu.org...