Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

Let's begin my looking at what's left of my opponent's case and then look at the voting issues in today's round. Throughout the round, my opponent cites numerous times that the "War on Drugs" costs us billions of dollars every year. There are two simple responses to this fact, however; the spending on the "War on Drugs" that my opponent refers to includes US intervention in foreign drug issues. My opponent does not specify how much of this money is actually spent combating drug use within the United States itself. My opponent's statistics include money spent on attempts at foreign drug control, such as US involvement in Panama in 1989 through Operation Just Case and US involvement in the current drug wars in Mexico. Today's resolution asks us to look at the United States and the US only, and thus it's imperative that we do not consider my opponent's non-topical statistics in today's round. My opponent makes the claim that 3.9 million jobs will be lost by a prohibition on alcohol were to happen. However, if a prohibition were to occur, it wouldn't be an overnight change; although some job losses would occur, the alcohol industry would turn to other beverage industries to stay afloat. My opponent's claim that 3.9 million jobs would disappear overnight is both outlandish and false. Furthermore, my opponent relates today's "war on drugs" to a possible "War on Alcohol" that will mirror the conditions of 1920s Prohibition-era United States. Time and time again I have refuted this contention; the conditions set in Prohibition-era United States no longer exist, and thus such a catastrophe will not occur again. My opponent himself states that insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". By simply repeating his initial claim, my opponent does not refute the responses I put on this contention. By his own definition, my opponent is insane. My last response to my opponent's economics contention is that the $5.6 billion that comes in tax revenue from alcohol can be found from other sources. My opponent has not responses to this refutation all throughout the round. Thus, we can disregard my opponent's entire economics contention. My opponent's second point in round 3 is that "It is important to note that Pro's claims that alcohol consumption will decrease after a ban are nothing more than claims; he never gives any evidence to prove it or states how many lives will be saved." In round 2 and 3, I gave clear evidence stating that after the prohibition of marijuana, it's use decreased; likewise, the use of alcohol will also dissipate after a new prohibition. My opponent's response to this is that "In the prohibition, alcohol consumption increased." Once again, my opponent ignores the fact that Prohibition-era conditions no longer exist in the United States. He ends his paragraph with another lie; "Illegal drugs such as cocaine, meth, and marijuana are commonplace." However, I have provided clear evidence from the Office of National Drug Policy that states that although drug use exists – I'm not advocating that a perfect society will exist – the drug use has been steadily decreasing generation by generation. My opponent simply repeating his claim over and over doesn't make him correct; on the contrary, I'm sure Einstein would agree that it makes him insane. Ultimately, we can see that my opponent has resorted to saying the "same ting over and over again and expecting" the reader not to notice. He has ignored crucial responses to his arguments, and thus at the end of the round, he has no case and no impacts. Voting issues in today's round: The only impact my opponent has is that $5.6 billion dollars in tax revenue will need to be collected; however, as I have stated, there are innumerable other sources for this money to be collected from. For the pro; (1) There is no legitimate need for alcohol. My opponent has conceded this point. (2) Alcohol related deaths would be significantly reduced after a new prohibition. I used to live next to a friend named Jonathan; his mother died in a car accident when a drunk driver slammed into her vehicle. He was seven years old. These incidents aren't rare; they occur all the time and affect thousands of people. In fact, there are 26,000 alcohol related accidents every year. Situations such as Jonathan's or Roshan Rahbari's would no longer occur. (3) Alcohol use, much like marijuana use, will gradually dissipate over the years. We cannot expect a perfect system, but a much better system than today's will exist. (4) Prohibition-era conditions no longer exist, and thus a catastrophe of that size will never occur again. On the other hand, A vote for the con is a vote for a debater who repeats his claims without responding to the refutations I have placed on them; a vote for insanity. Thus, I strongly affirm the resolution.