Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

In the course of this round, my opponent ignores several important refutations I made to his case. Let's begin by examining those. My opponent avoids having to adequately refute my answer to his first contention by stating that world leaders around the world have used "the ends justify the means" to inflict harm. However, I was only stating that the ends would justify the means in this situation alone and I would like to respectfully remind my opponent that we aren't killing anyone in today's debate; we're merely raising a tax to make up the money that would have once stemmed from a tax on alcohol. Thus, wipe his first contention off your flow. The tax on alcohol could very easily stem from other sources. My opponent also repeatedly alludes to the Prohibition, but he also ignores all of the refutations I have made distinguishing America during the 20s with America today. Prohibition era corruption, smuggling, and production could never occur in the US today. Corrupt law enforcement was integral to the success of leaders like Al Capone during the 1920s, but such conditions no longer exist; thus we cannot include any of my opponent's points regarding the Prohibition of the 20s. Simply put, such a catastrophe will never happen again. In my rebuttal, I stated that the large-scale production of alcohol would be impossible to disguise in the 21st century. My opponent responds by saying that Vodka looks like water. My opponent's knowledge of the appearance of Vodka does not refute the fact that PRODUCING such drinks in the large quantities would be impossible to disguise, so once again we must ignore his response and extend my argument that the production of alcohol that my opponent fears is impossible today. The only legitimate point my opponent makes in his last case is that there is a data break in my evidence claiming that drug use has decreased over the past few generations. However, that data break is irrelevant. The page concludes that marijuana use "peaked in 1979 for 12- to 17-year-olds at 14.2%; for 18- to 25-year-olds at 35.6%; and for 26- to 34-year-olds at 19.7%" [1]. Thus, it's clear that drug use has dissipated over the years, and likewise dangerous alcoholism will do the same. We must remember that the drug users and alcoholics who are a threat are those who abuse the drug; with the aid of anti-drug television campaigns and a national dissent towards drug abuse, frequent drug abusers are on the decline. Although Americans may do drugs occasionally, today we are only looking at the abusers. After a Prohibition of alcohol, it's logical to assume that the number of alcoholics who abuse it will decrease over the years. Thus, we can wipe hire response off the flow and extend my argument. My opponent's last remark is that "drug cartels have risen to power". They have… in Mexico. The corrupt political situation is Mexico does not exist in the US, and thus "drug cartels" and a "war on alcohol" will not occur in the US. Ultimately, we must look to what my opponent said in his last paragraph. "We must learn from history." America has clearly learned; with national security at an all time high, it's clear that the situation that America saw in the first Prohibition will never occur today. What we must NOT do is to pander to those who will occasionally break the law and occasionally inflict harm upon others under a new Prohibition; we must prohibit the use of alcohol so that the number of abusers will significantly decrease, consequently decreasing the number of deaths resulting from alcohol related incidents. On your flow, the first thing you'll notice is that my opponent's case has been thrown out the window. He has dropped his second contention entirely, and his first contention has been refuted. On the other hand, my case still stands. My opponent has agreed that no legitimate need for alcohol exists, we have all seen that alcohol related deaths would be significantly reduced by a new Prohibition, and it's very evident that Prohibition-era conditions no longer exist in the US. You can also extend that alcohol abuse, like drug abuse, will dissipate over the years. Make the distinction between harmless, occasional use of illicit drugs and the abuse of illicit drugs; it's evident that the latter is on the decrease generation after generation. By voting for the pro in today's debate, you state that you believe America has the ability to prevent large scale corruption that would result from a new Prohibition, but you also understand that some will inevitably slip through the cracks and that it won't be a perfect system. By voting for the con, you're stating that you believe America will again fall under the rule of corrupt leaders such as Al Capone and that our government and law enforcement agencies, which track terrorists around the globe and catch Russian spies, cannot prevent large scale corruption from occurring in 21st century United States.