There Should Exist a Licence System for Drinking Alcohol

To start, the basis of PRO's argument is that because someone must pass a test and hold a licence to drive, they must also pass a test and hold a licence to consume alcohol. Licence for driving = Licence for Alcohol consumption. What PRO fails to mention is that: - Driving is an activity that requires spacial awareness, perfect vision, knowing road signs, etc, in short, intelligence of how it works and how to do it properly. This is why it requires a licence and a test. All that alcohol consumption requires is a digestive system, that everyone is born with. Licence for driving =/= Licence for Alcohol consumption ==PRO:== >>But the laws for alcohol are far more lenient (and ludicrous). At 11:59pm, the day before one's 21st birthday, if they get caught drinking alcohol in a bar, both the drinker and the barman will be fined heavily. That 20-year-old should not be drinking, the Government says, and presumably this is for their own good. But once that clock ticks around to 12pm, that same girl is able to legally skoll a bottle of tequila in one hit. This is regardless of whether she has ever consumed alcohol before or shown that she is fit to do so. << ==REBUTTAL:== I have found 2 problems with this quote from PRO: 1) PRO cites the government claims to have good intentions with the idea of age of consent. He then goes on to say the government should put in place a licensing system with this so called wisdom he claims they have. 2) PRO says that it is regardless whether or not they have shown they are capable of taking alcohol. How would such a test be performed? Would the applicants be forced to drink until drunk, and then the effects monitored? I would like PRO to explain the application system that would occur for such a license. ==PRO:== >>Therefore, I propose that if someone wishes to do drugs (we'll stick with alcohol for this debate), legally then it should be irrespective of age, and they should have to prove they are: 1. Capable of handling alcohol 2. Devoted enough to the practice of drinking alcohol that they strive to attain and keep a licence<< ==REBUTTAL:== 1) PRO mentions this would be irrespective of age. Are you saying we will now allow 5 year olds to go around a pub with glasses of wine or a pint of whiskey? There would, like driving, have to be an age limit for this to apply successfully. Otherwise, a country that allows a 10 year old into a bar and denies a 44 year old fully grown man a pint in the local is surely outrageous. 2) If this is concerning that people should be able to handle something, why should we not give a licence for people who want to consume high calorie foods who are able to consume them responsibly without becoming overweight, and cigarette smokers be disallowed to smoke until such a time as they can prove they can smoke it without contracting lung cancer. Licence for Alcohol consumption ---> Licence for High calorie Food consumption ---> Licence for cigarette smoking. 3) PRO says "devoted enough to the practice of drinking alcohol". Is this saying people have to have a certain amount of alcohol a week to keep their drinking license? ============== CON ARGUMENT ============== I would now like to address my argument on the topic ==#1 IT IS IMPRACTICAL== The waiting list for a driving licence is quite long, but the line for people wanting to be able to have a drink in the pub would be extremely long. Not only would building have to be built to process applications and test for their ability to consume alcohol safely, but it would take years to allow someone a drink of alcohol again. The result in this would be a huge loss for bars, alcohol companies, vineyards, in short, any company or shop associated with the alcohol industry. The huge time to allow patrons to resume drinking would result in the closure of many of these companies as they would be unable to sustain themselves without customers, especially in this economic climate. ==#2 IT INVADES PRIVACY== My opponent has not addressed consumption of alcohol on personal property, however, I will take it as if a licence required for consumption of alcohol on personal property. Not only is this a breach of personal freedom, but it also undermines civilians in that they are being told what they cannot do on their own property all of a sudden. This can also be a loss for the promotion of safe drinking. Parents can promote safe drinking by allowing teenagers to have 1 glass of wine with dinner, as opposed to drinking cans in a field. Now, if all of a sudden, this was disallowed, teenagers would end up in a field drinking cans of beer. ==#3 IT PROMOTES CRIME== The aforementioned lack of access to alcohol and business' desperate for profit could lead to the set up of crime organisations dealing specially with alcohol. Like in the prohibition, "Bootleg" alcohol was sold by mobsters illegally. There is nothing to doubt this could happen again in the interval between processing applicants and regular drinking re-occurring.