There Should Exist a Licence System for Drinking Alcohol

==PRO:== >>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. << ==REBUTTAL:== Private property is owned by a person, so it is personal property. If someone wishes to allow people into their home for a few beers, then it is allowed. I fail to see the difference of intrusion on personal property and intrusion on private property. If the state does not own a bar, then it is private property, and the state cannot interfere. Therefore, the plan is null on private property, ergo, all bars, clubs, pubs, etc. ==PRO:== >>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. << ==REBUTTAL:== 1) Drinking and drinking responsibly are two very different things. Drinking requires you to have a digestive system. Drinking responsibly requires you to know your limit and when to stop (which is admittedly hard whilst intoxicated). 2) Tight rope walking is not a comparable analogy. You can tight rope walk with a pair of legs, but it can only be done successfully with training. This is not the case for alcohol consumption. It is far from it. You do not need training for alcohol consumption. ==PRO:== >>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. "<< ==REBUTTAL:== 1) It does, however, require someone to do something they don't want to do for something they do want to do. 2) Part of a Doctor's ethos is to not harm a patient. This is however contradictory if he must administer alcohol to a person to the point of illness. 3) It variates with what the user has previously consumed. Different foods can produce different results, both before and after alcohol consumption, like taking Mentos with Diet Coke. 4) Consumption of too much of any food makes you ill. I do not know why alcohol should be singled out in this. ==PRO:== >>Who mentioned deaths? I mentioned harm to society, which alcohol wins hands-down<< ==REBUTTAL:== My opponent has not proven how alcohol is bad for society apart from the odd fight every now and again. However, this does not compare to 50,000 deaths a year. ==PRO:== >>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. << ==REBUTTAL:== My opponent has previously conceded that "it would be a huge loss for alcohol companies". If it was, then it obviously leads to the loss of jobs. With this comment PRO is obviously contradicting himself. ==PRO:== >>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. << ==REBUTTAL:== I feel this point has been made null due to the fact I have proven alcohol is still available in bars, club, pubs, etc. under this system. ==CONCLUSION:== 1) The system only allows people who can handle alcohol to drink legally in public. It still allows for the consumption of alcohol on private property, which i bars, restaurants, in short, anywhere that isn't state owned. 2) It makes people go through physical illness to be allowed consume a reasonable amount of alcohol. 3) It would be ultimately a loss for society through the loss of jobs.