Alcohol should be illegal

I accept.=Framework=Pro is advocating for a change in the status quo, and therefore he has the sole burden of proof, and must demonstrate why we should make alcohol illegal. If he fails to prove his plan beyond a reasonable doubt, you vote to negate.=Rebuttals=Pro aruges that, because there have been many lives lost due to alcohol-related accidents, this culminates in a case for illegalizing alcohol. However, many lives have also been lost by virtue of accidents pertaining to cars, guns and knives. The commonality is not with inanimate objects, but with the individuals using them. Alcohol itself cannot kill anyone; rather, people, be it by virtue of their ignorance or negligence, engage in reckless, potentially life-threatening behavior. But the problem is, the case is fundamentally inconsistent: people will always find ways to negligently deal harm to themselves and others, so Pro would need to take a much broader stance for this to carry any weight. Moreover, simply banning any substance does not remove access to that substance -- it merely changes the venue and safety thereof. Black market sales will continue, and will result in higher costs, less safety, and ultimately more death because government isn't able to legally intervene and regulate it. Pro doesn't offer any additional constructives or list any sources at all -- note that his BOP requires that he do so -- so I'll now outline my own case.=Neg Case= I. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein As I think Pro has passed over, prohibition of alcohol was already tried in the early 20th century, and it was a complete disaster [1]. There was a significant demand for alcohol, and gangsters, e.g., Al Capone, capitalized on this via the creation of speakeasies. Organized crime shot through the roof [2]. Not only does the history demonstrate that prohibiton of alcohol was a complete and utter disaster, but it demonstrates what we have already learned: prohibiting alcohol will not quell demand, so a natural consequences will be black markets. If Pro is concerned about alcohol-related incidents even when the government is capable of regulating alcohol, surely he must concede that it would be far worse without any regulation. II. Self-Ownership Principle Via Murray Rothbard: "The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to “own” his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation" [3].This principle, which asserts a natural right to dominion over our own bodies, is important for several reasons. First, if we rightfully own ourselves, meaning that we are free from the coercion which would result from someone else owning or exercising constraint on us, we have the liberty to choose what goes into our bodies. Second, it treats people as fundamentally, intrinsicly valuable individuals capable of deciding for themselves whether it is best to engage in potentially harmful activites, such as smoking or drinking. Therefore, the government has no business in prohibiting substances in spite of whether or not it deems them to be dangerous.III. Victimless crimeProhibiting alcohol would require placing people in jail for substance ingestion, in spite of the fact that doing so does not impose a harm on anyone else sans the person opting to drink. Via the self-ownership principle I delineated earlier, choosing to drink is perfectly permissible. Moreover, the costs of incarcerating people, most of whom will be using alcohol which happen to be highly addictive and thus in need of medical assistance [4], will far outweigh any of the benefits Pro outlines, especially in light of the resulting black market. IV. Economic Impacts Prohibiting alcohol would deal a signficant economic blow, not only by killing jobs and displacing workers which would necessarily lead to a self-reinforcing decline in aggregate demand, but would also deal a significant blow to tax revenue. This would necessarily result in less tax revenue to the government and more outlays on automatic stabilizers for people unemployed, directly or indirectly, as a consequence of this policy. "The U.S. beverage alcohol industry is a major contributor to the economy, responsible for over $400 billion in total U.S. economic activity in 2010, generating nearly $90 billion in wages and over 3.9 million jobs for U.S. workers.In 2010, distilled spirits accounted for over $120 billion in total economic activity, or 30% of total economic activity from all beverage alcohol. The beverage alcohol industry contributed over $21 billion directly to state and local revenues during 2010. Of that amount, distilled spirits accounted for over $8.8 billion or 41% of this direct revenue.In 2010, beverage alcohol's total contribution to state and local revenues was over $41 billion. Of that amount, $20.1 billion came from indirect revenues such as corporate, personal income, property and other taxes generated by the beverage alcohol industry. Total revenues from distilled spirits (direct and indirect) were $15.5 billion in 2010, or 37% of total beverage alcohol revenue" [5].=Sources= [1] - http://history1900s.about.com...;[2] - http://www.umich.edu... [3] - http://utahliberty.org... [4] - http://www.webmd.com... [5] - http://www.discus.org...;