Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

Since many of our points are merging together, I will organize the arguments into the 2 major categories: effects on the economy and effects on alcohol consumption. 1. Economy In my first contention, I outline that $5.6 billion is raised from alcohol tax revenues every year. This fact has gone uncontested. Pro's only response is that "we're merely raising a tax to make up the money." So, we agree that a Pro vote means tax increases of $5.6 billion. Once again, it is foolish to raise taxes by $5.6 billion in a time when Americans are barely scrapping because of the recession. A Pro vote not only increases taxes, it also devastates the economy. In 2007, the US alcohol beverage industry generated $382 billion worth of economic activity, paid $89 billion in wages, and hired over 3.9 million people. A Pro vote cuts the GDP by $382 billion and leaves 3.9 million people unemployed [1]. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Banning alcohol would lead to a War on Alcohol that will cost just as much (if not more) than the current War on Drugs. Remember that the War on Drugs costs $100 billion every single year, and totals to more than $1 trillion [2]. Every second, $600 is spent; in the time spent debating, $52 million has already been spent. Pro's only refutation to this is that a War on Alcohol "will not occur" because drug cartels are only in Mexico. However, this is illogical. Drug cartels are primarily in Mexico, but there still is a War on Drugs happening right now in the US that costs over $1 trillion. Unless Pro is suggesting that there is no War on Drugs, it is clear that a ban on alcohol would destroy the US economy. 2. Alcohol Consumption 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. On the other hand, I have given empirical examples and proof. Under Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased [3]. When marijuana became illegal in 1971, the percentage of Americans who took marijuana tripled from 4% in 1969 to 12% in 1973. Every time the US bans drugs or alcohol, consumption increases. Coincidence? I think not. In order for Pro to prove that alcohol consumption will decrease, Pro must prove both of my empirical examples false. In regards to Prohibition, Pro claims that America has evolved to deal with illegal substances. Although I wish that is true, reality proves otherwise. Illegal drugs such as cocaine, meth, and marijuana are commonplace; 1.5 million cocaine users, 4.7 million for meth, and 9.8 million for marijuana. If the America of today cannot handle drug trafficking, how can it handle drug AND alcohol trafficking at the same time? Still under Prohibition, Pro next claims that alcohol production would be impossible to hide, so Al Capone could not rise to power. Once again, Pro provides no evidence to support this claim. Many bars that brew their own beer have sufficient equipment in the store to brew enough alcohol. Pro needs to show why it is so difficult to hide breweries. But even if Pro's claim is true, Al Capone would not be able to rise to power in the US, but he would rise to power in another country. It is reasonable to assume that "alcohol cartels" would form elsewhere because drug cartels formed when the US banned drugs and crime syndicates formed under Prohibition. These alcohol cartels could be just as violent as the drug cartels in Mexico right now. The US has a moral obligation not to purposefully incite a contraband trade in another country. In regards to marijuana, Pro states that marijuana use peaked in 1979. However, the most recent trend (from 1999 to 2001) is an across-the-board increase of 4.2%; in other words, 4.2% more children, teenagers, and adults are using marijuana in 2001 than in 1999, and this will only increase over time [4]. Even more importantly, if we look at the marijuana usage level before banning it (4% in 1969) and the level now (8% in 2001), the level is still double. After 20 years of anti-drug therapy, twice as many Americans used marijuana. A Pro vote means, after spending all trillions of dollars, the percentage of Americans who drink alcohol will double in 20 years. Conclusion: Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" [5]. Banning drugs has doubled the percentage of Americans using marijuana. Banning alcohol increased alcohol consumption. Pro's proposal has been tried before, and the horrendous consequences forced its repeal just 13 years later. A vote for Pro is a vote for insanity. [1] http://www.discus.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.cato.org... [4] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... [5] http://www.quotationspage.com...