Alcohols use as a socially acceptbale narcotic should be banned forthwith

Grape FarmersThe possibility of suicide definetely increases as grape farmers have far less income, and they will find it hard to pay any loans that they may have. Although grapes have other uses, a prohibition of alcohol will still lead to lower demand of grapes and thus, grape farmers will suffer significant losses. Many farmers will not be able sell their produce and make their daily bread if there is lower demand.Disposable income and illegal alcoholmy opponent assumes the disposable income will be used to buy illegal alcohol. This could be valid if my opponent can refute my arguments made for a stronger more efficient police forces and dropping crime rates. In fact my opponent needs to show that police are becoming more inefficient and the crime rate is growingI do not see why I need to prove that the police are becomming more inefficient and that the crime rate is growing in our timeline. I am merely saying that crime will increase and disposable income of alcoholics will be used to buy illegal alcohol. All Pro says is that since the crime rate is currently dropping, this will not be a problem.In a timeline with alcohol prohibition the crime rate will rise and disposable income will be used in illegal alcohol. This is only a matter of history repeating itself.Marijuana users My opponent has only been able to make an assumption that users will not tell the truth. And it is a very reasonable assumption, is it not? I would not tell some random people who claim to be surveyors that I break the law.Police activity and crime In the wold today as I pointed out in the previous round crime is decreasing, violent crime is decreasing and organized crime is decreasing. There is no rational reason to expect an increase in crime with the prohibition of alcohol. The quality of the United States police did not drop all of a sudden when the Prohibition act was issued. Likewise, the US police quality did not rise all of a sudden when the act was repealed. Maybe since the police forces in the modern day are more efficient, perhaps crime will be less of a problem compared to the Prohibition era in the US. But there will still be a significant rise in crime. Fast Food - Obesity analogy “perhaps we should ban burgers and french fries because of the growing obesity problem”, perhaps we can debate that at another point in the future as this is not the topic under debate at present.This is completely relevant to the topic. As I am making a comparison of banning alcohol to banning burgers and french fries. I simply stated that pro's suggestion to ban alcohol to solve drunk driving is akin to banning fast food to solve obesity. Religion- Extremism analogyAgain, this analogy is completely relevant and justified. But more interestingly Pro actually hurts his case in this rebuttal since he mentions that alcohol dependence is a genetic issue. So, isn't banning alcohol akin to torture in a way? The alcoholic needs alcohol due to a genetic issue, it cannot be solved. It is wrong to deny the person what he/she needs. Furthermore, if it is a genetic issue, then prohibition will not solve it, but will force the alcoholic to satisfy his needs by any means necessary (alcohol gangs and cartels). If alcoholism is a genetic and unsolvable issue, then Prohibition of alcohol will make criminalism a genetic and unsolvable issue.Pro's case rebuttals the fact that there are factors that are beyond the control of most people that drive them into alcoholism and we should protect themThat factor is that alcoholism is genetic as pro himself said. I discussed above that said alcoholics will satisfy their needs even if it means becoming a criminal. After all, it is in their nature.This means these people are not displaying free will (free choice) as my opponent would have you believe. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has free will when it comes to genetics. But satisfying the urge to drink alcohol is free will and it should not be denied to anybody.my opponent refuses to consider that alcohol in fact has dramatic effects not just on a personal level but a large societal impact.I did consider it and I agreed to it. However, I also said that those who do not want to deal with the alcoholic do not have to. If your spouse is an alcoholic and you really cannot tolearate life with said spouse, then get a divorce. I doubt my opponent even read my arguments properlyAdditionally, my opponent has to preface his statement by saying alcohol “in moderation” which is a problem as I have pointed out as some people are unable to drink alcohol in moderationSome people are unable to drink in moderation, logically, they are even more unable to stop drinking alcohol all together. Prohibtion of alcohol will force such people to smuggle alcohol, fight alcohol wars similar to drug wars, join former alcohol business owners and make gangs. etc etcNot only will the abusers continue to take illegal alcohol (which is more dangerous as disscused earlier) but the people who drink in moderation will be denied the health benefits of alcohol.ConclusionThis debate is essentially history repeating itself. Pro is just like many of Americans who supported the 1920's prohibition based on the very same reasons Pro states in the debate. Once the prohibition act was passed, the majority who supported the act switched sides.Prior to US prohibition, it may have been a good idea to ban alcohol and was a good topic of debate, just like it is now. But when it actually happens, soon enough everyone will regret it just like in the 1920's let us not repeat history's mistakes and no, a more efficient police force will not deter people with genetic issues to stop taking alcohol one way or another."Any society that would give a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both" - Benjamin Franklin