Alcohols use as a socially acceptbale narcotic should be banned forthwith

Thanks to Theunknown for taking this debate challenge. From past experience I know this will be a good challenge. Additionally, I would like to apologize for not writing in the proposition that first round is for acceptance. Thanks for letting it slide, I really appreciate it. Before I begin my arguments, I want to say I have been handed a piece of gold i.e. a manuscript published yesterday in Nature. I just want everyone to know I am not an author of this manuscript and I did not know about this publication prior to staring this debate. I say this as it seems so timely as if I was setting my opponent up. Now onto the debate. Help those who cant help themselves We should strive to help people, I hope my opponent does not disagree with this. The problem is that some people are not able to help themselves. Recently, there was a study which showed that some people have risk profiles which means they will abuse alcohol if they are presented with the opportunity.(1) As such, surely as a responsible society we should help those that cannot help themselves. In fact the general conclusion of the manuscript is summed up well in the abstract where the authors say “These models were accurate and generalized to novel data, and point to life experiences, neurobiological differences and personality as important antecedents of binge drinking. ” This means some people are prone to abuse alcohol and they cannot help themselves, and the only way to help is to make it impossible to obtain alcohol. Now, someone may argue that everyone should be able to choose how they want to live your life. But is this true when the person is not actually making the choice as this study points out. This is similar to saying a depressed patient should be allowed to commit suicide, even when clearly any depressed patient who has recovered due to intervention will tell you they are greatly pleased that they got helped. If we follow the line of reasoning that anyone should be allowed to do anything they want in their life, then we need to accept anything. That means allowing people to make incorrect decisions when under the influence of alcohol, such as driving, committing suicide, murdering or fighting. Should we be allowing people in our society to act irresponsibly when they are not making the choice as they are genetically unable to be responsible for themselves. Alcohol is as dangerous as Heroin or Cocaine No one will deny the negative effects of Heroin or Cocaine use, as these drugs are known to be highly addictive and very dangerous so much so that they are classified as schedule 1 and 2 respectively.(2) However, a study published in the Lancet showed that alcohol is totally more hazardous than both Heroin and Cocaine on society and a personal level.(3) Additionally, it was shown that alcohol is more harmful on a personal level than Amphetamine, Cocaine, Anabolic steroids, Ketamine and LSD among others. This is interesting as the negative health effects of Ketamine, Anabolic steroids etc are very well documented.(4,5) Effects of prohibition versus legalized consumption The question will surely arise that y banning alcohol we will just be driving the market underground. Yes, this will happen probably like it happened during Prohibition. However, lets be honest drug abuse sky rockets when it is legal compared to when it is illegal as we have seen in the case of Marijuana use in Colorado “daily use was more common in Colorado: 23 percent of them reported consuming marijuana 26 to 31 times a month, compared to a national rate of 17 percent.”.(6) Remarkably, the legalization of Marijuana in Colorado has lead to a decrease in teen use. But, as they are outside the law it shows that by prohibiting drug use for teens (i.e. more effective control) the rates of abuse decrease.(7) As such, all the modern (and hence relevant) evidence shows that by limiting the availability, i.e. banning, of alcohol we will in effect be reducing its consumption. Closing Remarks In closing, there is another option to pursue naturally, but one that is way more ineffective and unfair in my opinion. Every person has to get screened for markers to determine abuse chances and then they get labeled either as a user or non-user. This is impractical and expensive, the best goal would be to protect everyone from the chance of abuse and stop alcohol use outright. Additionally, the risk factors pointed out are not the only possible reason for abuse and as such someone could become an abuser due to a life crises.(8) As such an alcohol abuser could still pass the genetic screening, however still end up causing damage to themselves and society at large.(9) In this round I have shown there are very valid reasons to stop alcohol consumption as it is prone to abuse, and is in fact extremely harmful on a personal and societal level. I now hand the debate over to my opponent for opening statements. (1) http://www.nature.com... (2) http://www.justice.gov... (3) http://www.sg.unimaas.nl... (4) http://www.drugabuse.gov... (5) http://www.drugabuse.gov... (6) http://www.forbes.com...(7) http://www.thedailychronic.net... (8) http://www.mayoclinic.org... (9) http://www.cdc.gov...