Alcohols use as a socially acceptbale narcotic should be banned forthwith

*Quotes from Pro are italicized and underlined*EconomyAlready in the global financial crisis, many countries have a high unemployment rate such as spain, bosnia and greece[1] with more than a quarter (bosnia is close to a 1/2) the people unemployed.Banning alcohol will lead to loss of the many jobs of people working with or closely with the alcohol sector. From the wine company's executive to the grape farmer whose grapes are essential for wine, all socio-economic classes will be affected from the prohibition of alcohol.Governments will also lose tax revenue. [3]Prohibition vs legalized consumptionPro says that the US state of Colorado saw an increase in consumption of marijuana when it became legalized. How can this be measured for when it is illegal? Do people tell the researchers they are breaking the law? How can the number of users be properly measured if the substance is illegalFreedom of ChoiceIf 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. Reasonable laws worldwide state that driving under alcohol's influence is illega despite the fact that most countries do have legal alcohol.Pro's argument is under the premise that denying people the liberty of drinking what they want to provide security from being alcoholic (which most drinkers do not become). As Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society that would give a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both". This quote is true in this context. If you plan to give the liberty to drink alcohol with the intention to gain the security from alcoholics and the risk of being subject to alcoholism yourself, you will lose both the liberty of drinking what you want and you will lose security. Why will you lose security? My next point discusses this.Effects of Prohibition.Alcohol will still be made and sold during a prohibition and just like drug cartels there will be 'alcohol cartels'. Gangsters like the infamous Al Capone are a good example of what will hapen if alcohol is prohibited. The so-called war on drugs is doing terribly, we do not want a war on alcohol as well. This is not security.To make matters worse, the illegal alcohol has no government regulation, so there is a chance that it is hazardous to health. This is not security.[2]Common people who love a refreshing beer will be turned into outlaws just to have the freedom to drink what they want. This is not security"Criminal organizations will mostly profit from prohibition and, that in return, will promote other illegal activities. And that will organize criminal organizations even more."[2] This is defenitely not securityVictimless crime:Those who turn out to become alcoholics moslty only affect themselves. It can be argued that Alcoholics affect the people around them, but then the people can just leave their company if they so wish. If its affecting them so badly then they can just leave. Nobody is forcing them to stay around them. As for drunk driving, you can put stricter laws on that. Sources:[1] http://www.ilo.org...[2] http://www.lessonpaths.com...;[3] http://prezi.com...;