Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

My opponent begins his case with a funny statement. He tells us that there are a "mere" 26,000 alcohol-related accidents per year. That statement refutes itself; 26,000 alcohol-related accidents is an enormous, horrific statistic – a number that will be significantly reduced by a new Prohibition. Next, he quotes a statement I made in my first speech, where I mistakenly stated that illegal use of drugs is minimal. I made this correction in my second speech, stating that the ABUSE of illegal drugs is minimal, and as we will see later in this case, the number is decreasing. My opponent also does his math wrong. He states that 26,000 alcohol-related accidents amounts to 0.000086% of the population. However, his statistic does NOT tell you the number of people affected by the alcohol-related accidents, and thus his conclusion that 0.000086% of the population is affected by such accidents is false. With this argument, my opponent disrespects those who were affected in those accidents by demeaning their suffering and insults those who have lost their lives to drunk drivers. Thus, my opponents response to my framework should be disregarded, and my framework that we must include all uses of alcohol, both legal and illegal, and that we must weigh impacts against each other, should be extended throughout the round. Next, my opponent claims that I am advocating all things we do for pleasure should be prohibited. However, this statement is both false and misleading. Alcohol, unlike other pleasurable things, has terrifying side effects that harm both the abuser and those around him. Meth abusers and cocaine addicts feel pleasure from their drug use; is my opponent advocating that we should legalize those drugs too? My opponent's response to my second contention is merely a re-iteration of his first contention. However, I have refuted that contention by providing my framework, stating that deaths occurring from drunk driving, drunken fights, and the abuse and violence that occurs from alcohol use outweighs the "600,000 people who will save themselves". There are alternative methods to prevent heart attacks which are much more effective than alcohol. My opponent then claims that cities will be a frightening place to live in due to violence. This is an allusion to the Prohibition. However, Prohibition-era violence will never occur again due to an increase in national security. A major contributor to Prohibition era violence was corrupt law enforcement; a critical factor to the catastrophe of the 20s which no longer exists. Without corrupt law enforcement and with the power of American national security, the conditions of the Prohibition of the 20s will never occur again. Ultimately, my opponent's case has been thrown out the window. The health benefits to alcohol are not unique, and can be found from actual medication. Secondly, his argument about pleasure has been both refuted and he has dropped it. On the other hand, the impacts given by the pro are very clear; no legitimate need exists for alcohol, meaning it isn't a necessity. Alcohol related deaths occur 26,000 times every year, killing one person every 15 minutes from DUIs alone. Thousands more are indirectly affected by such accidents. Thirdly, Prohibition-era corruption and fear will not occur in today's United States; the law enforcement scene and national security scene have drastically changed, and security is at it's highest in decades. Finally, the number of drug users have drastically dropped with every subsequent generation. Likewise, the number of illicit alcohol users will also drop after Prohibition with every subsequent generation. Finally, I would like to respond to my opponent's final statement. He states that I try "to touch our hearts by saying that our neighbors will die if we drink alcohol. This is completely ridiculous." I used to live next to a friend named Jonathan; his mother died in a car accident when a drunk driver slammed into her vehicle. He was seven years old. These incidents aren't rare; they occur all the time and affect thousands of people. 26,000 accidents per year is no small number. As the judge in today's round, if you can face a mother who lost her son in an alcohol-related accident or a son who lost a mother in such an accident and tell them they're part of an "insignificant" statistic, and that the "pleasure" and "health benefits" of alcohol are more important than their loss, then I urge you to vote for my opponent. But if you understand the humanity behind an affirmative vote, and if you understand that even a slightly imperfect system under a Prohibition is better than today's system, and if you think 26,000 alcohol-related accidents and one death every fifteen minutes is too much, then you must affirm the resolution. References: [1] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... [2] http://www.a1b2c3.com...