[Short Debate]: This House Would Ban Alcohol

I don't think that anyone is going to accept this, since it's nearly impossible with so many harms, but if you do then great! This is going to be a quick and simple debate. Only two rounds, with round one being only for constructive cases, and round two for only rebuts to constructive cases. Only 4000 characters. We're going to be debate on [RESOLVED: IT IS A MORALLY JUST, AS WELL AS SOCIETALLY JUST, IDEA TO BAN ALCOHOL FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC], with me in the negation side of things, and my opponent in the affirmative. The affirmative should prove that, not only is it morally just to ban alcohol, but it is societally just.-----DEFINITIONS: Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair Societally Just: the idea that something is just in the name of promoting society Morally Just: the idea that something is just because of morals that are held throughout society General Public: ordinary people in society Idea: a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action Alcohol: a colorless volatile flammable liquid that is the intoxicating constituent of wine, beer, spirits, and other drinks -----MY OWN CASE:Contention One: Organised CrimeDuring the days of Prohibition within the United States, there was a necessity for organised crime. People just could not give up the alcohol that they needed, so they needed people to not only make it and get it, but people to protect the people that bought it. Mobs and gangs are often attributed to starting at about the time that states started making alcohol illegal within their jurisdiction, and as soon as an amendment to the federal constitution was added, it was needed more than ever. [1]Contention Two: Legal Harms/Governmental HarmsAfter prohibition was passed, there had to be people that were arrested for the use and distribution of intoxicating liquors, and as such, convicts needed a place to go after being arrested. Homocides, assaults, battery, and kidnapping all increased around 13%, and is directly attributed to the passing of prohibition [2]. Total penal expidentures increased over 1000%, federal prison population went up 366%, and the amount of federal convicts increased over 561% [2]. And this is not even to start thinking about the amount of bribery that occured from Al Capone & Friends within the local governments [1]Contention Three: Refutation of "Benefits Society"I expect to hear something along the lines of "prohibition benefits society sooo much, bruh", however that's really not true. People that were pro-prohibition were saying the same things, however society did not improve at all. More people died, more people ended up going missing, more people ended up injured as a direct result, and if you can say that having more people dead in the streets is a benefit for society, then props to you, because you just broke logic.Contention Four: Refutation of "Increased Health Due to Prohibition"Health would not increase as a direct result of prohibition. More and more people would be looking towards illegal outlets for their addiction to intoxicating liquor, and more and more people would die because of liquor that was not made correctly. Saying "increased health" would be looking at a few people that would actually decide to follow the law, and not look at the real situation that is at hand.Thanks to whoever accepts this debate, if anyone does. Good luck[1] patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/03/12-bad-effects-of-prohibition-you-should-know/ [2] albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html [Good Background Reading] http://en.wikipedia.org...[GBR] http://en.wikipedia.org...[GBR] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [GBR] http://en.wikipedia.org...