Anti-alcohol campaigners should either put up or shut up

Thanks to my opponent for the debate. I'll begin with my opponent's points, then move on to my own. 1) Teetotalers [sic] actually have no public health concern, but are merely envious of the better social lives enjoyed by drinkers. My opponent re-asserts his claim that the anti-alcohol movement has an ulterior agenda of creating an authoritarian state. He then gives a quote from the Women's Christian Temperance Union that criticizes the actions of our current President. My opponent would have you believe that this proves his point...but it doesn't. Sure, it shows that this particular organization within the anti-alcohol community is conservative, but the WTCU may or may not be representative of the political leanings of the anti-alcohol movement. Also, conservative in any modern sense does not mean authoritarian. The WTCU's quote does not indicate any wish for authoritarian policies. The quote argues against socialist/welfare tendencies the USA has taken; socialist governments are by definition more authoritarian than free-market governments. So if anything, the quote is ant-authoritarian. My opponent has failed to prove that the anti-alcohol movement, in general, has an agenda to "create an ultra-conservative, far-right, authoritarian state where fun and frivolity are banished and are replaced with stern austerity and total abstinence from hedonistic pursuits." This point falls. 2) Prohibitionists want everyone to sew and make model airplanes rather than have fun. I acknowledge the fact that the anti-alcohol movement would restrict people's access to certain substances that are "mood-enhancing". But governments restrict all sorts of non-wholesome substances (drugs) that are not at all enriching to society. Alcohol is no different, if you reference my first rebuttal. My opponent also claimed that alcohol, in moderation, is not detrimental to one's health. The key words here are "in moderation". It is the sheer amount of over-use and abuse that has sparked these movements. While not as addicting as many drugs, alcohol still has an addicting effect to many. The government, when restricting or banning alcohol, is attempting to protect those most at risk from this addiction (in the 1920s, one alcoholic parent in a working class family could easily impoverish a family) from themselves. My opponent has advocated "protecting the needy". How is this any different than something like universal health care? Both have the same ultimate goals. The effects of alcoholism are well-documented by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The main effect is severe and often lethal liver damage. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov... http://www.niaaa.nih.gov... 3) I never said that the US legislation is too lenient. What I did ask is what made it bad. My opponent responded that it restricts freedom. This is true. But the US and British governments often restrict people's freedom to protect their citizens (think: universal health care). Governments have a duty, under John Locke's social contract, to protect the natural rights of their citizens i.e. to protect their life, health, liberty, and property. Since liberty is so little diminished and life, health, and property are so greatly increased by such legislation, it is perfectly fitting for the government to ban alcohol, just as it has banned other addicting substances. 4) Prohibition restricts freedom of choice. My opponent responded to none of my argument here. He has failed to define what freedom of choice is, and why it is important and should be upheld. Without positive proof of this point, my responses flow through and this point falls. 5) My opponent brings up the completely irrelevant topic of ages of sexual consent. The parallel between prohibitionists and paedophiles is obviously flawed. Paedophiles wish to break the law; prohibitionists wish to make more laws. My other responses here, unreasoned to, still stand, and thus, this point too falls. The crux of this debate is the flagrant violation of free speech and/or free thought it attempts to propagate. Remember the topic: "Those who oppose alcohol consumption should either change their views or not speak of their views." My opponent voiced no objections to this wording of the topic, so this thesis stands as the thesis for the debate. My opponent failed to respond to any of my points other than to say that he advocates free speech, and that some prohibitionists try to restrict it. My case, which was not responded to, proved that his position violates both free speech and free thought. I oppose any attempt to restrict free speech by prohibitionists; this does not change the issue at hand's violations. Because the Affirmative has proved no points, and the Negative's case has clearly stood, I can only see a Con vote in this round. Thank you.