That this house would ban alcohol

Two basic arguments against the prohibition of alcohol come to mind, so I'll use those to open this debate. 1. The Empirical Argument A fact known to many who have studied American History is that prohibition is clearly ineffective at combating the sale, distribution, and use of alcohol [. http://www.imunusual.com...]. When alcohol was turned into an illegal substance, the consumption of alcohol was not eliminated - it was merely driven underground. Rather than biological purity and strong moral fiber, the 18th Amendment resulted in the polar opposite: speakeasies, organized crime, and the kind of binging that we're currently seeing with the equally ineffective "War on Drugs" [. http://online.wsj.com...] [. http://www.google.com...]. To avoid going on a long rant about Prohibition Era and the War on Drugs, I'll simply say this: we've tried it before, and it doesn't work. There's no reason to waste even more money now, given A) our already-enormous deficit, and B) a culture that, in terms of social issues, is FAR more liberal than it was in the days of Prohibition, which suggests that trying another ban would produce even worse results than it did the first time (if "worse" is even a possibility). 2. The Moral Argument Neither a government nor a "Moral Majority" has the right to ban alcohol. The thing is, consumption of alcohol isn't intrinsically harmful to the rights of another individual; therefore, the government does not have the moral authority to pass a law banning the sale, distribution, or consumption of alcohol. The only physical harm which could directly result from the consumption of alcohol is harm to one's own body; however, given that one's body is one's personal property, the government would be acting quite contrary to it's purpose--to protect rights--if it were to violate a person's freedom to do what he pleases with his property--that is, his body--so long as he harms no one else in the process. Interestingly, the only affirmative argument of which I could conceive (other than the paternalistic "alcohol hurts the body" argument) is that, while under the influence of alcohol, one may be inclined to commit a criminal offense. Two things come to mind when considering this argument: a. if a person commits a crime while under the influence of any substance, they ought to be punished for committing the offense. To illustrate my point, allow me to present a hypothetical scenario. Suppose, if you will, that there are two men, both of whom are above 21 (to comply with the legal status quo), and both of whom have consumed enough alcohol that they are both demonstrably intoxicated. The first man walks the three blocks to his house and goes to sleep. The second man, whose house is on the other side of the city, decides to break into and steal one of the cars in the parking lot. As it turns out, the police catch him as he pulls out of the lot. He's arrested, tried, and convicted for theft of a motor vehicle. In both cases, the judgment of the two men is impaired by their vast consumption of alcohol; yet, the first man is not punished. The distinction between innocence and guilt is only drawn at the point that a crime is committed, as is the case with the second man. This suggests, given that legal guilt is established only after commission of an offense, that inebriation isn't a factor which ought to be taken into consideration when bringing someone up on criminal charges. b. Another interesting thing to note here is that "impaired judgment" is not only legally irrelevant (unless, of course, one is legitimately insane or retarded), but also non-unique to alcohol. Consider the case of a man who has had a very bad day. Perhaps he got fired from a lucrative job, or, after arriving home early from a business trip, caught his wife cheating on him with his best friend. In his rage, perhaps he leaves the situation immediately, and drives around town with a dire case of road rage. Given that his judgment as a driver is quite impaired, suppose that he inadvertently crashes into an oncoming vehicle, killing that driver instantly. Perhaps they charge him with reckless endangerment - the crime here is putting other drivers in danger without any regard whatsoever for their safety. Do they bring him up on charges of grumpiness? Do they nail him for second-degree irritability? Do they use this case as a springboard for the establishment of "contentment checkpoints"? Well, I should certainly hope not. The point remains, however, that one cannot ban "bad judgment", regardless of whether it comes from a bad day at the office or from a pint at Bill's Pub.