Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Alcohol, prohibition of
Section E. Social, moral and religious
This debate looks at whether the government should intervene to stop the social and health problems related to alcohol, or whether people should be allowed to make their own decisions in relation to drinking. A Proposition team may want to think about the enforcement and penalties attached to the policy as most people are familiar with the failure of Prohibition in the USA.
Pros
[1] Statistics show undeniably that alcohol plays a role in many crimes. In the UK, it is a factor in 65 per cent of murders,40 per cent of cases of domestic violence, and a third of all cases of child abuse; the Association of Chief Police Officers puts the proportion of violent crime that is alcohol-related at about 70 per cent. Studies state that 80 per cent of people treated in accident and emergency departments are there because of alcohol use, with 10 people killed through drinkdriving every week and thousands permanently scarred every year in drunken fights. Drinking while pregnant harms an unborn baby. The government must intervene in response to these horrifying statistics by banning alcohol consumption.
[2] As well as posing a risk to others, alcohol also harms the user, increasing the likelihood of liver failure, some forms of cancer and involvement in accidents. Alcohol is also linked to high blood pressure, strokes and heart disease. Alcohol abuse can also have serious psychological effects. It is a common misconception that alcohol is not physiologically addictive, but regular use can result in a physical dependence, with all the problems that implies. As an addict cannot truly be said to be exercising ’free choice’, the state has an even stronger right to intervene.
[3] As alcohol is a harmful and addictive drug, our treatment of it should be the same as our treatment of cocaine or heroin. Moreover, alcohol is for many addicts the first drug on the path to ever harder drugs. Removing this first link in the chain may be an important step to solving the drug problem altogether.
[4] A great deal of money and effort is directed towards solving the problems caused by drink. Surely it would be wiser to focus efforts on eradicating the root cause of these problems?
[5] Many countries, especially in Northern Europe, are seeing binge drinking on the increase, with a particular rise in young people and women drinking specifically to get drunk. This is leading to a situation where town centres are taken over on Friday and Saturday nights by drunken revelry and anti-social behaviour. When they sober up, intoxicated drinkers regret their actions, which can include casual, unprotected sex. Sexually transmitted disease (STDs) and teenage pregnancy rates could be slashed by banning alcohol.
Cons
[1] Alcohol is a factor in crime and can cause social problems. However, the vast majority of those who consume alcohol do so responsibly — for them, drinking is a harmless and pleasurable activity, which adds to their enjoyment of social events. Alcohol abuse should be tackled; to penalise the majority for the actions of a minority is not the solution. Prohibition would be a ham-fisted and overly simplistic way to deal with a complex issue.
[2] While the state has the right to act against citizens when their actions are causing harm to others — as it does at the moment when drinking leads to violence or public nuisance — it does not have the right to interfere in their private lives. Drinking may carry a health risk for the individual, yet so do many legal activities, including most forms of sport; moreover, alcohol differs from most illegal drugs, because responsible usage in moderation is neither addictive nor harmful (indeed, some medical research implies that it can do you good).
[3] Alcohol cannot be treated in the same way as other drugs. After thousands of years, drink plays an important role in our social lives, and even in religion; many of our social structures have been built up around it. Many businesses would collapse with an alcohol ban. As Prohibition in America (1920—33) demonstrated, any such legislation cannot work — instead, it drives ordinary citizens into the hands of criminals, and encourages experimentation with other drugs.
[4] To say that alcohol is the root cause of many social ills is a dangerous oversimplification — rather, it is the result of those ills. Throughout history, it has been convenient for politicians and moralists to blame drink for ’corrupting’ citizens. From the time of Hogarth’s Gin Lane through to Victorian England, it was seen as one of the most significant dangers facing society, yet this was simply to ignore the fundamental injustices that drove the poor and the desperate to alcoholism. It is these that we must tackle.
[5] There are other ways of reducing binge drinking without banning alcohol outright for everyone, which would be a serious infringement on liberty. Increasing the price of alcohol, raising the drinking age, limiting the measures of alcohol served and restricting licensing hours could all be used to tackle problem drinking.
Possible motions
This House would ban all alcoholic drinks.
This House believes that alcohol is a scourge on society.
Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Drugs, legalisation of
Smoking, banning of
Organ donation: priority for healthy lifestyle