This House Would Ban Alcohol

According to the WHO, in 2004 there were approximately 2.25 million premature deaths
worldwide linked to alcohol. Alcohol is responsible for 4.5% of the global disease burden, even
after the protective effects of low and moderate alcohol consumption had been considered.
Furthermore, binge drinking (excessive alcohol consumption) is becoming an increasing problem
in most countries.

In almost all countries in the world, adults are allowed to buy and consume alcohol with very
little restriction (although there are often laws about the exact hours that bars and shops are
allowed to sell alcohol and laws against drinking and driving). This is in marked contrast to the
legal situation with regard to other mind-altering (or ‘psycho-active’) drugs such as cannabis,
cocaine, ecstasy, acid, and heroin. The first question this offers is whether alcohol and other
drugs should be treated the same? How do you make a difference? Further on the question is
also, what is an effective policy regarding alcohol consumption. Is it higher prices or the ultimate
“ban” approach?

Currently a few Islamic countries have the ban imposed, these are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar,
the United Arab Emirates, Iran and the Gaza. In 2002 also the “liberal Arabic country” Bahrain
has started a debate about banning alcohol.

In the past, the experience of ‘Prohibition’ in the USA in the 1920s and 1930s, when there was a
huge black market in alcohol run by a powerful criminal underworld, makes most people very
wary of trying to ban alcohol and equalize it with other drugs.

Some countries use a total ban on all types of alcohol; this also includes beer, wine as well as
stronger liquor. Other countries (due to tourism and investment) have a special license for
foreigners as the state connects the ban mainly to their Islamic heritage.

Is it time to try to solve the alcohol problem through more restrictions and campaigns or is it time
for a ban policy?

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE
POINT POINT
Alcohol is a mind altering drug, which can cause
individuals to take actions they would have not
done otherwise. This does not refer to loosened
inhibitions, but also extends to harmful acts
against themselves and others.
Democracy is based on the principle that the
majority of people are to elect leaders and trust
them with a term, where their duty is solely to look alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or any other addictive
after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens.
The politicians, having the resources and time
which they have to use, to get well equipped to
make more informed decision on activities
dangerous to the individual, others and the society.
One of the principles in society therefore is that
elected representatives have to make sure their
citizens get the best possible protection in society.
Even if this infringes on some of their rights.
Alcohol for a long time has been kept because the
government trusted the people; they would make
responsible decisions regarding alcohol. However, use a substance that impacts only them, the
each year, the society loses, on a 30 year based
average, more than 75,000 individuals to alcohol
related diseases or accidents.[1] Thus the citizens
proved not to be responsible; even though they had
information available they did not make the choice
that would keep them alive.
The government has a duty to protect those
irresponsible citizens, because otherwise they will
not be able to contribute to society to the extent
they could without alcohol. And because the
government does not know who is the one that will
Governments are not there to be the mothers of
citizens, but should allow people to freely live
their lives as long as they do not hurt others.
A government might have the wish to build a
society that is obedient, productive and without
flaws. This may also mean a society without
substances. Such a society might have its
benefits in a short term, but seen long term it
has more unsatisfied individuals.
With drinking alcohol responsibly no one is
getting harmed; in many cases not even the
individual, as it is actually beneficial for the
health. A glass of wine per day is good for
decreasing the risk of cancer and heart disease,
scientists say.[1]
So if someone in society has decided that it is
good for them for whatever reason possible to
state should not prevent them from doing so.
This is because the society has been made from
the different individuals, which lead different
lifestyles and therefore have very opposing
opinions views on what freedom is. A society
that is free and where individuals are happy is a
society where individuals engage more and also
give more back to the society. So if alcohol will
make the people happy and then more
productive, we should maintain status quo.
make a stupid decision that will engender their
lives in the long run, for the sake of few
individuals’, alcohol has to be banned for all.
Therefore, because the government has been
trusted with the duty to make informed decisions
instead of the individuals and to protect the
individual, it is right to allow them to ban alcohol
if they believe it is very harmful.
COUNTER POINT
Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies,
and should be free to make choices which affect
them and no other individual.
Since the pleasure gained from alcohol and the
extent to which this weighs against potential risks
is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state
to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted
resources into attempting to suppress alcohol use,
the state would be better off running information
campaigns to educate people about the risks and
consequences of alcohol abuse.
POINT
Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge
proportion of disputes and distress in society. It
also contributes to the psychological problems of
the alcohol consumer children. While the problem
might not be connected to one individual in
society, it is important that laws protect those, who
might abuse their rights and with this hurt others.
Currently in the US alone, there is an estimated 6.6 producing alcohol and the cultural acceptance.
million children under 18, which live in
COUNTER POINT
The state is obligated, when the health of
citizens is on the line, to pass laws and
regulations that protect them. The precedent has
already been established in most countries with
most forms of drugs. Citizens’ rights in this
case are not a right to have drugs, but a right to
be protected from the harmful effects of the
substances, not merely on their own bodies but
society as a whole. Governments would be
derelict in their duty if they did not act to
remove such harmful substances from society.
POINT
In comparison to any other drug, alcohol is very
easy to produce (hence the great amount of
vineyards) and very much engraved in the
culture of especially European countries.
Therefore a ban would be very ineffective, as
the people would do it due to the ease of
A ban would bring just more deregulation and
households with at least one alcoholic parent. It
was never the fault of these children that others
started to drink and harm them. According to
psychological studies many of the children coming
from alcohol abuse families have problems such as
low self-esteem, loneliness, guilt, feelings of
helplessness, fears of abandonment, and chronic
depression. Children of alcoholics in some cases
even feel responsible for the problems of the
alcoholic and may think they created the problem.
Alcohol is also a great contributor not only to
psychological, but also to physical damage. Many
times, alcohol is an easy excuse for domestic
abusers. The incidence of domestic abuse in
households, where there is alcohol abuse is a lot
higher and the abusers name the effects of alcohol
as their main cause of violence.
With taking away alcohol we take away the fuel of
many of the abusers, thus protecting third involved
parties.
COUNTER POINT
Human beings are naturally inclined towards
violence and conflict. Sex and violence are primal
parts of our genetic make-up and we do not need
alcohol to bring them to the surface.
A study conducted by the University of Osnabrück
(Germany) explains that individuals who are the
cause of domestic violence usually have very little
or no capacity for empathy from the early stages of actually produced.[2] So in comparison to the
their development. It states, that the domestic
loss of taxes through the black market.
We might acknowledge that the legal
implications will scare away some people from
drinking alcohol, but the main part of
population will want more. Because there is a
strong inelastic demand and the illegal supply
will flourish.
This can be seen already with both and illegal
drugs. It is also the lesson of Prohibition in the
USA in the 1920s. Smuggled alcohol brought in
from much cheaper continental countries will
undercut both pubs and law-abiding retailers,
and will circumvent the normal regulations
which ensure consumer safety, such as proof-
of-age or quality controls. In Saudi Arabia, a
country with an alcohol ban, the Saudi police
had seized over 100,000 bottles of eau-de-
cologne with an expired expiration date. The
methanol in cologne recently led to the deaths
of over 20 people who drank it and many others
were blinded. Earlier, over 130,000 bottles were
confiscated.[1] Because people wanted alcohol
so badly and could not get it. While in Europe
there might not be much of poisoning going on,
a great amount of alcohol because of the
different wine regions. Only Spain has already
2.9 million acres of land devoted entirely to the
planting of wine grapes. However, it is only
number 3 when it comes to the amount of wine
Arabic countries, there is a lot of ground where
violence is deeply rooted in their psychology.
Thus, nothing to do with alcohol as the cause of
third party harm.
Alcohol, at worst, may slightly exaggerate these
tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the
underlying cause of violent crimes. The underlying like Russia.[3] Overall criminality will flourish,
causes are biological and social and abuse would
happen anyway, even without alcohol.
Making rape and murder illegal does not eradicate
rape and murder, so it is unlikely that making
drinking alcohol illegal will do so either.
POINT
A ban of alcohol would have a great impact on the
health of every individual.
easily to produce alcohol and therefore making
it hard to control.
Worse, criminals will find a market for cheap,
home-brewed alcohol, of the kind which kills or
blinds hundreds of people a year in countries
with the gang violence associated with
Prohibition or the drugs trade.
An alcohol ban has worked mainly in countries
where it is very tight tied to religion and to the
religious practices. Especially in countries that
are secular and more multicultural, the ban
would be impossible to enforce. The harms
associated with black market alcohol are too
great for us to risk introducing this proposal.
COUNTER POINT
In any single law, that prohibits substances
there is going to be the danger of a black
market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol
developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it
was due to high taxation). The Association of
Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 %
of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally
(without paying taxes).
The problem therefore is not going to lay in the
ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation
and thorough control of the markets.
POINT
In any single law, that prohibits substances
there is going to be the danger of a black
Alcohol and especially alcohol abuse are very
common problems in today’s society. Long lasting
abuse of substances leads to many chronic diseases was due to high taxation). The Association of
such as liver cirrhosis (damage to liver cells);
pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas);
various cancers, including liver, mouth, throat,
larynx (the voice box), and esophagus; high blood
pressure; and psychological disorders.
With a ban of alcohol we would very much lower
the rates of consumption, as already current drug
laws show. Even though drugs have a similar
effect as alcohol, because of the risk of
consequences when using those substances.
Therefore in general the number of alcohol
addiction would sink and cause also less of a
financial health burden. According to the US
alone, the economic cost of alcohol abuse in 1998
was 184.6 billion dollars.
This is a burden which many state budgets have to
bear.
Therefore if this cost can be prevented, the lives of
people improved (by not getting the chronic
diseases) we should do so.
COUNTER POINT
First of all alcohol abuse (excessive amounts of
alcohol) contribute only to a small percentage of
all alcohol use in society. Even in Germany, where
prices of beer are very low in comparison to other
beverages, the data shows, that only 1.7 million (in
a country of more than 80 million) use alcohol in a
market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol
developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it
Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 %
of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally
(without paying taxes).
The problem therefore is not going to lay in the
ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation
and thorough control of the markets.
COUNTER POINT
Laws change attitudes. Many times laws are the
first step towards more approval of a certain
new societal value and even lead the step to a
quicker mentality change.
This was seen with the legalizing of gay
marriages in many countries, among them also
in some states in the US. In 2010 the approval
among US citizens reached more than half of
the population, which is a drastic improve from
the past.[1] In the beginning there was very
little approval of the policy and same-sex
marriages in general, an open discussion about
the law, the first actual practical implications of
the law and consequences have over time
gained more acceptances in most Western
countries towards gay marriage.
The same principle will apply to an alcohol ban.
While in the beginning there will probably be a
lot of protest, there will probably also be a
change of mentality later on.
harmful way.
So why force people to give up something, just
because a minority is not sure how to use it.
Further on, even if it was a concerning amount of
people whose health is impacted by alcohol abuse,
campaigns and information have very effectively
reduced the death rate for cirrhosis. During a 22-
year period, death from cirrhosis: dropped 29.8%
among black men, 15.3% among white men,
47.9% among black women and 33.3% among
white women
POINT
Not only would banning alcohol infringe
people’s civil liberties to an unacceptable
degree, it would also put thousands of people
out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous
global industry.
In 2007, it was a $970 billion global market for
alcoholic beverages, experiencing a period of
unprecedented change. While about 60 percent
of the market was still in the hands of small,
local enterprises, truly global players are
steadily emerging and creating an even greater
market. There are not good enough reasons for
wreaking this havoc on the world economy.
A point further on is that currently governments
raise large amounts of revenue from taxes and
duties payable on alcoholic drinks. To ban
alcohol would take away a major source of
funding for public services. In addition, the
effect of banning alcohol would call for
additional policing on a huge scale, if the
prohibition were to be enforced effectively. If
would create a new class of illegal drug-users,
traffickers, and dealers on an unprecedented
scale.

COUNTER POINT
It is true that currently thousands of people are
employed by the alcoholic drinks industry.
However the fact that an immoral industry
employs a lot of people is never a good
argument to keep that immoral industry going
(similar arguments apply to the cases of
prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting, battery
farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual process would
have to be implemented, which would include
governments providing funding for training for
alternative careers.
Also it is true that tax revenues would be lost if
alcohol were banned. However, again, this is
not a principled reason to reject the proposition,
simply a practical problem. It should be pointed
out that governments would save a huge
amount of money on police and health spending
(through the reduction in crime and alcohol-
related illness) which would go at least some of
the way to offsetting the decreased tax
revenues.