Jazzy Jinx
♥♪!?
Yeah I know the government already tried to ban alcohol during Prohibition but let's count this as a hypothetical situation. Besides, times have changed and really, alcohol can still be argued a ban should the person supporting the ban have a good plan of how to deal with the negative effects Prohibition had.
On the pro side of the debate you can argue that the economy benefits from alcohol sales. Have you ever wondered why most dry counties are densely populated and lack private businesses? Private businesses, usually restaraunts, are made in cities should alcohol be available for sale because the majority of adult drinkers are NOT alcoholics. However, despite the fact that a majority of adults are not alcoholics, a majority still drinks alcohol but they do it in moderation.
When adults want to go out to eat at a restaurant it only makes sense that they would want an alcoholic beverage to maybe loosen up a bit and relax a little more. When alcohol is available in restaurants, that restaurants' income becomes significantly higher. Without alcohol available, it is less likely that a restaraunt would want to open up in a dry county as opposed to a wet county. Through this, a dry county makes less income than a wet county and overall, makes less money for the economy. Not only that but the taxes that would have usually been recieved from private-owned businesses will instead be charged on the community, creating inflation.
Adversely, teens drink very often as well and usually do it irresponsibly. The leading cause of death among teenagers is drunk driving. Plus, there is a negative impact on the economy when car accidents occur as a result of drunk driving because an innocent life is almost always lost more frequently than the drunk driver him or herself. So now the economy has one less taxpayer and loses income on top of having to pay for the accident or damages.
The drunk driver can also recieve the criminal charges of manslaughter, DWI or DUI, and underaged possession and consumption of alcohol should the individual in question be under the age of 21. So now the government has to pay for prison accommodations (that's right, prison costs money) and yet another taxpayer is removed from the economic growth.
However, pro-alcohol can be argued to be more beneficial than the negative effects of it as it truly is economically. Though the accidents do impact economic growth, it is still worth it as the money grows more than it decreases at the expense of the victims. However, though drunks may hurt community safety, Prohibition created organized crime on top of causing a negative impact on the economy.
I believe alcohol should remain legal but teens should recieve more thorough education on the negatives of drinking alcohol without moderation or underaged. Truly, bad judgement is the main reason for all the negatives of alcohol consumption, not alcohol itself.
Edit: This was previously a discussion on alcohol solely but it began to incorporate arguments that include examples from smoking and then transformed into a debate about smoking so I changed the title up a bit.
On the pro side of the debate you can argue that the economy benefits from alcohol sales. Have you ever wondered why most dry counties are densely populated and lack private businesses? Private businesses, usually restaraunts, are made in cities should alcohol be available for sale because the majority of adult drinkers are NOT alcoholics. However, despite the fact that a majority of adults are not alcoholics, a majority still drinks alcohol but they do it in moderation.
When adults want to go out to eat at a restaurant it only makes sense that they would want an alcoholic beverage to maybe loosen up a bit and relax a little more. When alcohol is available in restaurants, that restaurants' income becomes significantly higher. Without alcohol available, it is less likely that a restaraunt would want to open up in a dry county as opposed to a wet county. Through this, a dry county makes less income than a wet county and overall, makes less money for the economy. Not only that but the taxes that would have usually been recieved from private-owned businesses will instead be charged on the community, creating inflation.
Adversely, teens drink very often as well and usually do it irresponsibly. The leading cause of death among teenagers is drunk driving. Plus, there is a negative impact on the economy when car accidents occur as a result of drunk driving because an innocent life is almost always lost more frequently than the drunk driver him or herself. So now the economy has one less taxpayer and loses income on top of having to pay for the accident or damages.
The drunk driver can also recieve the criminal charges of manslaughter, DWI or DUI, and underaged possession and consumption of alcohol should the individual in question be under the age of 21. So now the government has to pay for prison accommodations (that's right, prison costs money) and yet another taxpayer is removed from the economic growth.
However, pro-alcohol can be argued to be more beneficial than the negative effects of it as it truly is economically. Though the accidents do impact economic growth, it is still worth it as the money grows more than it decreases at the expense of the victims. However, though drunks may hurt community safety, Prohibition created organized crime on top of causing a negative impact on the economy.
I believe alcohol should remain legal but teens should recieve more thorough education on the negatives of drinking alcohol without moderation or underaged. Truly, bad judgement is the main reason for all the negatives of alcohol consumption, not alcohol itself.
Edit: This was previously a discussion on alcohol solely but it began to incorporate arguments that include examples from smoking and then transformed into a debate about smoking so I changed the title up a bit.
