What I want you to understand is that banning alcohol is wrong for some of the reasons you described. This means that the law should be amended in such a way that people will not be forbidden to use drugs, but they will be forbidden to violate the freedom and rights of other citizens. Drunken drivers remained a frequent menace on the highways. Heated debates have been going on trying to find out the true answer to a major question: Does the legalization of drugs give positive or negative results? In that case we should allow people to take risks for themselves and we shouldn't outlaw any of those things. Alcohol is the major cause in thousands of suicides and murders each year. Cocaine and heroine and speed and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds are all illegal, but people do them all around the country. The main counterarguments are that as well as promoting brands, advertising is also concerned with recruiting new drinkers and increasing sales among existing, and especially heavy consumers.
And where did I say. Alcohol should be available; but heavily taxed and advertising for alcohol strictly banned. A quick public message that they fixed the superficial problem, while leaving citizens in their misery. Having sex and exercising increases the chances of having a heart attack to almost the same statistic. As far as I can understand what the opposition says they imply that there is no direct correlation between legalization of drugs and the use of them. Not surprizingly, this movement was driven by religious leaders ad their followerd.
I am sorry I have written too much but I have a huge dislike for all drugs especially the worst alcohol. Why alcohol should not be prohibited The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs by Edward M. They have tremendous negative consequences for the health of a person using them and for society, since a person could commit crazy actions under the influence of drugs. Now that we have demonstrated the huge associated with the use of drugs, it is now time to ask a bit more philosophical question - can the government restrict individual choices of its citizens? The progress made against drink driving in recent decades has been very encouraging. The only reason alcohol is not banned is business interest, as it is more dangerous than most illegal drugs. Sweden is another example of a state where the sale of alcohol is regulated.
I actually said it was wonderful sarcastically. As we explained in one of our argument the incomes in the budgets will increase and the number of drug addicts will either lessen or remain the same. Let's start by recognizing that human beings are quite bad at making decisions. . The more surprising thing about this country is how easily people forget about this country's history.
The arguments in favor of prohibition before 1920 were overwhelming. Where has that conclusion come from? No beer was consumed during the making of the ad. Especially in countries that are secular and more multicultural, the ban would be impossible to enforce. There are more cases, but they are unreported by the families. The first one was a rather simplistic — drugs are bad. The basic laws of Economics still work.
We will develop this in more detail in our arguments, but people often make decisions that they later regret. But if individuals know exactly that the alcohol will cause them to potentially be aggressive, they've made the choice to risk a prison sentence if they assert violence against others. Alcoholism is a progressive degenerative disease that includes the following four symptoms: craving, physical dependence, the loss of control, and tolerance. 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. A more likely scenario is that they switch to them from prescription drugs and consume more of them, since costs involved in acquiring them including time and the fact they are breaking the law fall significantly. Thirdly, the Netherlands are now stepping back from drug-liberalization as we already told, which implies the fail of this example once again. I believe that alcohol consumption should be banned and laws should protect innocent people from suffering by making alcohol consumption to be illegal.
Drunks continued to commit suicide, to kill others, and to be killed by others. Also it is worth noting here that not all drugs are legal in the Netherlands. We believe that the opposition was unable to refute our argument. While drinking alcohol may offer some health benefits such as reduce your risk of developing heart disease, ischemic stroke, and possibly diabetes, it can also cause addiction, drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, high blood pressure, alcohol poisoning, kidney disease and so on. Alcohol is carried by blood to all organs, and adversely effect them up to destruction. As someone living in an Islamic country, I think alcohol should be allowed. Alcohol should not be banned in the United States.
At worst, alcohol may slightly exaggerate these tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the underlying cause of violent crimes. According to several research studies, the damage caused by frequent alcohol consumption is considerable, like other drugs, alcohol causes negative effects in the brain in the long run causing addiction. On the contrary, we have pointed out in various ways, such as the example with the Netherlands and the forbidden fruit argument even if its impact is limited, it is still existent that there will be no increase in the use of hard drugs. How many people can be hurt, which injures you can bring to your body? It also contributes to the psychological problems of the alcohol consumer children. And you say that after paying all the taxes and other costs operation the drug dealers will still remain on the market. We guess that this reluctance to give a rebuttal means that the opposition has completely acceded with us on that point.
It states, that the domestic violence is deeply rooted in their psychology. Here you go: I'm siding here although I think alcohol should be replaced with a safer and less depressing drug such as ecstasy or cannabis In conclusion I think alcohol should be replaced with other drugs. Alcohol abuse is responsible for nearly all cases of domestic abuse and broken families. A major problem is that most of the alcohol which is produced by non-state enterprises, contains a large amount of toxic substances. Adults of legal age should be allowed to drink alcohol as much or as little as they want.
However, it is responsible for these deaths not only directly but also indirectly. Heavy drinking of alcohol causes psychological problems like insomnia, hallucination, confusion and anxiety. They have doctors, research on the harmful effects of drugs and many other things that an individual would never have access to. And is as low as 1 per million in the U. The underlying causes are biological and social. So now you imply that I take illegal drugs.