**Tl;dr: Alcohol is damaging to the health people who drink it, the mental health of the people around those suffering from addiction, and society as a whole. Alcohol should be banned because it causes millions of deaths and ruins millions of lives each year.** Alcohol is a drug which has had a prominent place in most societies for centuries. Drinking is a social activity and it fills its role well. However, as a drug, it is also harmful to the human body and addictive. Abusing it leads to damaging consequences from both a health and societal standpoint. Personally, I also think it tastes disgusting, but that’s a different debate altogether. The [WHO] (https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol) estimates that around 3 million deaths each year are a direct consequence of alcohol abuse. This is particularly severe for young people, those aged 20-39, for whom it is estimated around 13.5% of deaths can be attributed to alcohol. But there is more. Alcohol is also linked to increased risk of disease and injury. It is cited as a causal factor for more than 200 diseases and injuries, ranging from mental health disorders to physical ailments. There are many who drink alcohol all their adult lives without drinking to excess or suffering adverse effects. But there are also many who do abuse it, leading to catastrophic consequences, destroying not only their lives, but that of those around them. Perhaps a bit extreme, but I think alcohol consumption should be banned altogether. This could not happen overnight, but much like the tobacco industry, I believe we should restrict and discourage drinking with a view to banning it altogether in the future.

As someone who rarely imbibes I am against this proposal. It must be individual choice. There is very little in life that we do that potentially doesn't harm us. Should we ban driving because people die in road accidents or smoking because of the known health risks, although personally I think I'd vote for the latter! Exercise has its dangers and sugar is bad for us. The list goes on...... I consider it very wrong to limit freedom of choice in this instance .

**TL;DR - Just because something like drinking alcohol can lead to overindulgence and excessive use does not mean it should be banned. It just means that people should be aware not to overstep the limits**. Drinking alcohol in normal amounts is something that we all do. It is something that goes with meeting friends and family, social gatherings, social events, etc. Alcohol is part of our lives and ways of entertainment, and this does not mean that drinking alcohol equals alcoholism. The production and consumption of alcohol is part of our history, and, as says, 'the fermentation of alcoholic beverages is as old as civilization, dating all the way back to ancient China, Mesopotamia, and Egypt'. ( [Forbes India](https://www.forbesindia.com/article/recliner/freedom-to-drink-why-alcohol-should-not-be-prohibited/35913/1) ).It is part of our tradition and society. Also, there is the matter of prohibition and its negative consequences. As Tom Head argues, alcohol 'prohibition has never worked': *Prohibition leads to an increase in risky alcohol consumption; instead of sitting down casually and having a beer, you sneak into a back alley, buy a quart of rum, knock it back and run home. That is risky drinking behaviour and does not lead to a decrease in alcohol consumption*. ( [ThoughtCo](https://www.thoughtco.com/why-is-alcohol-legal-721153) ). Indeed, prohibiting alcohol is going to lead to even more excessive alcohol consumption and more breaking of the law. I think that people should be informed of the risks of excessive alcohol consumption and act accordingly. Many things are bad for health when overused, but this does not mean we should ban them.

**TL;DR – While I am a person who does not drink at all (for personal reasons), I do understand that enjoying alcohol is one of life's many social pleasures. So despite the damaging effects it can have, I do not believe that it is advisable or feasible in the long run to ban alcohol completely – as it is not a sustainable solution.** I believe that it’s not a smart decision to ban alcohol completely in the long run, especially in light of the fact that: people are responsible for their own actions (how much they choose to drink) and also, it’s taxed quite heavily in various numerous countries (economic consequences). Consequently, I believe that the distribution and overall management of alcohol should be controlled and maybe even limited in some instances where necessary – not exploited. The website [jakartapost.com]( https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/02/11/liquor-should-not-be-banned-controlled-industry.html) informs us that this is exactly what was proposed in West Jakarta, Indonesia by the House of Representatives – with the drafting of a bill that would become the legal basis to regulate the distribution and of alcoholic beverages in society. Apparently, if such a bill were passed into law, then it would allow regulators to control and monitor the distribution of alcohol and alcoholic beverages – as opposed to completely banning it. So while this is a good idea in theory, in reality it might be perceived as impractical and unrealistic if not implemented and regulated properly. The website [theconversation.com]( https://theconversation.com/impractical-and-unrealistic-why-an-indonesian-bill-to-ban-alcohol-would-cause-more-problems-than-it-solves-150458) reveals how prohibiting alcohol without thinking of the long-term repercussions can have both unintended and permanent consequences, and has already been responsible for: increase in violence, bribery and corruption, cheaper more dangerous alcohol beverages, crippling of some economies – since it’s become such a lucrative commodity. What's more, while the website [thejoint.com]( https://www.thejoint.com/louisiana/lafayette/lafayette-18004/216229-should-alcohol-be-banned-from-your-life) very interestingly weighs up both the pros and cons of completely banning alcohol from one's life, it does finally conclude that: "It’s not necessary to abstain from all alcohol for the rest of your life in order to stay healthy. But it is necessary to consume it in moderation. Excessive alcohol consumption is never good and only brings bad consequences. With the right healthy approach, it’s possible to enjoy a drink from time to time without significantly harming your health. Be smart, use in moderation, and always ask your doctor for advice before making a plan of action for your health." So simply put, it’s not the alcohol that’s a problem but the people. Perhaps, government should (re)consider the current laws already in place and adjust them to handle this issue better. Or maybe, the current laws need to be implemented properly.

Although I don't necessarily believe that alcohol should be outright banned, it must continue to be discussed as a serious issue which can create damaging physical and mental problems within people. There should certainly be greater restrictions around the accessibility of alcohol. Education and introducing greater restrictions on the purchase and consumption of alcohol is vital for helping people to consume alcohol in small, healthy amounts. The [WHO]( https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/safer/s/en/) asserts that these strategies would prevent such easy access to alcohol from vulnerable and high-risk groups. The current commercial and public availability of alcohol contribute to the promotion of harmful and unhealthy alcohol consumption habits. Maybe restricting the times and the places where people can buy alcohol to a greater extent would help to encourage people to drink alcohol sensibly. I am not sure whether an outright ban on booze would cause more issues than it might solve. However, there certainly needs to be some form of change in how alcohol is promoted towards people both culturally and socially, and I believe that having greater restrictions around alcohol consumption would aid with this.

**TL;DR I think an alcohol ban is a bad idea, history teaches us that they are not that effective (primarily focusing on the alcohol prohibition in the United States during the 1920s)**. Whilst I understand the dangers of alcohol, I think history teaches us that banning the substance is not very effective in stopping people consuming the product. From 1920 to 1933, the United States had a nationwide prohibition of alcohol as a result of the Eighteenth Amendment. The idea was that the ban would reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems and also improve the health / hygiene of Americans. However, despite the ban, many people were still willing to drink alcohol illegally. This gave rise to [bootlegging (the illegal production and sale of liquor), as well as the rise of Speakeasies (illegal drinking establishments).](https://www.britannica.com/event/Prohibition-United-States-history-1920-1933) The alcohol ban was capitalised upon by organised crime and gangs. The alcohol ban was also economically harmful. It wiped out an entire industry. [All those who had worked at the breweries had lost their jobs.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/) This was extremely harmful, it negatively impacted socio-economic conditions. So, whilst an alcohol ban could potentially prevent health problems, I also think it would introduce a whole new set of problems into society. I believe that it would not rid the alcohol industry, but rather force it to go underground which would only benefit the criminals of society. An alcohol ban would not be that effective.

There is no need to prohibit the consumption of alcohol. Alcohol's risks will be reduced compared to the consequences of the prohibition. No one is asking you to consume alcohol; It's a personal decision. Adults can think critically and make sound decisions. People would be more drawn to something if we limit their use of it. People will start drinking just for the thrill of it. If the selling of alcohol is prohibited, we will soon see the black market's rise for alcohol. Even though alcohol will be much more costly than average, people will still buy and consume it.

**TL;DR: Banning alcohol for public health reasons is overly paternalistic.** Alcohol can lead to physical and mental health issues when over-consumed. However, calling something harmful and banning something constitute two entirely different actions on philosophical grounds. More specifically, banning alcohol for public health reasons will qualify as a drastic and excessive level of paternalism. Paternalism means limiting one’s freedom for their own best interest. While the current pandemic may make the idea look appealing, public health ethics [rarely embraces](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/publichealth-ethics/) strong paternalism. A person living in a civil democracy has the freedom to make their own choices, including bad ones. Such a principle applies especially to something like alcohol. Alcohol does not necessarily cause harm. It could if used improperly. That characterization covers many topics, from spicy food to sleep deprivation. Hence, the underlying public health argument for banning alcohol can justify many more severe and absurd actions. These actions of paternalism can constitute grave damage to civil liberty and personal freedom. Such damage will surely outweigh the benefits of eliminating alcohol. In public health, the principle of “do not harm” has an established priority in decision-making. Hence, it seems unlikely the ethical system of public health would endorse banning alcohol in many fashions. One cannot preach prohibition for health reasons without running counter to health ethics. Hence, people should be allowed to make their own bad choices, including drinking.

**TL;DR The health outcomes of drinking alcohol are detrimental and cannot justify it being legal** Even though when out with friends or around Christmas I love a drink, I agree that when looking at the over arching health detriments of alcohol, it should be banned. Cancer Research UK [explain](https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/alcohol-and-cancer/does-alcohol-cause-cancer#:~:text=Drinking%20alcohol%20increases%20the%20risk%20of%20mouth%20cancer%2C%20pharyngeal%20(upper,damage%20all%20around%20the%20body.) on their website that drinking alcohol increases the risk of mouth, pharyngeal (upper throat), oesophageal (food pipe), laryngeal (voice box), breast, bowel and liver cancer. This is a huge range of risk just for the fun of an additional social lubricant. This [page](https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/alcohol-and-cancer/does-alcohol-cause-cancer#collapsealcohol30) highlights that for breast cancer, which is the most common cancer in the UK, 8% of cases every year are a result of drinking alcohol. This risk increases even when drinking very little/low levels of alcohol. Gov.co.uk released a [health document](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-preventing-ill-health-from-alcohol-and-tobacco/health-matters-preventing-ill-health-from-alcohol-and-tobacco-use) from Public Health England regarding alcohol and smoking in England 2019. This revealed that in 2017 over 24,000 died due to an alcohol-related cause. From 2017 to 2018, nearly 1.2 million hospital admissions occurred relating to alcohol. In 338,000 of these cases alcohol was the primary reason for admission. Apart from the severe effects drinking can have on people's well-being, it is also destructive for the economy. The economic burden of alcohol is thought to lie between 1.3% and 2.7% of annual GDP. Around 75% of NHS annual budget is incurred by people who are not dependent on alcohol, but misuse alcohol and this causes ill health. I do not think the benefits of alcohol are justifiable in the face of its vast potential to cause ill-health or harm to people. I think if it was banned or limited, then the associated psychological and monetary cost would also be reduced and these reserved resources could be used for better things.

We tried this already. The result was Scarface and mafia control of entire cities, while alcohol usage continued anyway.

Anyone interested in the public welfare needs to start with alcohol, not firearms.

Clearly it has its negative effects, I've had a family member almost die due to alcohol. So from a health perspective it makes me think that maybe there's a case for alcohol to be illegal. However, if it becomes illegal that means that drug related crime will rise and there are far more important things for the police to be dealing with. Look at how the Prohibition Era went in America: people just made their own alcohol... think about how much easier it is now to make a large network around illegal goods...