Frank Daniel
Professor Grant
Comp 1210
15 May 2014
Why Prohibition Would Be a Good Law Again When people think of alcohol, they think of beer and booze as being the life blood of the party. What the true reality has become to our nation is that the life blood is being removed from our loved ones through senseless accidental deaths and severe heath conditions from alcohol consumption. But more than just removing inhibitions from individuals, more important effects of alcohol should be considered. Alcohol is responsible for over 88,000 deaths per year in the United States (Kaplan 2014). These deaths and other related economic costs can be reduced if prohibition is reinstated in the United States. Some of the most important evidence to support bringing back prohibition would be to check the statistic that relate to alcohol. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism published statistics and facts that showed there are 17 million Americans with Alcohol Use Disorder (NIAAA). It also showed that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (physical and mental defects linked to alcohol) is between two to seven cases per 1,000 in the country (NIAAA). Modest estimates during the time was only at 80,000 deaths related to alcohol and an economic burden of $224 billion annually (NIAAA). In 2012, the NHTSA reported 33,561 highway deaths with 10,322 being caused by drunk drivers (2013). Prohibition would eventually reduce the cost of alcoholism by denying the population access to alcoholic beverages. More importantly, it can, at the very least, eliminate the 10,322 deaths caused by impaired driving due to alcohol. For people that oppose prohibition, they may argue that it can lead to many people unemployed, particularly in the alcohol industry. To make a comparison of the cost and benefits in terms of economic impact of prohibition, it is important to compare the alcohol market and it economic burden to society. In 2012, it is estimated that alcohol retail sales reached $ 197.8 billion (Ginley). Since this is already retail, the economic impact, e.g. salaries and compensation, to employees of the industry would be less than this figure or else companies would not be making any money. Now compare the $197.8 billion to the $224 billion in cost related to alcohol consumption. Given the two figures, it would suggest that the country would be better off economically if alcohol is removed. In fact, there would be more than $ 26 billion in benefits if the financial burden resulting from alcohol is eliminated through prohibition. Many of the costs that prohibition would eliminate would be through the lives saved from reducing the prevalence of alcohol. Drunk driving potentially draws innocent victims due to the carelessness and thoughtless actions of people who would drink and drive. Even those that consume alcohol without victims potentially can benefit by eliminating the health risks associated with alcohol consumption. This would not only benefit the drinkers but also their families as they are spared from the emotional and financial distress of dealing with health problems of their loved ones. Further, it is not only lives that prohibition would save but also relationships. One of the factors that can destroy relationships would be violence against their partners. Studies have shown the link between alcohol consumption and violence. Among the relationship includes increasing the prices of alcohol can reduce child abuse and domestic violence (Sabia, 192). Similarly the increased price on alcohol also reduces the prevalence of violent crimes, robbery and sexual assault (Sabia, 192). Also, children exposed to alcoholic parents are more likely to become alcoholic themselves with the risk of being violent. In the United States alone, it is estimated that ten percent of children in the country are living with alcohol problems (NIAAA). This potentially creates a vicious cycle of children continuing the problems they experienced with their parents with
