(note: the position as "proposition" is not a position I'm taking, but a requirement from the site)

Dominic: I support your efforts to use specific persuasive devices (ad hominem). That being said, you are posting irrelevant and inappropriate material; please remove it immediately before I need to address this in other ways.

Alcohol is harmful to one's personal health (technically, it can be viewed as a poison, based on how the body reacts to it). While some studies have linked its consumption in moderation with positive health effects, there are no causative relationships that have been established.

That being said, how can you "ban" alcohol; "alcoholic fermentation is the conversion of pyruvate into ethanol and carbon dioxide" (source: Wikipedia). What's that jargon mean? It means that this is a natural physical process, one that will take place regardless of whether there is a ban on alcohol or not.

Furthermore, banning alcohol could create a dangerous black-market for a product highly desired by some; Prohibition only created a network of illegal trade, and was ultimately abolished. Banning alcohol would increase the potential profit margins of those risking to produce it, and attempting to control it would inevitably fail, much like the drawn-out "war on drugs" (a war where many of its initial proponents have switched stances on).

Regulating its availability, and educating the public on its effects is a much more viable way to go.