Prohibition has become known as a failure because there was still a vibrant underground alcohol trade, but it didn’t mean that everyone continued drinking at the same rate. It really did reduce alcohol consumption.
Mostly, after the brief sharp drop to around 30% of pre-Prohibition levels, just the much smaller (consumption at around 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels) effects of the de facto tax collected by organized crime that prohibition imposed (“Changes in consumption were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little effect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during prohibition”.) [0]
And, both nicotine and alcohol have substantial regular taxes now, which serve the same purpose without fuelling organized crime, so prohibition would just redirect funds from the public coffers to criminal enterprise.
[0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675... , p. 8
I don’t find this argument convincing at all in the modern era. Synthetic drugs and even commercialized organic drugs are significantly more potent than anything that could be found a century ago.
Synthetic cannabinoids are vastly more addictive and dangerous than cannabis ever could be, for example. Synthetic drugs like MPDV are known to produce compulsive redosing even in people who could moderate their intake of traditional drugs like cocaine.
You can’t compare what’s available now to historic drugs.
Make the really hard stuff only available by prescription.
It’s possible to do a lot of damage with heavy drinking, yes, but it’s not true at all to suggest alcohol is the most damaging drug. There are numerous synthetic drugs that can produce long lasting damage or even death even in experienced drug users who believe themselves to be consuming responsibly.
I find in general drug discourse making these comparisons isn't super helpful. The risk and damage profile of different drugs is very complex. Mdma in frequent use isn't very damaging in one sense, but can really impair cognitive function long term which can reduce quality of life as much as liver damage of drinkers or COPD of heavy smokers (as a simplified illustrative example)
I think presenting a view that all things are toxic and that healthy use of anything is down to how, why and when it is used is better for normalising the conversation rather than doing X vs Y showdowns.
