Prohibition made the problems worse though.

The relationship between alcohol and violent crime is so tight, the police are prevented from keeping statistics on how many violent crimes are committed by drunk people. Thanks to a significant alcohol lobby.

Imagine a world without authoritarian busybodies bent on inflicting their bizarre rules on everyone else.

I don't know about time-limited bans, but the way cigarettes have been handled seems to have been pretty effective. Don't ban but instead discourage use in a variety of ways, prohibit advertising, replace with anti-smoking propaganda campaigns, gradually limit permitted public consumption as usage comes down (which it has).

I could see alcohol getting the same sort of treatment in theory, it also has well documented harms to justify doing so. One thing I'd like to see is more social spaces/events for adults that don't implicitly revolve around alcohol consumption. You can't really prevent people who want to drink from doing it, but you could make it less convenient and more convenient for people who don't drink. For instance maybe establishments that serve alcohol shouldn't be allowed to have dedicated parking, since the expectation that someone is going to drive somewhere, drink little enough that they're still entirely good to drive, and then have to either drive back home or face a huge hassle, sets people up for bad decisions.

It taught us what happens when you try to make it illegal. Afterwards, it was legalised again, but with some government oversight. Seems to have worked out better than to prohibition era.

Strangely, drugs are still illegal though. I expect that having some government oversight with drugs should have a similar effect.

My general view of things is that people can't be trusted not to consume to excess but solving it by prohibition, even half measures like weekly limits or losing the right to drink, requires draconian laws and fuels organised crime.

Tobaccos a good ban candidate but I don't see alcohol being a good idea, even more so because of how ingrained it is in normal life and events.

Save this one. You'll look back on it in ten years and laugh.

You are correct, there are lasting effects in alcohol consumption.

Unfortunately, there are also lasting effects in alcohol prohibition. The costs of prohibition far outweigh the costs of consumption.

Humans have consumed alcohol for thousands of years, in many cultures, daily or near daily. It's been banned a few times, and the costs are great. We know what they are.

1. When you ban any very popular thing, you create a black market for that thing. In the case of a alcohol prohibition, a fantastically large and well-funded black market. This black market will murder many people to continue to make outrageous amounts of money (much more than anyone makes when it is legal).
2. Home-made alcohol will be sold by that black market. Just like drugs, people will cut that alcohol to make larger profits. A lot of people will get sick and/or die from the various problems that arise with that. Much more than alcohol alone.
3. Alcohol is a part of nature, you can't get rid of it. It's a byproduct of food. Food can also cause lasting effects from consumption. Very costly effects; obesity, addiction, heart disease, and so on are all often byproducts of food. Yeah, there are lasting effects from consumption. You don't need alcohol to live, you don't need Twinkies to live, and so on. Just... let it go. It's a never ending quest for control that leads straight to hell.
4. So not only do you have larger black markets with more money, and not only do you have increased workload for medical facilities everywhere, you also have to have a police force to suppress all of this now illegal drinking. You can pretend that these are robots that won't abuse power, but they aren't, and they will abuse power, and people will die. (and a lot of cops drink).
5. This doesn't even scratch the costs of prohibition. I could write a book. Instead, other authors have written about it, and they are much smarter than me. See Peter McWilliams, "Ain't Nobody's Business if you Do". His death was tragically connected to prohibition, but I'd have to write another book.

My tinfoil hat theory is that bars were gathering places and occasionally the government hates those.

Letting women have basic rights probably helped out with the domestic situation more than prohibition.

It’s like saying eugenics isn’t inherently bad.

Maybe not but it always leads immediately to bad things.

Banning Jesus would save more lives.

Oh yeah, worked great the first time. Telling people they can't do something isn't going to stop them from doing it.

All prohibition does is deny the government of taxes on the booze that is sold regardless

History (and the present, frankly) shows us you can't stop people consuming things they want to

Attempting to do so only makes it less safe and puts more lives at risk (see: prohibition in the US, the war on drugs worldwide)

Hell even non-consumptive activities, any attempts to restrict abortion result in more deaths from unsafe abortion

Some people will go through dangerous withdrawals. Having been through that, you're gonna have to propose how we'll care for people who face that before I get onboard. That's way before I complain that I don't want you to take away my alcohol; people die from going cold turkey.

Great post!

And one I happen to agree with. Short term prohibitions can be a great tool to give an area a chance to play catchup with resources. Has to be used carefully, but it's a solid concept