In some ways, Prohibition didn’t seem that bad to me?
There are two clear arguments you bring up: 1. If the government could effectively ban alcohol, it shouldn’t, because doing so is anti-liberty. 2. The government won’t be able to effectively ban alcohol.
It seems like (2) is a policy question. I think that today, most liberals are often on the side of drug legalization, especially because they question (2).
Personally, I don’t have massive problems with (1). There’s a concrete question on if alcohol is net-harmful, and if so, is this something the government should prioritize. There’s a lot of empirical questions to ask here. That said, if it were the case that alcohol were net-harmful enough, and I thought the government could net-effectively ban it, that seems good to me. This is the kind of common question where utilitarians and libertarians would often clash.
All that said, as pointed out in other comments, a “total ban” is often the ideal policy (taxes seem better), but sometimes other options are just too complex / unpopular.
Lastly, note that Prohibition ended, and now we have more information. It lasted from 1920 to 1933, a fairly short time for a major policy. I’m a big fan of trying out certain policies, then canceling them if they are clear failures. (That said, I could certainly imagine cheaper experiments than a national-level 13-year ban)
In some ways, Prohibition didn’t seem that bad to me?
There are two clear arguments you bring up:
1. If the government could effectively ban alcohol, it shouldn’t, because doing so is anti-liberty.
2. The government won’t be able to effectively ban alcohol.
It seems like (2) is a policy question. I think that today, most liberals are often on the side of drug legalization, especially because they question (2).
Personally, I don’t have massive problems with (1). There’s a concrete question on if alcohol is net-harmful, and if so, is this something the government should prioritize. There’s a lot of empirical questions to ask here. That said, if it were the case that alcohol were net-harmful enough, and I thought the government could net-effectively ban it, that seems good to me. This is the kind of common question where utilitarians and libertarians would often clash.
All that said, as pointed out in other comments, a “total ban” is often the ideal policy (taxes seem better), but sometimes other options are just too complex / unpopular.
Lastly, note that Prohibition ended, and now we have more information. It lasted from 1920 to 1933, a fairly short time for a major policy. I’m a big fan of trying out certain policies, then canceling them if they are clear failures. (That said, I could certainly imagine cheaper experiments than a national-level 13-year ban)