Alcohol is addictive. This means that a ban won't be enough to stop many people from seeking it out.

Alcohol is a global phenomenon.

Alcohol is usually relatively easy to make. These last two points mean that it would not be difficult to obtain alcohol even if it were banned. However, if it is distributed illegally:

1. A huge source of taxation disappears. Not a good thing to do in a recession.

2. Manufacturers and distributes will now automatically be criminals. Criminals of various occupations tend to associate, and violence often follows them. As dangerous as alcohol seems to you now, it is a lot worse when unregulated and supplied by people with illegal weapons.

3. The majority of people who consume use it responsibly. Why punish them because the minority can't control themselves?

We tried it, it failed. Let's avoid that.

Prohibition creates power vacuums in capitalist societies due to their effects on supply and demand. Removing the supply does not remove the demand.

Alcohol prohibition was the impetus that sparked large-scale organized crime in the United States. When alcohol became legal again, illegal drugs, weapons, and human trafficking all saw increases to fill that gap in gang income.

A renewed prohibition simply adds to the bankroll of existing organized crime, making the lifestyle even more attractive to a population that already has a sizable proportion that is pretty disillusioned with the government. At this point, cutting off the booze may well be the spark that causes flatout rebellion.

I agree with Carter, the prohibiton period was not a success at all - what is different now?