Consider the following brilliant piece of historiography appearing on the DEA's Just Think Twice website:
A word about prohibition: lots of you hear the argument that alcohol prohibition failed---so why are drugs still illegal? Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto). Today, alcohol consumption is over three times greater than during the Prohibition years. Alcohol use is legal, except for kids under 21, and it causes major problems, especially in drunk driving accidents.So the DEA thinks it'd be a good idea to reintroduce ALCOHOL prohibition? Does the Coors family know that?
Let's grant for the moment all their disputable fact assertions. If alcohol consumption under Prohibition was at 1/3 current rates, doesn't that mean that LOTS of Americans were consuming alcohol in defiance of the law? Wouldn't that mean banning booze didn't work any better than has drug prohibition?
Think about it: What if four out of ten beer drinkers today were suddenly labeled "criminals"? Would that "work"? Hell no.
With prisons already full, reinstating alcohol Prohibition would degenerate quickly into an irredeemable, absurdist chaos. Keeping booze legal and regulated restricts childrens' access, while nearly every American teenager knows where to buy pot (or knows someone who knows). Plus, alcohol-producers' revenue stream is heavily taxed and doesn't wind up supplying violent criminals, as happens now with the money Americans pay for illegal drugs. Renewing alcohol Prohibition would be a full-blown disaster from every perspective.
The brazenness and quantity of the DEA's lies are increasing, I think.