And no, prohibition didn't do shit. It was a waste of money.
- consumption only decreased at the beginning, it went right back up shortly after.
Nonsense.
If you look at the studies, alcohol consumption after prohibition fell a drastic TWO THIRDS. After the initial drop, it increased slightly but still remained significantly lower. (About 2/3s of pre prohibition consumption.)
Organized crime was there before prohibition, and alcohol was just one of many revenue streams for them.
And since when do we give criminals a veto over our laws? Should we legalize heroin and cocaine because of Mexican cartels?
- many alcoholics switched to... take a guess. Opioids.
This is just something you’re randomly pulling out of your ass. Alcoholics don’t just switch to opiates because they can’t get liquor. Junkies don’t just decide to become alcoholics if they can’t get heroin.
AND REGARDLESS, let’s assume that your argument is true. An addict switching from alcohol to opiates is if anything a good thing. The health effects of opiates are far less dangerous and expensive than alcohol.
You don’t see morphine addicts with permanent brain and liver damage dying in their 40ies and 50ies, in the same way you see with alcohol.
- waste of money, why? Tax. Why? Now you'll get arrested for booze. Police ain't free. List goes on and on.
Police and enforcement isn’t free, but neither is productivity loss due to alcohol, the price of early deaths, hospitalizations, car crashes, etc.
TLDR: People saying “prohibition didn’t work!” Are full of shit. It did work. Alcohol consumption fell. Whether it was worth it if you look at things like a rise in organized crime violence, corruption, etc. is another matter entirely.