Well, for those of us who attempts participate in democracy, by writing/calling politicians, supporting NGOs, voting and so forth, YES, it actually matters whether it works.

I'm sure it's not a solution for all problems. As the article says it's a blunt tool. But given that they do work, I'll keep encouraging my politicians to not let our alcohol and tobacco taxes slip below that of neighboring countries.

Given that we're already paying the overhead, we might as well get some effect by cranking up the taxes :) hehe

(well, maybe there's other downsides, but it's thought worth considering)

Before the federal income tax was instituted, the alcohol tax was the U.S. government’s single largest source of tax revenue.

The imposition of a federal income tax was the single most necessary goal for prohibitionists to push for the constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition.

It’s also worth mentioning that during the time that the federal alcohol tax was active (created under the Lincoln Administration to help pay for the Civil War), Americans drank twice per capita the amount we drink today, so it didn’t even dissuade drinking all that much.

Americans were ferociously drunk in the 19th and early 20th century. Some historians argue that prohibition ended the era of the largely men-only saloons, and when women and men drank together in speakeasies, men tended to drink less, thus reducing overall alcohol consumption in the post-prohibition era.

Not saying you are totally wrong but the federal income tax has been already existing for decades at this time and the max and min rates actually went down during the prohibition era (per wikipedia). It only went up in 1932 a year before its repeal following the start of the Great depression. If it was a goal of the prohibitionists to hike up that tax it was largely unsuccessful.

Raising revenue in ways that constituents find less objectionable is a good thing.

Of course, all politicians are the same. Of course, taxes go directly to them so they have a motive to increase tax revenues more than would be otherwise sensible.

As with the justice system, "who can win" is used as a proxy for "justice."

Funding the government and pleasing your constituents are legitimate aims in a representative democracy.