What's your metric? I thought the purpose of these laws is to reduce consumption-related harms

That is the metric I use, but is not the one you said above, leaving me a little confused.

I said:

> Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that. However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer problems due to consumption.

Reduced cirrhosis, alcohol deaths, and domestic violence don't count as consumption-related harms? Very confused right now.

I'm not a fan of alcohol prohibition, but rationality requires us to consider the data, especially the data we don't like.