Yes, yes, we know. All of the laws, customs, and cultural traditions in western Europe are much more rational/intelligent/better/whatever than those in America.
The real story, as usual, turns out to be fairly complex. Americans have a very odd and unique history with alcohol. Most notably was the temperance movement [1], which really started all of this hullabaloo. This caused an amendment to our Constitution...something tough to do and even tougher to undo. And yet, eleven years later, it was repealed (thankfully).
But, and here's the big but: To temper the temperance movement (which, by the way, had proven considerable political power), there were these crazy laws that were enacted to limit alcohol buying. The predecessor to the ATF was born [2]. And things like the 3-tier system were created, along with all sorts of bans on homebrewing and whatnot.
Essentially all of the regulations on alcohol have their roots in either the temperance movement or the anti-drunk driving movement (i.e.-MADD), which is a neo-temperance movement. Most of them were political concessions. Anymore, folks have profited tremendously off of artificial supply limitations, and they seek to keep those limitations in place by lobbying (quite effectively) against repeal or reform.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement_in_the_Uni...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Fi...
The temperance movement was not restricted to the US. The Swedish temperance movement started in the early 1800s, and gained a lot of strength with the starting of IOGT in the 1880s. This latter growth was strongly influenced by the Good Templar movement in the US and Canada. The peak was likely the Swedish prohibition referendum in 1922, where 51% of the voters voted against prohibition. (There have only been six referendums; others include "join the EU?" and "adopt the Euro?")
Instead, Sweden moved to a quota system - the Bratt system - first for hard alcohol and then for all the lowest alcohol drinks. While the quota system disappeared in the mid-1950s, the government still has a monopoly, excepting through bars and restaurants.
While on the other hand, Iceland had prohibition from 1915 until (in some form or other) 1989. That ending is still celebrated as "Beer Day", because until then the Icelandic temperance movement had successfully argued that strong beer, being cheaper than hard liquor or wine, would cause more depravity so should not be sold. People ended up mixing legal, weak beer with hard liquor to make an ersatz strong beer. Prohibition of that mix finally tilted the scales to end prohibition.
Norway had prohibition from 1916 to 1927, again, from the same temperance movement that was strong in the US.
In reality, this discussion should be around regulatory capture. But that's too hard, so instead, we get into a Europe vs US pissing match. It's stupid. It's foolish. So, instead of discussing how to better fight regulatory capture, we just try to show off how special we are. I say again: sigh.
Just like when one looks at the much maligned US gun laws: Washington State has a similar murder rate to that of British Columbia, thus the gun laws probably don't have much impact on murder rates.
More specifically, lvh's comment about "As a (western) European" is an incorrect generalization. There are western European countries where it's impossible to buy alcohol from convenience store. I believe that your response should not have been to bring up any special history of the US - thus inviting a pissing war - but instead highlight the parochialism in lvh's observation.
Alcohol is a great commodity to tax because stills require lots of sugar, grain and barrels and thus are/were very easy to spot. Even today, the ATF will drop by for a visit if you're purchasing large quantities of sugar, and you'll have a hard time buying lots of sugar without identifying yourself.
Many states followed a similar model, so there is a historically ancient precedent of such regulation. Temperance and post-prohibition regulation added more layers.
Then again, even the Irish are getting irritated with the Brits coming over to Dublin to get pissed and get in fist fights in the street and causing other bits of ruckus.
In any case, does your logic extend to other forms of alcohol? Only a few decades ago it was common in the US to have a three martini lunch, and watching the TV shows of the 1960s shows an incredible amount of leisure-time drinking. See http://www.harpiesbizarre.com/cocktailhour.htm for examples from Bewitched. Has the amount of binge drinking and DD rates in the US gone up now that those are no longer as culturally acceptable?
Sure, Swedes might not sit down and drink wine for lunch, but the grape/grain alcohol divide kind of is the cause of that. But I'm old enough to remember being able to purchase beer in Germany as soon as I was tall enough to look over the bar and get the bartender's attention.
You are right that alcohol consumption, particularly hard alcohol seemed to have been more common in the 1960s. Overall traffic death rates were very high before the Ralph Nader auto safety revolution, often for stupid reasons. I'm sure somebody has done a good analysis of the complex reasons why, but my hypothesis is that commonplace drinking has gone down as car safety has gone up, being attributed to traffic deaths by organizations like MADD, etc. It's become less socially acceptable to drink during working hours.
You mention Germany, but as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_in_Germany points out, "The German laws regulating alcohol use and sale are some of the least restrictive ones in the world." I don't think it's appropriate to use an extreme as if it is representative of the average.
Stuff like this was the impetus for the federalized drinking age in the US.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress. It punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by ten percent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_A...
(I'm posting because I think the mechanism might be news to some readers, not to argue about whether it is federalized or not)
Not that this makes any more sense in Europe though. In Finland, it's a national pastime to make booze runs across to Estonia, where alcohol is far cheaper. Since both countries are in the EU, there's very little Finland can do about it (free trade and all that), and there's even judicial precedent that importing a minivan stacked full of vodka falls under "personal use" if you happen to have a wedding or birthday party coming up.
I'm a bit of a federalist (at least for now). I live in a state whose liquor laws I generally like, and if other states want different liquor laws that is their prerogative.