Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The problem is that teh violence can be shown to be at least as bad in places/times where alcohol is forbidden. For instance, virtually all types of crime increased during prohibition.
It's not true that with prohibition crime was on the raise. Prior to the start of prohibition crime shot up (1900-1910), but over the duration of prohibition the overall crime rate was steady and continued to be steady. Organized crime became more visible, but not noticeably more violent.
What is true is that the health effects of prohibition were overwhelmingly positive in terms of public health. Alcohol related illnesses generally dropped by 1/2 over the 14 years.
Just because the visible negatives became more visible doesn't mean the overall negatives did. Prohibition was a failure and a success.
However, that's not to say it was right or wrong. Your own political beliefs will tell you that.
For what's it's worth I think that public drunkenness shouldn't be a crime without an aggravating factor. For example noise complaints, property damage, assault/battery or harassment. The chances of a drunk getting by the night without violating any of those conditions is rare, but technically possible.
I think that a public policy shift to limit alcohol use similar to tobacco would be a benefit. No more advertising, large warning labels, no more branded packaging (like Australia for their tobacco).
I don't think it would be accepted, but it's nice to dream.