> I think the problem with the prohibition was that alcohol was widely used already and regarded as ok by most of the general public
Cocaine and marijuana are widely used. Whether they're okay depends a lot on your circles, but generally marijuana use is tracking towards "deemed okay" as well.
> As a counter example there are plenty of countries where alcohol has been prohibited for a much longer time and they certainly have a lot less people with alcohol problems than the US.
Add to that the number of Muslims living in countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sudan without total prohibition but with prohibition for Muslims, and you’ll easily exceed the population of the US.
I hope you're seeing the irony when discussing the difficulty of managing a very large country, by referencing 10 much smaller countries with their own systems of government.
Laws and the adherence to those laws generally fall into managing a country, no? So saying "But other countries did it!" with respect to something like prohibition doesn't really work, apples to apples.
My point is simply that managing the enforcement of a law like prohibition is very different between 800m and 8m people.
Where did 800m come from? There are ~330m people in the USA. There are around 160m people in Bangladesh, 90% of whom are legally prohibited from purchasing or consuming alcohol without a prescription. The scale difference for this country alone is around 2x, not 10x like you're claiming. I'd argue 2x doesn't make much difference to enforcement.
Cocaine and marijuana are widely used. Whether they're okay depends a lot on your circles, but generally marijuana use is tracking towards "deemed okay" as well.
> As a counter example there are plenty of countries where alcohol has been prohibited for a much longer time and they certainly have a lot less people with alcohol problems than the US.
They also have a lot less people :)