I think the answer depends on if we are assuming if prohibition-era EAs have access to the same analytical tools that we currently do. Specifically I think the reason to advocate against prohibition today is that prohibition 1) ignores costs of a black market / enforcement 2) ignores the welfare / pleasure gained from drinking. This would then mean prohibition is an analytical error more so than a change in ethics
It's still true that alcohol (also gambling, added sugar, and tobacco) creates large social extranelties while addiction stresses the definition of having rational preferences. Yet the go to tool for these behaviors is sin taxes. I think setting a sin tax high enough to reduce harm (ideally setting the rate so the loss in the "benefits" of drinking equal the social costs) would remain the go-to solution if past EAs had access to to modern welfare economics and tax theory. Without the historical lesson of prohibition gone astray or the success of sin taxes in general, I find it hard to imagine that "half" measures like taxes or public health campaigns would win out against the maximalist arguments against preventing alcoholism especially when we are all affected by the cultural norms of the day.
I think the answer depends on if we are assuming if prohibition-era EAs have access to the same analytical tools that we currently do. Specifically I think the reason to advocate against prohibition today is that prohibition 1) ignores costs of a black market / enforcement 2) ignores the welfare / pleasure gained from drinking. This would then mean prohibition is an analytical error more so than a change in ethics
It's still true that alcohol (also gambling, added sugar, and tobacco) creates large social extranelties while addiction stresses the definition of having rational preferences. Yet the go to tool for these behaviors is sin taxes. I think setting a sin tax high enough to reduce harm (ideally setting the rate so the loss in the "benefits" of drinking equal the social costs) would remain the go-to solution if past EAs had access to to modern welfare economics and tax theory. Without the historical lesson of prohibition gone astray or the success of sin taxes in general, I find it hard to imagine that "half" measures like taxes or public health campaigns would win out against the maximalist arguments against preventing alcoholism especially when we are all affected by the cultural norms of the day.