> Really? It lead to less consumption and less violence overall? Perhaps I am wrong in saying what I did. Perhaps I am tainted by living in the country where more beer is consumed per capita than any country in

It's very difficult to actually measure Prohibition's effect on alcohol consumption and violence. The first is difficult because, well, nobody reported how much alcohol they were selling or drinking. I believe that it did lead to a modest reduction in the number of people using it (particularly in rural areas where it was more difficult to obtain), but among the younger crowd in cities consumption went up. Not to mention, people who consumed alcohol tended to consume stronger varieties of alcohol.

Violence is a mixed bag -- it certainly did create a lot of violence in that its illegality functioned as the impetus for the rise of organized crime, but its proponents would argue that violence was largely decreased as alcohol is linked to a lot of smaller violence (domestic abuse, barfights, etc).

I'm sorry that I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I would be cautious of relying too strongly on any I'd find; this is really one of those issues where the statistics can be misleading depending on what you're looking for.

Ultimately, though, I'm largely unconcerned with either issue: the government simply has no business telling people if they can drink alcohol or not. Personal liberty is an essential aspect of a free and functioning society.

Stephen