So what if instead of pushing for an outright ban on alcohol, the temperance movement does what the anti-smoking movement did 70 years later?
This would mean:
Much higher taxes on alcoholic beverages
That would lead to Prohibition Lite, since people will smuggle alcohol to avoid the taxes on it. Further, unlike tobacco, homebrewing is simple. Sure, you could use something like the Comstock laws to ban shipment of homebrewing-related texts and paraphernalia, but how hard is it to learn that mixing a few common ingredients will get you up to wine strength alcohol?
Bans on radio (and later television) advertising for alcoholic beverages
This might work, but I'm not sure if the courts would approve back then. IIRC the tobacco industry chose not to fight the law banning advertising because application of the Fairness Doctrine had caused anti-smoking PSAs to appear on TV (and they immediately this as a huge threat). Without something comparable, the alcohol industry would fight back and could probably win.
Bans on drinking in public places
Public intoxication was always illegal. And those bans on smoking in public places exist in large part because of second-hand smoke/third-hand smoke concerns which started in the 80s, as well as the increasing demand for non-smoking areas as smoking rates decreased and people got sick of the smell being everywhere. Nothing about that applies to alcohol.
Giant warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers about the dangers of drinking
Not hard to get around, when the tobacco industry voluntarily put their own warning label on cigarettes with intentionally vague language (
may cause cancer) rather than let the government write it for them. Even now, the Surgeon General's warning on alcohol just tells women not to drink during pregnancy, says that it impairs your ability to operate machinery and drive, and it says that it
may cause health problems. I could see associations of beer, spirits, wine, etc. doing the same thing and pre-empting the government on that. And I can't see massive labels being used back in the Prohibition era.
It seems like this would reduce alcohol consumption without the negative side effects of prohibition.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...ales-could-spark-gang-conflict-alderman-says/
From the same place the Chicago Outfit and their rivals once fought gang wars over distributing smuggled alcohol, today's gangs in Chicago have fought gang wars over distributing smuggled "loosies", due to high cigarette taxes. Sure, maybe it won't be as bad as OTL Prohibiton, but "negative side effects" would most certainly exist.
I mean thats not really true. It’s pretty terrible for your liver
What got a lot of the restrictions on tobacco was because smoking not only harmed the user, but others around the user who didn't want to smoke, like flight attendents on planes, or young children. Nobody cared much about people choosing to smoke, that was their choice to rot their lungs. Outside of drunk driving and pregnant women drinking, alcohol only harms the user.