Incorrect.

Prohibition was actually a success.

1. Prohibitionist had campaigned on ending a serious issue in every town and city in the United States, drunkards running off with their weekly paycheck and blowing it all in the saloon in one night. This left their wive and kids nothing to spend for food, clothing, etc. Alcohol consumption per capita fell and never fully rebounded after prohibition. Many of these little saloons/taverns had went under and didn’t reappear post-prohibition. Though alcoholism is an ongoing problem historians widely agree prohibition did in fact lower the rates and frequency of drinking.

2. Alcohol was not totally illegal. Beer companies transitioned to beer making kit companies and plenty of American’s made their own beer, which was totally legal to consume. Same for wine. Prohibition didn’t prohibit personal, private consumption of light alcoholic beverages. And hard liquor was still available to those who could get a doctor to agree they needed it for medicinal reasons.

3. Organized crime. Forms of organized criminal organizations have existed long before America and long before prohibition. Many of the gangs you think of that are tied to prohibition were just criminals taking advantage of the times they were in. They’d had engaged in some other crime had booze still been legal. And also keep in mind some of those famous criminals, like Bonnie and Clyde, were not booze runners but were just outlaws. If anything, the rise in popularity of criminals during this time period owe more to the proliferation of radio broadcasts (news) hyping up their crimes.

Oh and some of American’s favorite families ran illegal booze, like the Kennedys. Not everyone moving hooch was Al Capone shooting up their competition.

Prohibition was overall successful and ultimately wasn’t as terrible as commonly conveyed. Likely because up until recently every generation post-prohibition has been booze lovers. Now that younger generations are shunning alcohol I think we’ll see the pro’s and con’s of prohibition being reevaluated by… ah hm…more sober minds.

Prohibition is one of the single biggest factors in the creation of organized crime at real scale. It took more than the local street gang to pull off everything that needed to be done. The American Mafia as we know it was a direct result of Prohibition.

Alcohol consumption itself didn’t change much. Speakeasies and bathtub brewers were open secrets. Cops didn’t raid them (much) because where else were they gonna get their 'shine?

In fact, my greats grandparents were bookies and bootleggers. My father told me his grandparents were pulled over with a trunk full of liquor during prohibition. Grandma said she would take care of it. Coo asked to see inside the trunk. Grandma said “Of course,” popped it open, pulled out two big bottles of liquor, tucked one under each of the cop’s shoulders and asked, “Is there a problem, sir?” He tipped his hat and bid them a safe trip as he climbed back into his car.

Time-based is an interesting proposition, though. As in, for two weeks or what have you, it is simply unavailable. You either have your home stock or you don’t. I can see benefits to that.

Eh? I don’t think it is well taught how bad alcoholism was in the English speaking world at the turn of the century. It was relatively common for men to drink away their wages, leaving their families poor. Alcohol also increased the likelihood of domestic violence, something which was somewhat socially acceptable.

Now, the outright ban obviously had nasty side effects including the creation of organized crime. However, I could see the argument that increased regulation and restriction in availability was justified.

After all, they had to ban buying gin by the pint.