But while spirits became a larger share of alcohol consumed, "per capita annual consumption [immediately after the repeal of prohibition] stood at 1.2 US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level of the pre-Prohibition period". Likewise, "[d]eath rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply". In short, prohibition worked as a public health policy.

You can't just point out that something will cause unintended consequences. You have to actually weight them against the benefits the policy provides. Obviously fewer potheads for more heroin addicts was a bade trade, but fewer cigarette smokers for a slightly larger black market has proven to be a great one. We haven't seen the nicotine equivalent of fentanyl your "risk ladder" model predicts.

> A treatment that's beneficial on the individual level is all but guaranteed to be detrimental on the aggregate: "The country's average mass is overweight! Everyone is now mandated to skip one meal a day until we are at an acceptable weight" kills malnourished people

This Ayn Rand fever dream ignores the fact that the government has tons of policies that are beneficial on the individual level: banning trans fats, mandating nutrition labels, and taxing sodas just to name a few.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/