Drugs won the "war on drugs". We don't need more authoritarianism. Provide education, and let people choose. Anything else, they'll fight you on it.
But it is a myth that "it doesn't work". Prohibition works in that it reduces consumption of or participation in the prohibited thing.
It's a popular historical myth that prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S. It did. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675...
The War On Drugs is a terrible example because it went way beyond prohibition. The War On Drugs was politically entangled in immigration, US interests in foreign regimes, human trafficking, and on. You don't have to quasi-invade other countries to prohibit drugs at home. That's a policy choice influenced by many other prejudices and distortions.
Prohibition works. It's another question entirely whether it is just, whether it can be conducted while respecting human rights and whether it is worth the unintended consequences.
> This depends on your definition of the term "works".
I think for a lot of governments and policy makers the goal is to significantly reduce.
By your definition, literally every human intervention in history, prohibitory or otherwise has not "worked".
Correct.