There are two conditions that will give way to a total prohibition of alcohol in society.

1) Life threatening consequences – If alcohol becomes decisively linked to fatality for the consumer or those around him/her.
2) Change in social attitudes – If an extremely persuasive argument is made that convinces them of the detrimental effects, socially and physically, of alcoholic consumption.

The first condition seems inconceivable to result in a total prohibition, in that it is not decisively factual and never will be. It will entail alcohol spontaneously taking on poisonous characteristic rendering the smallest sip fatal. We’l strike that one off!

The second condition may seem plausible even if you go down the whole ‘Smoking can kill (eventually!)’ line it will only manifest itself with a responsible drinking approach where large stickers are plastered on drink cans/bottles with ‘Drinking can rape and kill and waste tax monies etc’. But this will not lead to an absolute result.
Anything beyond this line of argument will tend to an ideological debate. One that questions ones right to drink and smoke and do whatever to express oneself freely. A debate that aint really going to be entertained. Will it?

From this society’s perspective generally actions such as banning or prohibiting is something that is unacceptable unless in exceptional circumstances i.e guns. This is because there is strong mental mindset of an individual being able to do something whenever and whatever he/she wants to. The society is geared towards looking after the individual freedom and rights. Thus when the bill of prohibition was inacted in 1920, immediately it was getting increasingly unpopular, it did not fit with the psych of the general public. Coupled with the fact that many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies.

So it was inevitable to remove the prohibition as it caused more problems and disagreed with the individual’s right.

In Islam the psych is completely different, when the prohibition of alcohol was revealed, the second the people heard they physically induced vomiting to remove any remenants of alcohol from the body fearing it will interfere with their salah.

To answer your question, prohibition in western society will not work, but there is evidence of it working in history.

For a people where constraints are looked down upon as FREEDOM is their creed, law will always be looked upon with disdain.

For a people where they have a mentality of being slaves to Allah(swt), obeying the law will be an act of worship!

This seems to be symptomatic of the nations approach of dealing with this endemic. To couple this is the new measure by the Government to set strict performance measures around financial management and standards of care and treatment that NHS managers have to meet or otherwise face the privatization axe where we will see primary care trusts and hospitals will go out to tender.

It seems the only metric that seems to count is the fiscal one. The government doesn’t know where its going as it with hands are bound by the shackles of political correctness and pragmatism. On one hand they cannot interfere with the free market and set prices proliferating the problem (why they don’t raise alcohol duty is beyond me) and on the other, they are setting strict measures on the NHS in the sober reality of this endemic further exacerbating the problem. Maybe im looking at it all wrong, maybe im being too harsh on the government. This is just my observation of the nations attitude towards alcohol and the financial hurdles the government has to consider before even getting close to the root of the problem.