Alcohol is strongly right to be banned. Health is more important than sales of liqueurs, even though other side thought that for business. The alcohol will definitely make people lose conscious. Also their wives will suffer birth defects; descendants wouldn't live longer, and such ridiculous behaviour will replicate!
Such consumption will affect their behaviours, making them lose their conscience, contributing to selfishness.
If some innocent citizenship gets up early like lark, (for example: far distance to daily career/want to catch their morning flight) they will experience more danger in any forms of transportation, assuming that there are many drunk drivers that time. (Severe population downfall)
Given the condition, it's hardly possible for one to answer otherwise. I would need to add that I feel the question should have been: is the legalization of recreative use of marijuana mandatory for the continuation of the myth of legal consistency... Yes again.
But prohibition of alcohol is, I'm afraid, not in the cards for our world of alcoholics.
Alcohol is not the basis of all problems and banning it will not make it unavailable for the people who want to use it. A ban will make it more attractive and much more profitable for those uncaring of a ban. Unless the ban would be used to force politicians to remain sober while making important decisions or policy an alcohol ban would just create more opportunity for crime.
I don't agree that banning alcohol is good for legal consistency. There are far more other legalities and ethics that go into play for legal consistency than alcohol. Banning alcohol may contribute to legal consistency but I don't feel it would make a considerable dent in any one area's consistency statistics.