Drinking and liver disease were, in fact, both down sharply during Prohibition. I still think it was a bad idea, but get your facts straight. Pros and cons to everything.
The Prohibition surely had some benefits, but I strongly question whether the federal government should have involved itself in this issue. I am aware that the Prohibition was a Constitutional amendment, so I think that the main issue here is
should rather than
could. I think the conclusion to this might give insight on whether the Supreme Court should have ruled that the federal government has the right to require the legalization of abortion.
Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in 30 states, yet one Supreme Court ruling changed all of that. I don't think a broad ruling like Roe v Wade was necessary. The Supreme Court could have ruled that all states had to provide abortions in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. It actually turns out that the "Roe" of the Supreme Court ruling, Norma McCorvey, fit none of these criteria.
The Court could have also recognized that abortion laws should be left to the state based on the Tenth Amendment. In short, I feel that like Prohibition, the Roe v Wade ruling was an unnecessary expansion of the federal government's power, and that more power should be given to the states on issues where the federal government is not expressly given authority in the Constitution.
