I might be the only one here who's actually lived on a Reservation*. It went dry for about six months. Not long. Why? Because it didn't do crap. There was just as much drunkeness and no tax dollars and it was fueling organized crime. Rez gangs would send people up to Bismarck, stock up and liquor, and then come down and bootleg it like it was the 1920s again. My parents admitted to actually buying "imported" beer a few times, though they mostly would just stock up while visiting Bismarck.
Whiteclay, while rather shady, still at least prevents this from occurring. If it didn't exist people would just stock up in Rapid City and bootleg stuff in from there. So why not just allow it on the Rez itself, have the industry a bit more under control and keep the tax dollars?
Above all that though, I don't want to be a hypocrite. I drink alcohol. I shop at liquor stores. South Minneapolis has liquor stores galore and I don't have a problem with them. So wouldn't it be hypocritical for me to say that somewhere else shouldn't have them?
Prohibition, more so for illicit substances, is generally only effective if it's applied universally. That means every state, every
country and all other territories, and has to be applied thoroughly, without corruption. Otherwise, it's like water and leaky pipes. The pressure builds up and water finds a way out.
Policy towards things society doesn't like has, in America, tended to lean heavily towards just banning things we find undesirable. However, the result is we only "ban" it from public view and the problem then moves
out of view and remains a problem nonetheless. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature by our leaders. Realistically, you cannot ban a vice. One of the reasons we don't change is because society clearly isn't ready to accept this and clings to a system that rots society from the inside.