Today, 82 years after the repeal, there are ca. 'dry' counties in the US. In some cases I can understand the intention (a remote village in Alaska for instance, where the villagers would drink themselves to death because there's nothing else to do). In most cases however it's just shortsighted backwardness. Studies have shown that dry counties have a significantly higher rate of alcohol related traffic deaths than wet counties. The most likely explanation is not that people in dry counties drink more, but that they have to travel a larger distance for their alcohol, thus increasing the chance of a DUI accident.
> Studies have shown that dry counties have a significantly higher rate of alcohol related traffic deaths than wet counties.
Yes, but correlation does not imply causation, which might be the other way round: counties have decided to be dry because they have recognized they have alcohol problems.
(You can have the same debate about gun control, etc.)
But the causation may also be that being "dry" actually incites people to use alcohol. I'm in the North of Europe, a country where availability of alcohol is restricted (strong liquor only in state monopoly stores, beer sold only at specific hours and not to minors and not to those already under influence), and the drinking culture is traditionally binge-drinking. People take ferry trips to buy loads of cheap alcohol from the neighbours. They buy enough to last two months, and then they drink it in two weeks.
Some, of course had turned their coats already at the time of repeal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_State... )