Wouldnt that just hurt the people prone to addiction? If I'm not addicted to alcohol and a huge tax is implemented then I'll just stop drinking. If I am addicted my problem has just been exacerbated because my addiction is now more expensive. I guess it might stop people from experimenting to begin with.
It's not a binary thing, addiction is very dynamic, especially alcohol because of its ubiquity in the west. Nearly all alcoholics no matter how bad once had a fairly typical usage pattern, often for many years or decades before something changed and they lost control of it.
Changes to lifestyle, stress, recreation patterns, and access can all be factors in it spiraling out, and once you're there it's hard to gently wind it back. It's difficult to compare directly because a lot of the places with intentionally high taxes on alcohol also have strong public healthcare systems.
But even simple measures like municipal ordinances against selling sub-500ml containers of hard liquor show small but clear results in reducing addiction rates. In any case the consensus among addiction medicine professionals right now seems to be in favor of this sort of "soft restriction" public health policy.
Legalization hurts people prone to addiction - prohibition hurts people prone to moderation.
Do we prevent some from having a bad experience, at the expense of others having a good experience? Or do we allow some to have a good experience, at the experience of others having a bad experience?
I’m a bit of a hedonist so i very strongly favour the latter.
