IDK but more than one addict has told me their habit was a symptom of a deeper (emotional?) ill. So we could ban alcohol but then what? Would that solve a problem or will something else just take its place?
For example, suppose persons A and B are both very stressed due to work and are worried about their marriages falling apart. Individually each is definitely more likely to become an alcoholic than if they didn't have those problems. However, if person B has addictive genetics, that may mean a 40% chance of developing alcoholism (obviously this is more complicated than a simple probability) vs. person A's 5% chance.
I'm not advocating banning alcohol at all, I would actually be very opposed to that. I just think it shouldn't be the default drug of choice considering how harmful it is. Now, I have no idea how to change that, but ACCURATE and UNDERSTANDING (i.e. non-adversarial) drug education would be a good place to start.
Basically I see drug education now as analogous to abstinence-only sex education. Instead of spreading scientific information about dangers, side effects, etc. it just focuses on fear-mongering and misinformation. We currently view a "drug-user" (someone who uses drugs, not necessarily an addict) the way people saw "sluts" not so long ago.
Sure, drugs like alcohol and heroin can introduce severe physical dependencies with consistent use, but I don't think many people start slamming whisky every night on a whim.
So okay, fair enough, regulating alcohol more strictly won't solve the malaise of our zeitgeist, but it might steer people towards other vices that are less likely to seriously hurt them or others in the short or long term.
Like...well, that's probably a pretty short list right now, but if we were more open-minded as a society about more victimless vices, that might change.