I think this is similar to some UX patterns we see in software: most people will go with the default option because it is easier. Raising the amount of effort needed for something means fewer people will end up doing it.
Nordic countries: https://www.statista.com/statistics/693505/per-capita-consum...
Great success?
1. People there still buy a lot, even at expensive prices.
2. I have never seen so much heavy consumption and problems in Southern Europe than what I saw living in Finland.
3. I had never seen people brewing their own wine in their flat in my country (not counting real wine in farms when I was a kid, of course). Youngsters wouldn't even use berries like their elders, but just sugar & yeast (bearing the suiting name of 'kilju').
4. You could sometimes illicitly buy moonshine alcohol from a car trunk on a car park, in plastic water bottles. Classy.
5. Anecdote: I remember vodka was smuggled from Russia in timber lorries (trunks were hollowed out and filled with bottles) :-D
Maybe it is in the wine vs. vodka difference; vodka, being much more concentrated, will wreak havoc on internal organs sooner. Including brain and liver.
There were some additional effects to this as well. Food is also cheaper in Latvia. Some people ended up doing a lot of their grocery shopping in Latvia as, because they were already there for be alcohol.
Politically, the Social Democrats got most of the blame for the tax increase. They had a large drop in votes in the most recent parliamentary election.
Seems like people in Nordic countries (especially when not considering Denmark) consume less alcohol than their neighbours, although the difference has been decreasing.
The wealthy won't be concerned if they're spending twice as much on booze, as it's such a small fraction of their income. But the working class may be denied one of their few pleasures - even if they were perfectly capable of keeping their consumption at reasonably healthy level.
Even worse than taxing alcohol is trying reduce car use by taxing people off the roads (without significantly improving alternatives). That's taking away vast numbers of opportunities from those who need them the most.