Dictatorial regimes attempt "bans". They're great fans of such things.
But the history of success of such efforts are quite bad. Particularly in the U.S., attempting to tell people what they shall and shall not be allowed to do with their own lives, their own money and their own time hasn't ended well.
The U.S. isn't a dictatorial "banana republic" regime. Or, at least it tries to not be one. Nor is it allowed to be (via the constitutional guardrails.)
The correct, lawfully justifiable move: criminalize violent threats upon others (the "under the influence" laws). Leaves non-violent people alone; goes after
just those doing the violent inflicting upon others. It's justifiable, reasonable and fair.
The history of the "Prohibition" years in the U.S. is a laughable object example of the failure of dictatorial approaches that miss the mark. And the revolving-door approach to handling multiple-DUI perps also is a laughable example of how to not accomplish the results desired.
However one might feel about alcoholic drinking, thinking going after others isn't an effective method for eliminating its effects.
IMO, what should be done: DUI of vehicles (or acts in public) that puts others at deadly risk earns forfeiture of vehicle, a stiff fine, required 'detox' program; second DUI earns all of that plus erasure of driving privilege for all time, at least a year incarceration. Others aren't gone after, with such an approach; those committing violent threats (via their intoxicating ways) are; and the means of them being in a position to violate others in such ways is nearly completely eliminated.