They could be coming back, particularly with socialized medicine.
Under a socialized system, government will have a pecuniary interest in reducing or even eliminating alcohol.
I can see common interests between the prohibitionists and folks like Edwards that want to mandate medical treatment, anti-smoking, and anti-transfat people.
Such policies may even be hailed by tomorrow's "economic conservatives" for their ability to keep taxes lower, and by "social conservatives" in the spirit of the prohibition ladies here (or in the context of gluttony, etc). They might get creative and declare "war on illness", or tie it somehow into national security and get the neo diaper-wetting cons to sign on. Leftists of all stripes will sign on obviously to protect their precious "right" to medical care.
The major theme faced in these battles is the difference between positive and negative liberties. Health care (a "positive liberty") will be declared a fundamental human right, while production, purchase, or consumption of consumer products ("negative liberties") will move from right first to privilege, and then to crime. Compulsory collectivism is the natural enemy of liberty; new generations of "rights" never augment - they only supplant. The long-term battles faced tomorrow will not have battle lines drawn along today's normally accepted political dichotomy.
Yes, that's the main problem with socialized healthcare; if government is paying for something it has the right to control it. While an outright ban of all alcohol is unlikely, increasingly burdensome restrictions on the consumption is highly probable. Not that these restrictions will do much of anything to deter problem drinkers - Prohibition certainly didn't - but it doesn't mean the State won't try.