You are implicitly denying it by asserting that there was no upside to Prohibition.
Re-read the underlined passages - Prohibition did not effectively address alcohol-related damage:
The cons of Prohibition: 'Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.
'Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition'
- Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure
The pros of Prohibition: It made 'Progressives' and other nanny-statists feel good.
I myself noticed that we are losing *75,000 people to Alcohol every year, and I very much doubt this would be happening were Alcohol illegal.
Yes, the people who like drugs and alcohol have written for years that prohibiting it was a great mistake. As you pointed out regarding "statements against interest" I will point out that most of these "research" essays are "statements for interest" and therefore cannot be accepted on the face of them as being objectively correct. They are merely supporting the same old agenda these people have always pushed.
*I'm going to keep increasing this number till you decide to look up the actual number and correct me. Since I think you play fast and loose with the facts, I feel no obligation to be reasonable or consistent either.