[Know your rights]

I'm stating that it's very likely in light of the fact that prohibition increases the incentive to minimize the duration of possession per degree of intoxication, which one can do by ingesting a large amount as quickly as possible.

So it's your opinion.

Is it your opinion that drinkers during Prohibition did not for some reason respond to this incentive ... and if so, what was that reason?

Here's hard evidence for an increase in problem drinking (from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html): "arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent." - Charles Hanson Towne, The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1923), pp. 156-61.

[Mojave]

Here's hard evidence for an increase in problem drinking (from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html): "arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent."

Or hard evidence for an increase in enforcement.

Beg on.

[MEGoody]

Is it your opinion that drinkers during Prohibition did not for some reason respond to this incentive

.People did (and do) drink as much as they wanted. They didn't purchase enough for a couple of weeks, then suddenly get scared and drink it all down at once.

And that link you provided - interesting, but where is the information about how these figures were compiled so that we can know that the information on increased consumption and spending is accurate? And how do we know that prohibition was the factor which caused increased crime, e.g. homocides?

By the way, in reading the link you provided, it seems clear to me that arrests for drunk driving and disorderly conduct went up because enforcement went up, not because the use of alcohol increased.