Such questions have mostly relative answers. It depends from place to place and time to time. In terms of economic interest the manufacturing, transporting or seller of liquors or drugs is good for boosting the economic interest of the country or the state. As far as the Marxist view is concerned the factory of all liquors are in the hands of the capital class so it means the capitalist class can make rules for benefit of themselves means they are also politically strong. Further, the all expensive whiskeys are only affordable for the elite class, not the lower class. If the lower class want to drink it will buy cheap whiskey or liquors which is not safe for health because it is uncleaned thus caused death to many people.
As far as natural law is concerned ethically it is wrong because it can cause harm to the citizens and the state. But in the western point of view, the parliament is sovereign they can make such laws. (Such as in Canada or Spain weed is legal, and liquor is made in many countries such as the red label made in Scotland). The western people think it is their own hands that whether you are taking the liquors or drugs because in their law when anyone attains the age of majority you can access to those things. But if you take it unlimited you can face sanctions or fines.
As far as divine law Islamic jurisprudence is concerned it is prohibited by God because it can damage your mental health consciousness. However, in Pakistan liquors are allowed for minorities but it doesn’t allow for Muslims but they also take liquors in a hidden way so it means they want the liquors but the divine law barred them.
In my point of view, it causes affect the health of that person who is taking it. But it also should be open and legalized for all of the public. Nevertheless in the end it is the hands of the citizens they should take it or not. Since the nature of the question is very broad and differ according to the various scenarios therefore we cannot conclude any wrong or right in this regard.
