Hi, ROBALTA.
No, I'm not say alcohol doesn't have any financial or social cost.  If I wanted to say that I would have. It's not "my line of argument" at all. Where'd you get that

You're right, the tax doesn't begin to cover the cost, but the reason you may be correct is this: liquor tax revenues (which are HUGE and ever-growing) aren't funnelled directly into those "astronomical" liquor costs.  They go elsewhere. 

I'm interested by the rest of your post.  So, druggies are passive, "don't fight" and so, somehow, I take it, they're "better" (or maybe, less violent) than those who abuse alcohol? We may be testing that out when millions of pot puffers get behind the wheels of their cars. 
What community?  I'd be interested in stats. So if we remove prohibition "most of the harms" magically disappear?  I'll argue that one. One possible result: many, many more abusers, because shooting up, toking up, sniffing up will be even more socially acceptable--oh, hey, and safer!--than it is today.