Yes, it's being bad at abstract thinking. There's not much that cocaine, heroin, or even meth can do to you that alcohol can't. It's indisputable that we've made poor decisions regarding what drugs to ban -- marijuana as a Schedule I drug? Really? -- and IMHO the reason for that goes back to the fact that we didn't have an appropriate basis for banning any of them in a supposedly-free society.
As other posters have suggested (and been duly modded down for it), prohibition isn't really about the drugs.
Is it really? The vast majority of Prohibition era issues were relatively substance independent, and given that we've seen the EXACT same public response, political/buzzword currents surrounding the pro-prohibition movements, and emergent criminal enterprise, I think it's fair to say that "prohibition of *" is a reasonable class to abstract by.
(Watching Ken Burns "Prohibition" is something I'd strongly recommend to just about anyone, not only is it a fantastic documentary as par for the course for Burns, but it was a steady stream of "HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF" in such stark terms as you rarely see.)
As other posters have suggested (and been duly modded down for it), prohibition isn't really about the drugs.