This model is based on a statistical study of alcohol use in various cultures. The first work in this area was the study of the French mathematician Sally Liderman in the 50s. The type of model has changed dramatically over the next several years under the influence of international studies.

There are three main provisions of this model. The first is that the percentage of people who drink heavily from a given population directly depends on the average level of alcohol consumption in a given society. Therefore, the number of alcoholics is growing in a society where alcohol consumption is growing. In connection with this dependence, it can be predicted that a decrease in alcohol consumption in a given culture will be accompanied by a decrease in the number of chronically ill alcoholics.

The second proposition is that the increase in strong alcohol consumption increases the likelihood of associated negative effects in the spiritual, physical and social spheres. Therefore, as soon as the average alcohol consumption in a society increases, the number of alcoholics increases, and, accordingly, an increase in such adverse effects can be expected.

The essence of the third statement is that society should try to reduce the negative effects of alcohol consumption by limiting its accessibility. It is argued that limiting the availability of alcohol, especially by raising the cost of alcoholic beverages, will reduce alcohol consumption, and, accordingly, the associated consequences. Other ways – reducing the working hours of bars and snack bars with alcoholic beverages, control over the retail sale of alcohol, raising the age limit for purchasing alcoholic beverages.

Although this model examines in detail the ways of prevention, it is also criticized. There is an opinion that this model is entirely descriptive and does not reveal the underlying causes – why people drink or how the environment in which a person exists affects his attitude to alcohol. The problem was examined in more detail, and it was noted that the model should be improved by introducing sociocultural variables such as the environment. There is also a criticism that “normal” drinkers in a social group may react differently to efforts to reduce the availability of alcohol than chronic alcoholics. The criticism is again based on the fact that sociocultural and psychological variables are not included in the consumer model. For example, the differences between moderate drinkers and alcoholics can be decisive in trying to predict behavior. Thus, the reaction of alcoholics to an increase in the price of alcohol and other measures aimed at reducing the use of alcohol is less predictable. In this regard, there may be situations in which such measures will be ineffective. If, for example, the price of alcohol grows very strongly, the result of this will immediately manifest itself in the growth of home production and the spill of alcoholic beverages and the mysterious image surrounding alcohol consumption. As can be seen from the above, the task of reducing the average level of alcohol consumption is very difficult.

Takes a moral position in solving the problems of the use of various substances. Its essence is that if there is no use of the substance, then therefore there is no problem itself. If a person uses a substance, it is not seen as a social problem, but a product of some kind of human nature flaw. If so, then the objectives of the prohibiting model are (a) to prohibit accessibility and (b) to abstain from use.
The inhibitory model applies to both alcohol and drugs. The most famous embodiment of this model for alcohol in practice is the Prohibition in the USA in 1921-1932. However, this model is more applicable to drug abuse. For decades, there was a strict ban on the use of drugs, mainly marijuana and heroin, and later cocaine. The prohibiting model in the 30s, 40s in America was very much manifested in films, newspapers, and magazine articles aimed at a mass audience. Sensational stories about the upsurge of crimes caused by marijuana, became known thanks to newspaper publications and films of those years “Crazy marijuana cigarette”, “Killer of youth”, “Marijuana: grass with roots in hell.” Then, as now, the “key” to such companies was that “good” people do not use drugs.

Although the prohibiting model remains popular, it has not made a significant contribution to the prevention of problems associated with drug use. It is well known that the Dry Law did not produce the desired results, and the problems of using other drugs also continue.