So it was legal to buy booze under prohibition but not to sell it? They could try something like that with pot, I suppose.

But it still doesn't asnwer the question - if they needed a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the manufacture, sale or transportation of booze, how come they didn't need one to prohibit the manufacture sale or transportation of the hitherto perfectly legal substance marijuana?

When Islamic governments do this kind of thing it's regarded as shockingly oppressive...