Hmmm… Australia though alcoholic beverages were important enough to be dealt with in its own clause in their constitution?
'Nuf said.
The US Constitution has two amendments dealing with alcohol. The second one gives explicit regulation of it to the states.
The Australian Constitution gives the federal parliament an enumerated list of competences. It gives them no power simply to assume more competences. It does contain mechanisms by which the states can confer additional competences on the federal parliament, but this isn’t something the feds can do unilaterally; it requires federal-state agreement.
Given the US has two constitutional clauses about alcohol, patently Australia considers it of less importance than the US.
**** ninja’d by @dtilque 
Well matured alcohol, being essential to the happiness of a free State, the right of the people to keep and consume alcohol, shall not be infringed.
Would have made more sense at the time and certainly now.
Yes, the US Declaration enumerates “life, liberty, and the pursuit of cold beer…” as inalienable rights, doesn’t it?
So it seems the Australians went straight to an inalienable right, while the Americans took 144 years to decide on an amendment “Maybe I’ll go on the wagon” and a few years later…“eh, maybe that was a stupid thing to do.”
From 1910 until 1999, Switzerland had a prohibition of absinthe (naming it explicitly) in its constitution.