Speaking broadly...yes. There is a strong emphasis within anti-legalization groups to focus on the absolute worst examples, much in how....

Oh. Oh.

I almost never see someone ask for how the reverse operated. The answer is still yes though. Unlike the Prohibition there is much less emphasis on religion, though it is often offered up that people opposed to legalization are acting out a form of reconstituted Puritanism. Classical Prohibition was often accused as being outright racist against the Irish, Germans and Italians over their predominantly Catholic religious leaning because prohibition could be used as a way to deny some common modes of urban, Catholic life while having scant little impact of rural Protestant life. Germans might not have been commonly Catholic but the alcohol culture endemic to Ireland, Germany and Italy dwarfed that of commonly Anglo-Americans and women. Women are actually worth mentioning in this because the Suffrage movement had recently gained the right to vote and, having comparatively limited exposure to the male-centric alcohol culture of the day typically favored prohibition. I have a political cartoon linked below that tries to demonize the whole idea- remember, this was a different era. I don't actually think anyone's bothered poling people by sex and gender over whether they'd prefer prohibition or legalization of marijuana today. If they have, I've never seen the documents.

In both cases the Prohibition unleashed a tidal wave of crime, and murder in the name of operating and protecting the government established black market. The current Mexican drug war has claimed over 120,000 lives with another 21,000 missing. Gangsters from the classical prohibition are the stuff of American legend. Obviously in both cases this is commonly criticized by proponents of ending prohibition.

Aside from some bizarre period pieces- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Defender18thkkk.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Gennii_of_Intolerance_-_A_Dangerous_Ally.tif - the root arguments tend to remain the same. Opponents to prohibition stress that it's their right and choice and that insisting that it's the government's place to step in and tell them no constitutes an affront to their basic rights.

To add on to /u/Vestigi 's comment, lets look at this point by point, or at least try.

How is Marijuana legalization being undertaken today? Generally speaking it seems to be focused more on a state-by-state legalization effort, beginning with the legalization (and preceding argument) of marijuana for medical reasons followed by an additional push for recreational use. Perhaps I'm making a bit of a generalization but I feel that this characterization is true enough.

How does this relate to the repeal of prohibition? Well despite the fact that they are both looking to pass laws, the tactics seem to diverge.

First, there could be no individual states legalizing alcohol production or consumption. Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, so any change had to come in the form of another Constitutional Amendment.

In regards to medical legalization, that was never a part of Prohibition in the first place, so that doesn't really have an analogy today. Prohibition provided for 4 main exceptions. One was religious usage, so Catholic and Jewish Sacramental wine. In fact many of the old California wineries weathered prohibition by simply labeling their wine as sacramental and only selling to Priests and Rabbis (who would turn around and sell to their congregations). The other was Medicinal use. The last two, was the right a farmer had to ferment his crops (think making cider from excess apples) and for manufacturing processes.

None of these exceptions apply to marijuana.

Also the way that the argument for prohibition was raised, at least politically was through the "outing" of politicians as "wets" or individuals who drank alcohol. This would be like outing politicians as "green" or something where you claim that they are secretly in favor of legalization but do not vote that way. This isn't something that is widespread to the degree that it was during the run-up to repeal.

In short, at least politically and legally, prohibition repeal happened on a national stage, with voters pressuring their congressmen to vote "wet", electing new "wet" congressmen, or outing existing congressmen as "wet".