In conversations about Islamism which I define as a state system which also enforces moral laws derived from Islamic texts, its supporters bring up a common point about public drunkeness or what some consider public lewdness. Indeed, at least in the US there are laws against them, but not at the level that they say the Quran demands. However, I would say that the Quran seeks for people to want not to sin and it does not directly call for a state to enforce such laws. I would further argue that enforcing such laws on outward behavoir are 1) useless and 2) require a anti-Quranic dictatorship to enforce.

1). We see in the example of regimes which highly regulate public behavior: the Soviet state, the Saudi regime, the Iranian regime. In all three examples, rigid and extensive regulations produced surprising effects: the sins were moved underground and manifested themselves in many new ways. In Saudi, boys and girls throw slips of paper with phone numbers to set up a hookup place. In the Soviet Union, US Rock n Roll became wildly popular as a reactionary behavoir. In Iran, even religious women increasingly flout these rules not because they disbeleive, but because they resent a regime forcing them to do it and after the taliban fell and along with it the mandatory beard law, men shaved them off, even religious ones!

2) Because of the above reality, regimes require extensive police forces to enforce these rules, and it basically demands invading the home and private businesses to enforce. This is exactly what happens in Iran and in the former Soviet state and lead inevitable to thought crimes; the Soviet gulag, Soviet collectivization and chinese reeducation camps claimed millions of lives, many for simply thinking or beleiving opposite of the regime. Thankfully, the Saudi and Iranian regimes have nowhere near the power of the Soviet or Chinese regimes and are unable, but not unwilling to accomplish the same (aside from a number of Ayatollahs…who are under house arrest!). The Taliban tried it and it led to thier rapid downfall as soon as an outside military force simply nudged it. Do remember that the Prophet rebuked Umar for climbing over a wall to see if the household was drinking. Also remember, "There is no comulsion in din". A state relies on comulsion, and thus enforcing the Quran is compulsion in din; belief in God and following the moral rules for oneself must be voluntary. Murder, theft harm others and must therefore be covered under laws, as must be drunk driving. However, the state cannot force the wearing of hijab, cannot force prayers, or force restaurants to close in Ramadan, or force people to say "salam."

In the end, there is great wisdom in the Quran not calling for a state to enforce totalitarian rules: it produces the opposite harm it was supposed to solve, and God knows that! People hate repression and so does the Quran and the Prophet. What you call for has been shown time and again to produce the exact oppression that God hates. Therefore, what you call for is not necessarily Quranic or Sunna.