If the answer is no...
Do we know the answer? 

I don't think we do. That's why I phrased it that way. I expected some flak for bringing antibiotics into the story, because the consequences are so dire. And yet, these haven't been outlawed in the US and many countries. Maybe they should, I don't know. The point being, would it have the desired effect: reducing resistance? 

quoted material follows:

Over the years, many different solutions have been proposed
by knowledgeable experts and all the major international
health groups (e.g., WHO and the CDC). Among the proposals
for action are strict controls on antibiotic use by humans,
requiring accurate prescriptions (no use of antibiotics to treat
colds and other viral infections), no delivery of antibiotics
without a doctor’s prescription (reducing needless use of antibiotics),
and controlled therapeutic use in animal husbandry and agriculture. 

Universal adherence to the suggested rules for restraint could have
a positive effect, but would resistance be eliminated? 
* Almost certainly not.* [my emphais]

However, if well-considered restrictions and rules for usage
were supported by a pipeline of structurally novel antibiotics
and semisynthetics designed to be refractory to resistance
mechanisms, one could expect some significant and lasting
improvements in the treatment of infectious diseases.

Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
Julian Davies and Dorothy Davies
MICROBIOLOGY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REVIEWS, Sept. 2010

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html