May peace be with you.
In verse 16:67, arguably the term
'sakaran' (intoxicants) is contrasted against
'rizq'an hasanan' (good provision) i.e. 'not good provision'. Therefore in my humble opinion, this verse would be understood as a counter argument against the use of intoxicants and not in support of it as you have respectfully suggested.
Furthermore, in verse 4:43 and its general context, one needs to be conscious of not limiting the scope of the term
'sukara' which captures all those conditions in which a mind becomes befogged and where clarity is compromised.
I have discussed the issue of intoxication in the article
[1] below.
Finally, I would personally gear any Quranic interpretation in a format in which any
'implicit' narrative of the Quran is understood in light of
'explicit' or more 'unequivocal' narratives and not vice versa.
I feel the imperative verb
'ijtanib' (shun, eschew) used at the helm of the condemnation of intoxicants is
unequivocal (5:90) especially when it is the same verb used to condemn false deities (16:36). This for me at least is explicit and leaves no room for debate.
I hope this helps, God willing.
Joseph.
REFERENCE[1] ARE INTOXICANTS FORBIDDEN (HARAM) IN THE QURAN?http://quransmessage.com/articles/intoxication%20FM3.htm