As ydeve says the effects aren't actually similar, other than people want to attach them to particular damage types.
they can cause a similar situation as itemdest: you would like to read ?blinking or quaff !HW but you can't because you just got hit by a bolt of fire/cold.
This situation never happened to me, except in rare cases where it destroyed my final consumable (in the entire game) of a particular type. Being identical to 1% of the effect but completely different from 99% of the effect is not similar. Instead, the thing that is actually the same as item destruction is simply
not generating the consumable in question in the first place, which is the current system.
Item destruction is functionally very similar to generating fewer consumables in the first place, except that item destruction tends to benefit already-strong characters and punish already-weak characters, since weak characters lose more items to item destruction for a few reasons. I will suggest that in fact this means that the current system is actually better than the old one, though this isn't really the place to argue about that. So, for an average character (and since preservation was such a huge effect and is binary, I'll assume "average character" does not have preservation), it's possible to make item destruction and reduced item generation pretty much indistinguishable to the player from an end-result standpoint.
Item destruction was also somewhat abusable. Blink scrolls are so much more valuable than any other tactical scroll, for instance, that realistically you should drop--or throw--them in any "safe" encounter involving fire that might destroy them (not all fire could destroy scrolls). This is behaviour the devs explicitly want to avoid. This was less of a big deal with potions because there are many potions with similar tactical value, but you'd still probably want to do the same thing.
Also, most players hated item destruction, so it's better to make fewer players mad by just destroying the items before the player ever sees them. This increases player enjoyment in general, which is obviously a good thing when it doesn't really come at a cost.
The arguments about "the player just gets too many consumables now" arise not from the removal of item destruction but from the tweaks (or lack thereof) to item generation that were intended to compensate for item destruction removal. I think it's pretty likely that in the current state of crawl you have more consumables on a given character than you would have in, say, 0.10 on that same character. But if you think that's a problem that's just an argument for adjusting item generation, not an argument for re-implementing item destruction. It's certainly possible to adjust item generation by depth, and to some degree this is already done (you cannot get artefacts on d:1, for instance). I make no claims about how easy it would be to make proper adjustments to the code, however.
---
If you want -scroll or -potion as effects, fine. They're not replacements for item destruction, but that doesn't mean they're automatically bad ideas to implement. -potion has been tried in the past (retch) and didn't work, though I would say that was probably more of a problem with that particular implementation than anything else.