RTFA: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122843683581…

The Americans who voted in 1933 to repeal prohibition differed greatly in their reasons for overturning the system. But almost all agreed that the evils of failed suppression far outweighed the evils of alcohol consumption.

The change from just 15 years earlier, when most Americans saw alcohol as the root of the problem and voted to ban it, was dramatic. Prohibition’s failure to create an Alcohol Free Society sank in quickly. Booze flowed as readily as before, but now it was illicit, filling criminal coffers at taxpayer expense.

Some opponents of prohibition pointed to Al Capone and increasing crime, violence and corruption. Others were troubled by the labeling of tens of millions of Americans as criminals, overflowing prisons, and the consequent broadening of disrespect for the law. Americans were disquieted by dangerous expansions of federal police powers, encroachments on individual liberties, increasing government expenditure devoted to enforcing the prohibition laws, and the billions in forgone tax revenues. And still others were disturbed by the specter of so many citizens blinded, paralyzed and killed by poisonous moonshine and industrial alcohol.

Supporters of prohibition blamed the consumers, and some went so far as to argue that those who violated the laws deserved whatever ills befell them. But by 1933, most Americans blamed prohibition itself.

When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish.

…is there any relief for a war-tattered nation such as these United States? The Wall Street Journal continues:

But there’s nothing like a depression, or maybe even a full-blown recession, to make taxpayers question the price of their prejudices. That’s what ultimately hastened prohibition’s repeal, and it’s why we’re sure to see a more vigorous debate than ever before about ending marijuana prohibition, rolling back other drug war excesses, and even contemplating far-reaching alternatives to drug prohibition.

Ahh yes – the silver lining in the economic depression. Perhaps we COULD stand to tighten the Federal belt a little. Perhaps it DOES make sense to eliminate a few of these Federal programs…

Of course, I’d like to point out that with Alcohol, the only legal vehicle for enacting prohibition in the first place was a Constitutional Amendment. On that basis, it’s tenuous at best to prohibit other drugs without action of the same magnitude.

RTFA: http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/15/news/economy/g20_m…

Remembering Bretton Woods

With the crisis showing no signs of abating, several leaders have been trying to advance an agenda for the talks, which some observers have referred to as “Bretton Woods II” – a nod to a similar global economic summit held in July 1944 to reverse some of the painful trade and foreign exchange policies enacted in the wake of the Great Depression.

There have been calls, for example, to create a global accounting standard to replace the current mark-to-market standard, which some have blamed for the billions of dollars of losses suffered by banks.

Credit rating agencies and hedge funds have also become a target. French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who has embraced a hard-line approach toward regulation, has publicly said he is in favor of greater oversight of both industries.

And there has also been speculation that additional countries could enact economic stimulus packages of their own in the wake of the talks.

One underlying fear that President Bush attempted to address in recent days, including in an op-ed piece he wrote in Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, is rising protectionism.

There is concern that some countries could levy harsh tariffs on imports to prop up their ailing economies, or that some governments could try to restrict capital flows, which spelled disaster for many emerging economies as the crisis gained momentum.

But what is expected to remain front and center is the subject of regulation and how to best modernize the global financial system for the 21st century.

One approach could involve granting greater powers to the Financial Stability Forum, which represents central bankers and regulators, or the International Monetary Fund, which has played a large role in recent weeks helping to bail out struggling countries.

From CNN, a brief introduction to the meetings today.

…a continuation of the RTFA Bretton Woods II Series.