Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Topicality
Using the phrase “nearly all” in the plan text is a voting issue
a. Kills Education—the phrase papers over specifics of legalization and compromises
research, hurting education—the plan would be considered invalid in policymaking
Milne 94—Philip Milne 94 - Partner in Simpson Grierson's Wellington Local Government and Environment work group. “Validity of Rules in Regional Plans.” Seminar for
Wellington Regional Council Officers. Available online @ <http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/pubs/3665.pdf>
Re Draft Water Conservation (Buller giver) Order
In
(C28/93), the Tribunal considered the validity of a "restriction" in a conservation order. It held that the
words "provided that the granting of such rights would not detract from the outstanding features and characteristics specified" were "an example of reserving discretions to exercise value
issues of uncertainty and delegation of discretions are closely
related. A rule should not include words or phrases which are so vague or subjective as to be
indeterminable by the reader or which of necessity implicitly leave the council to make a
discretionary/subjective judgment. For example, a condition regarding measures aimed at remedying
"detrimental impacts observed and ensuring that further detrimental impacts will not occur" was ruled
invalid so far as it required avoidance of future impacts. (New Zealand Underwater Association Incorporated v Auckland Regional Council A 131/91). In McLeod
Holdings Limited v Countdown Properties Limited 14 NZ irA 362, the ordinance in question defined
predominant uses and stated: "Wholesale or retail shops for bulky goods or drive-in retail shops whereby
nearly all customers take away goods in motor vehicles for which adequate drive-in and parking
provision is made on the site itself provided that no vehicle entrance or exit is within 10m of a road
junction". The phrase "nearly all customers" was found to be too imprecise and therefore invalid.
judgments rather than a lack of certainty". The last case illustrates that the
b. Ground—aff bias means all PICs or case-specific DAs we lose are vital—specifying in
the 2AC is too late, neg strategy is already irreparably skewed
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
CP
The United States federal government should propose an amendment at 2016 UNGASS to
allow for the legalization of nearly all marijuana.
Solves the aff and avoids the DA.
Don, 14 - University of Minnesota Law School, J.D. candidate 2015 (Allison, “Lighten Up: Amending the
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs” 23 Minn. J. Int'l L. 213, Hein Online) The Board = The International
Narcotics Control Board
3. Amending the Single Convention is the Best Option
In light of the newly passed legislation within the United States concerning recreational marijuana and proposed
legislation in the international community, the best means of aligning the Single Convention with evolving
norms is to amend the treaty.153 Amendments allow for formal changes to be made to a treaty while
maintaining the treaty's existence. 154 This allows for adjustment as "parties' understanding of the issue"'
change or circumstances surrounding the issue change without requiring the drafting of a new treaty or
termination of an existing one. By amending the Single Convention to allow for the recreational use of
marijuana, the United States and other countries considering such legislation would be able to continue the
legislative process without any international obligations impeding the progression towards marijuana
legalization. Article 47 within the Single Convention provides instructions for amending the treaty, stating that
"[any [p]arty may propose an amendment to this Convention.156 In order to make such a proposal, the
amendment itself and the reasons behind the amendment must be transferred to the Secretary- General of the
United Nations in writing who will then disseminate the proposed amendment to the other parties of the treaty
and the Commission. At this point, the Commission has the power to decide if a conference should be held to
discuss the proposal or if the parties should simply be asked if they are willing to accept.157 If there is no
objection within 18 months , the amendment becomes fully adopted; if there is an objection, the
Commission may then choose to hold a conference to review the proposal.158 With 153 current parties to
the Single Convention, arriving at a consensus may prove difficult. This does not preclude the option to
amend as "amendments require agreement between treaty parties, but not necessarily between all
parties." Once an amendment has been proposed and adopted, parties are free to decide if they will
become a party to the amendment.159 Those who opt not to join the amendment remain bound by the
treaty's original obligations.160 By proposing an amendment that would permit the use of marijuana for
recreational purposes, those countries who wish to pursue such legislation would be permitted to do so
and those countries who remain in opposition would be able to remain parties to the original treaty
preventing the use of recreational marijuana.161
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Treaties DA
U.N. climate negotiations on track – solves warming
Depra 12-27-14 (Dianne, “Climate Change 2014: A Year of Climate Policy in Focus,”
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/23161/20141227/climate-change-2014-a-year-of-climate-policy-infocus.htm, CMR)
In the hope of mitigating the effects of climate change, the United Nations has started moving toward involving all
countries in the effort. After all, climate change will affect everyone. The organization still has a long way to go, but 2014 was a big year for climate policy,
most especially after negotiations in Lima, Peru for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change successfully ended in December. With an
agreement from 190 nations in hand, each one promising to reduce emissions, the U.N. is ready for the
climate summit in Paris scheduled for late 2015. Since the organization needs the cooperation of bigger
nations in making climate policies work, it's a big boost to the U.N. effort that China, the worst emission offender in the world,
has already set a goal to stick to a ceiling limit on emissions by 2030. This goal is complemented by the
United States' own, which aims to cut emissions by up to 28 percent of its current use by 2025. Both countries also
hope to bolster clean energy development, promoting the use of nonfossil fuel sources for energy. While big nations cooperating
is a definite plus to the climate effort, the U.N. still needs smaller nations to work with the organization , particularly when they are the ones most at
risk for the effects of climate change in the world. Because many of the smaller nations don't have the means to finance proper mitigation projects, the Green Climate Fund is stepping
in, providing funding assistance to nations that need it the most. Started in 2009, it received little support in the beginning but it now has $10 billion in
pledges, set to be finalized in Paris in 2015. It's a good thing to have money to spend as it gives nations the opportunity to acquire the clean technologies they
need for a greener future. Renewables used to be too costly, turning away a lot of interested parties. Now that renewable energy is more affordable,
there are more incentives to taking advantage of cleaner alternatives, most especially when the Green Climate Fund can lend a hand. When the
Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, it sought to bind the European community and 37 industrialized countries into committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty expired in 2012, so a new set of climate policies
Preliminary negotiations are done, but nothing is final until next year's climate summit.
Based on what was achieved in 2014, though, goals will be met slowly but surely.
must be enacted to take its place.
Marijuana is a stress test for Ilaw compliance – reform outside the treaty system collapses
cooperation on every climate change.
Bennett 10/15/14 Wells C. Bennett is a Fellow in National Security Law at the Brookings Institution and Managing Editor of Lawfare,
John Walsh is a Senior Associate at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), focused on drug policy reforms that protect human rights,
public health and public safety. “Marijuana Legalization is an Opportunity to Modernize International Drug Treaties,”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2014/10/15%20marijuana%20legalization%20modernize%20drug%20treaties%20bennett%
20walsh/cepmmjlegalizationv4.pdf
In making the case for the United States to proactively open the door to future change in the drug treaties, we have emphasized, so far, the negative value of avoiding conflict and instability. We would be remiss not to end on
The political changes and incentives in play in the marijuana-policy debate open a real opportunity
to demonstrate and improve the adaptability of the international legal system—a system on which the United States relies more and more. No
treaty can survive the collapse of a political consensus supporting it. And no treaty system can endure if it
cannot cope with changing political conditions. Sustainability in international law depends not only on
commitment but also on resilience and adaptability. At this writing, one or two more U.S. states may be about to adopt a version of marijuana legalization. If
states continue to legalize, and if the federal government continues to allow their reforms to proceed, the short
run for treaty reform may come quite soon. This is why we refer to the challenge of marijuana legalization as a “stress test” for the adaptability of international law.
Should legalization prove politically popular or socially successful, it will spread to more states and nations; should it spread, then one way or another both domestic and international
politics will find ways to accommodate it—either by adapting formal legal commitments or by cutting new,
an equally important positive note.
informal channels around those commitments. The latter would weaken international law; the former would strengthen
it. Marijuana-related reform to the drug treaties offers, in several respects, good odds of achieving constructive
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
adaptation . Reform need not entail any wholesale reconsideration of international drug policy, nor need any brand new treaty be negotiated. Modest incrementalism can do the job. In the United States,
moreover, a growing political constituency, embracing members of both political parties, favors reform, so the issue is less partisan than many. Persuading the Senate to make more room for U.S. experimentation by revising
if the United States plays its cards right (with, as we have suggested, suitably
narrow and hedged legal changes), we believe a consensus abroad for modest change could become within reach . In any case, broaching
the subject relatively early on—by ruling treaty change in, now, as a possibility, instead of ruling it out as a nonstarter—may itself open the door to a new international conversation about modernizing and adapting drug
treaties. In other words, marijuana offers as good a chance as we are likely to see of setting a precedent for
creative, consensual , and gradual adaptation of a well-established international treaty structure. The
international legal system, however suspicious of it many Americans may be, has always mattered and has never mattered more than now. For example,
the campaign against ISIS and the Ukraine crisis underscore all too dramatically the continuing importance of multilateral
security commitments. If anything, international law’s remit is growing as environmental, social, economic, and
security problems transcend national borders. From global warming to sanctions on Iran and Russia to
the campaign against terrorism and military intervention in a host of theaters, the United States and its allies increasingly rely on
international agreements and commitments to legitimize and amplify joint action against common threats. Of course,
marijuana and the international narcotics treaties are only one small piece of that puzzle. But they are a highly visible piece , and they offer a
an existing treaty is a lighter lift than persuading it to undertake entirely new treaty obligations. And,
real opportunity to demonstrate adaptation through international legal channels, rather than around
them . Laying groundwork for manageably incremental changes—by beginning conversations with treaty partners and other constituencies about where flexibility might lie—would
reaffirm American commitment to constructive adaptation, and to building consensus. Conversely, pushing the outer
boundaries of the drug treaties’ flexibility could weaken the international order and damage American
interests. To put the point another way: Marijuana policy reform is a stress test that the United States and the international
order should, and realistically can, pass.
Extinction – outweighs every impact
Avery 14 (John Scales, received a B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of
Chicago, He later studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D. there in
1965, He is now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of
Copenhagen, “Preventing A Human-Initiated Sixth Geological Extinction Event,” May 2,
http://www.countercurrents.org/avery020514.htm)
Geologists studying the strata of rocks have observed 5 major extinction events. These are moments in geological time when most of the organisms then living suddenly become extinct. The largest of these was the PermianTriassic extinction event, which occurred 252 million years ago. In this event, 96 percent of all marine species were wiped out, as well as 70 percent of all terrestrial vertebrates. In 2012, the World Bank issued a report
without quick action to curb CO2 emissions, global warming is likely to reach 4 degrees C during the
21st century. This is dangerously close to the temperature which initiated the Permian-Triassic extinction event: 6 degrees C above normal. Here is a link to the World Bank report:
warning that
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/18/Climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-this-century The Permian-Triasic thermal maximum seems to have been triggered by global warming and
CO2 release from massive volcanic eruptions in a region of northern Russia known as the Siberian Traps. The amount of greenhouse gases produced by these eruptions is comparable to the amount emitted by human
once the temperature passed 6 degrees C above normal, a feedback loop was initiated in which
methane hydrate crystals on the ocean floors melted, releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The more methane released the more methane hydrate crystals were
destabilized, raising the temperature still further, releasing more methane gas, and so on in a vicious circle. This feedback loop raised
the global temperature to 15 degrees C above normal, causing the Permian-Triassic mass extinction . Here is a link to a short, important and
activities today. Scientists believe that
clear video discussing the danger that a 6th mass extinction event could be caused by human activities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGVTK-AAvw Other videos discussing this very grave danger can be found on the
following links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwmi7HCmSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjZaFjXfLec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_aMbM20mbg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4 No reputable doctor who diagnoses cancer would keep this knowledge from the patient. The reaction of the patient may be to reject the diagnosis and get another doctor,
the scientific community, when aware of
a grave danger to our species and the biosphere, has a duty to bring this knowledge to the attention of as broad a public as possible,
even at the risk of unpopularity. The size of the threatened catastrophe is so immense as to dwarf all other considerations .
but no matter. It is very important that the threatened person should hear the diagnosis, because, with treatment, there is hope of a cure. Similarly,
All possible efforts must be made to avoid it. Consider what may be lost if a 6th mass extinction event occurs, caused by our own actions: It is possible that a few humans may survive in mountainous regions such as the
the family trees of virtually all of the people, animals
will end in nothing. The great and complex edifice of human civilization is a treasure whose
Himalayas, but this will be a population of millions rather than billions. If an event comparable to the Permian-Triassic thermal maximum occurs,
and plants alive today
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
value is almost above expression; and this may be lost unless we give up many of our present enjoyments. Each living organism, each animal or plant, is
product of three billion years of evolution, and a miracle of harmony and complexity; and most of these will perish if we persist in
our folly and greed. Let us, for once, look beyond present pleasures, and acknowledge our duty to preserve a future world in which all
forms of life can survive.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Cotton-DA
Cotton stabilizing and US losing control now
Dakouré 5/30 (Amanda P., 30 May 2014, The global cotton market has changed: What does it mean for
African producers?, http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges-africa/news/the-global-cotton-market-haschanged-what-does-it-mean-for-african)
The new US Farm Bill no longer has a guaranteed price, however, it contains a new program known as the Stacked Income
Protection Program (STAX) – designed by the National Cotton Council (NCC), a powerful cotton farmers lobby group, which allows cotton producers to buy
insurance that protects most of their income when crops fail or when markets drop. STAX has been defined as an insurance policy funded by US taxpayers and
according to the NCC, insurance programs are allowed under WTO rules, but realistically, STAX
has the effect of guaranteeing farmer’s
incomes will not fall below the revenues expected, which amounts to a contradiction with WTO obligations. Although US
subsidies have had important repercussions on the global cotton market, attention must be turned to
China, the largest provider of cotton subsidies. New trends and developments in the global cotton market With an evolving global cotton market, supply
and demand is no longer what it used to be. With recent trends, such as increasing demands of biofuel and handmade fibre, cotton fields are being substituted
for other crops in the US. The ICAC forecasts that the cotton production will decrease by 25 percent for the season 2013/2014. The decrease in US cotton
production has led to an increase in price. However, this result is misleading since China, currently a leading importer of cotton, has been stockpiling its cotton
since 2011. This policy of stockpiling cotton to set a cotton price floor leads to diverting raw materials from textile mills which resulted in the import of cotton
yarn. The stock is estimated at more than half the world’s cotton stock. China recently dropped its stockpiling cotton policy for a region-specific subsidies
system. This will surely have repercussion on the African cotton producers, as China is the key market of these African cotton producers. In 2012/2013, China
accounted for 43 percent of world imports. This number will decrease over the next years with the flow of very high levels of stock. Additionally, China’s new
subsidies policy will continue to contribute to trade distortions, as it has always been the main global cotton market issue. The
price of cotton in
the next years will hopefully become more representative of reality. African cotton is to be introduced
to a new world cotton contract, which will give a better representation of the prices in the global
marketplace. West African cotton from countries such as Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Mali together with other net cotton
exporters like Australia, Brazil, and India will end the rule of the US cotton in the determination of global cotton
prices.
Weed disrupts demand, shakes the market
Lawrence 11 (reporting and editing positions at The Chicago Tribune, Adweek and InformationWeek,
editor-in-chief of Natural Home magazine from 1999 until 2010 (Robyn Griggs, As Pricey Cotton Eats Up
Food-Producing Acres, Hemp Looks Smarter Than Eve, http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-andlivestock/as-pricey-cotton-eats-up-food-producing-acres-hemp-looks-smarter-than-ever.aspx#ixzz3EoOUA9
Cotton stocks are at their lowest level since 1925, and prices have surged—up 170 percent since last year and
40 percent since the beginning of this year. Demand for textiles, particularly from China, and poor cotton crops
in Pakistan and Australia mean that prices aren’t going down any time soon, Tony D’Altorio predicts in
Investment U Research. “There’s very little cotton out there,” states U.S. Department of Agriculture chief
economist Joe Glauber. Farmers in the southern United States are responding to the squeeze by planting cotton
where they once grew corn, soybeans or wheat, William Neuman reports in The New York Times. The USDA
predicts Southern farmers will plant 12.8 million acres of upland cotton, a 19 percent increase from last year.
The National Cotton Council expects substantial increases in all cotton-producing states, including large jumps
in North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas, according to the Times. While this will likely help bring
down prices, this loss of food-producing acres is cause for concern, says Webb Wallace, executive director of
the Cotton and Grain Producers of the Lower Rio Grande Valley. "Those people in poor countries that have a
hard time affording food, they’re going to be even less able to afford it now," he told Neuman. Already,
Bloomberg reports, corn prices have risen 79 percent since July 1 and soybean prices have climbed 50 percent,
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
driving global food costs to a record. An extra 44 million people were driven into “extreme” poverty since June,
according to the World Bank. What can we do? The simple alternative—made maddeningly complicated
because of outdated laws—is hemp. With its long, strong fibers, hemp has been used to make paper, clothing,
textiles, rope, sails, fuel—and food—since ancient times. Hemp fabric is seven times stronger than cotton,
breathable and absorbent, naturally resistant to UV light and anti-microbial, making it an ideal textile for home
decor. (The versatile fiber is even being used to make a concrete alternative.) Hemp is considerably less waterand chemical-intensive to grow than cotton. In 2008 the Hemp Industries Association estimated that industrial
hemp sales in the United States reached $360 million. Yet in most of the United States, federal laws prohibit
farmers from growing hemp. A relative of the marijuana plant (that won’t get you high, no matter how much
you smoke), hemp suffers from its association with its mind-altering cousin. Since the Controlled Substances
Act of 1970 banned hemp production in the United States, all industrial hemp sold here has been imported from
Canada, China and Europe, where it can be legally grown. Oregon, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North
Dakota and Vermont have passed laws making hemp cultivation legal, and Michigan farmers are lobbying for
the same, but growers face major difficulties in getting the federal government to grant the licenses needed to
grow it. Farmers must obtain a permit from the Drug Enforcement Agency before they can grow hemp without
fear of prosecution, and those aren’t forthcoming. The DEA treats hemp as marijuana. I like to think that the
silver lining in skyrocketing cotton prices could be a renewed interest in hemp, a crop that could pump
millions of dollars into the U.S. economy. A world threatened by a major food security crisis should just say yes
to hemp. Check out the Facebook group I Want to Grow Hemp Like George Washington to learn more.
Demand drop leads to global shocks that massively harms the Global South – futures
market means the link it immediate
International Trade Center 14 (The fundamentals of cotton supply and demand, Chapter 4 - Cotton trading - The former
NYBOT and now ICE Futures U.S. cotton marketplace, http://www.cottonguide.org/cotton-guide/cotton-trading-the-fundamentalsof-cotton-supply-and-demand/#sthash.CNBvFU0z.dpuf
The hardy nature of the cotton plant has made it a common cash crop for many countries in both the developed
and developing world. In some developing nations, over half the gross domestic product (GDP) is represented
by cotton production. Like sugar, virtually every country in the world uses cotton in some form. The ease with
which cotton can be grown, the seemingly endless variety of potential goods that utilize cotton, and the
commodity’s vulnerability to unforeseen natural and man-made events raise the economic stakes for cotton and
ensure its enduring place in the world economy. Cotton’s primary economic position and the impact of cotton
pricing help to explain the significant role of a cotton futures exchange.Raw cotton fibre has certain
qualitative and quantitative characteristics that can be standardized, making it a commodity well suited to a
futures market. The success of a futures market also should involve a broad range of participants with
competing price goals and be subject to uncontrollable and unforeseen events, such as drought or flood, which
will create price shocks and thereby expose all levels of the industry to price risk . Cotton fulfils all these
criteria, but it also presents some unique characteristics. The price history of cotton tells the story of the everpresent price risk.
Strong cotton market key to African food insecurity
IFDC 13 (“Linking Cotton and Food Security in the Cotton-Four (C-4) Countries ,” Printed in IFDC Report
Volume 38, No. 1 (2013), http://www.ifdc.org/about/ifdc_articles/linking-cotton-and-food-security-in-thecotton-fou/, CMR)
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
As a whole, the cotton sector remains a major employer in the C-4 economies (often the second-largest
formal employer after the national governments). Across the four countries, cotton companies employ about
4,000 permanent staff and 8,000 seasonal employees. Although the figures vary considerably from year to year,
about 900,000 farm units engage in cotton farming in the C-4 countries, providing employment to the
seven to eight million actively farming adults in those units, and providing livelihoods to the 10 to 13
million people (including children and non-farming adults) that comprise these farming units. Cotton also
provides employment to workers in the associated agro-input, transportation and transformation
industries. Cotton is an annual crop, grown on two to five ha in rotation with other food and cash crops. It is
only grown in the wetter areas of the Sahelian countries, in the zones that are also the national ‘breadbaskets.’
But rather than competing for agricultural resources, many analysts are convinced that cotton
complements production of food crops due to synergies from the agro-inputs and agricultural services the
cotton companies provide to cotton farmers. Cereal production is associated positively with growing
cotton. Data from Burkina Faso show yields of cereals (maize, millet and sorghum) are 31 percent higher
than those in the non-cotton zone. The difference is even more pronounced for maize (54 percent), an
increasingly important cash crop in this region.
Food insecurity trigger genocidal wars threatening survival
Trudell 5 [Robert H., J.D. Candidate, Fall, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent Domain:
A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277, Lexis]
2. But, Is It Really an Emergency? In his study on environmental change and security, J.R. McNeill dismisses the scenario where environmental degradation
destabilizes an area so much that "security problems and ... resource scarcity may lead to war." 101 McNeill finds such a proposition to be a weak one, largely because
history has shown society is always able to stay ahead of widespread calamity due, in part, to the slow pace of any major environmental change. 102 This may be so.
However, as the events in Rwanda
illustrated, the environment can breakdown quite rapidly - almost before one's eyes - when food
insecurity drives people to overextend their cropland and to use outmoded agricultural practices. 103 Furthermore, as
Andre and Platteau documented in their study of Rwandan society, overpopulation and land scarcity can contribute to a
breakdown of society itself. 104 Mr. McNeill's assertion closely resembles those of many critics of Malthus. 105 The general argument is: whatever issue
we face (e.g., environmental change or overpopulation), it will be introduced at such a pace that we can face the problem long before any calamity sets in. 106 This
wait-and-see view relies on many factors, not least of which are a functioning society and innovations in agricultural productivity. But, today, with up to 300,000 child
soldiers fighting in conflicts or wars, and perpetrating terrorist acts, the
very fabric of society is under increasing world-wide pressure.
anarchy, dictatorships, and war are endemic throughout Africa; it is a troubled continent whose
problems threaten global security and challenge all of humanity. 108 As [*292] Juan Somavia, secretary general of the World Social
Summit, said: "We've replaced the threat of the nuclear bomb with the threat of a social bomb." 109 Food insecurity is
part of the fuse burning to set that bomb off. It is an emergency and we must put that fuse out before it is too late.
107 Genocide,
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Cartels
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
1.) No Mexico collapse- social programs, econ innovation, and democracy
Rieff ’11 (3/17; David- Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute, Fellow at the New York Institute for the
Humanities, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and more!)“The Struggle for Mexico”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/world/magazine/85337/mexico-calderon-clinton-obama-drug-cartels(xo1)
In contrast, while Mexicans are profoundly divided about how to respond to the cartels, no one I have
spoken with has ever suggested there is credible evidence that any of the cartel leaders have Escobar-like
ambitions—or any national political agenda. This emphatically does not mean that what the drug lords want
is not terrible enough. How else can one describe their demand that the Mexican state give them a free hand to
run their domestic production and cross-border smuggling operations, as well as to go after their real and
supposed enemies, and, indeed, anyone who gets in their way or who is just in the wrong place at the wrong
time, with complete impunity? To do this, the cartels have not just bribed enormous numbers of policemen and
local officials, but, in at least one case, helped elect someone to the Mexican Congress. Still, to say that the
cartels represent a fundamental challenge to the Mexican government as a whole—a rebellion on the scale
of what took place in Colombia or what is taking place now in Pakistan—would be hyperbole. Indeed, the
Mexican state is in important ways both stronger and more successful than many Americans seem to
realize. In the area of public health, and, more broadly, in poverty reduction, Mexico has far more to teach
than to learn. The country is generally thought to have handled the H1N1 panic better than many rich
countries. And the Mexican government’s social-assistance program, now known as Oportunidades—which
skillfully and creatively uses a range of assistance, from conditional cash transfers to health and nutritional
support—has been enormously effective in changing the status of Mexican women (who are the program’s
recipients), improving the health of children, and lifting large numbers of people out of poverty.
Oportunidades’s global reputation is such that Michael Bloomberg gave the okay for an Oportunidades pilot
program in New York City. The Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL in its Spanish acronym) is a
model of what such an agency should be, and development experts around the world speak of it with a respect
sometimes bordering on awe. Significantly, the corruption that bedevils Mexican law enforcement has no
equivalent whatsoever in the social sphere, and, despite the drug crisis, SEDESOL goes from strength to
strength. On the economic side, while Mexico remains heavily dependent on the remittances of the millions of
immigrants now working, legally or illegally, in the United States, the country also has a rising middle class.
It is common to associate the Mexican economy with Pemex, the state oil company, which the government has
tended to loot—in the process, depleting oil revenue that should have been put to work on modernization of
drilling infrastructure, particularly offshore, which, if Mexico is to continue as a major petroleum exporter, is
where it must hunt for new resources. (The contrast with the much better-run, state-controlled Brazilian oil
giant, Petrobras, or Malaysia’s Petronas, is painful.) But, increasingly, there is also the Mexico of Homex, a
company started in Sinaloa in 1989. Homex is now one of the leading global firms involved in the building
of low- and middleincome housing, with large operations in Brazil and India as well as in 20 Mexican states.
And yet, the only thing most non-Mexicans who are drawn to the failed-state hypothesis seem to know about
Sinaloa is that it gave its name to a powerful drug cartel. If one takes the long view, the clash between the
Mexico of Pemex and the Mexico of Homex may be as important as the war between the cartels and the
government. And, unless the Mexican economy implodes, which is highly unlikely, there is an excellent
chance that the Mexico of Homex will prevail. In any case, it is a contest in which the narco-traffickers—
even narco-traffickers operating right alongside the Homexes of Mexico—do not now have, and will never
have, a say. Most important of all, Mexican democracy, deformed for so long during the decades of rule by
the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), is now strong. This is actually quite remarkable, because what is
too often forgotten is just how young a democracy it is. The great Mexican historian (and frequent New
Republic contributor) Enrique Krauze characterized PRI rule as “a collective monarchy with the electoral forms
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
of a republic.” That monarchy disappeared in 2000 when the opposition National Action Party (PAN), led by
Vicente Fox, swept into office. (Calderón, his successor, is also a member of the PAN.) In this, a strong analogy
can be made to France, where, from the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958 to the election of the Socialist
François Mitterrand in 1981, it seemed somehow inconceivable that the country would ever have a president
who was not from the right. Ever since Mitterrand, though, neither the French right nor the French left has been
under the illusion that the Fifth Republic somehow “belongs” to them. History suggests that, while democratic
states can go through terrible periods and face daunting crises—both of which, unhappily, look to be in the
cards for Mexico— they almost never become failed states. This is what makes the Joint Forces Command’s
linking of Pakistan and Mexico so unconvincing. If Pakistan becomes a failed state—and, while not likely,
unhappily, the possibility can’t be excluded—it will not only be because of the threat posed by the Pakistani
Taliban, the other jihadi formations, and some separatist groups, but because Pakistani democracy is a sham
2.) Sinola Cartel winning the War - no violence escalation.
Global Post 13
(“How the Sinaloa cartel won Mexico’s drug war”
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/130227/sinaloa-cartel-mexico-drug-warUS-global-economy-conflict-zones) RJT
BADIRAGUATO, Mexico — Neat, freshly painted buildings and a renovated church line the central
square. Shiny SUVs rest curbside. Some lack license plates, as if the law doesn’t apply. Mansions crown
the surrounding hills. Badiraguato, a town of 7,000 in Sinaloa state, shouldn’t have such wealth. It’s
among the poorest municipalities in Mexico. But you’re better off not asking questions here. This is a
secretive place, hot and quiet in the Sierra Madre foothills. There’s an army barracks, but soldiers
mostly stay inside. It’s the heart of drug country, home to Mexico's most powerful criminal syndicate: the
Sinaloa cartel, led by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. For well over a century, local farmers have
harvested marijuana and opium in the rugged mountains surrounding Badiraguato. Since the 1980s, the
Sinaloa cartel has acted as their Wal-Mart, transporting the mind-bending cargo north with quasicorporate efficiency, and distributing it to a narcotics-craving United States market. Ever since former
President Felipe Calderon deployed thousands of soldiers and federal police to combat organized crime
in 2006, the country has been ravaged by violence. An estimated 70,000 people have been killed in often
brutal territorial warfare. Yes, there have been victories for the government: In March 2009 the attorney
general’s office published a most-wanted list of 37 high profile drug lords. As of February 2013, twothirds of them are either dead or in custody. By now, the majority of the seven major drug trafficking
cartels battling for dominance have been [wrecked]. Most have partially or completely fractured into
smaller groups. Even the infamous Los Zetas, whose leader Heriberto Lazcano was killed last fall, have
recently suffered severe blows. Only the Sinaloa cartel seems to have survived the onslaught relatively
intact. In fact, some critics of the government even claim Sinaloa has “won” the drug war. El Chapo is still
at large, after his spectacular escape from prison in 2001.* In mid-February Guatemalan authorities investigated
rumors that he had been gunned down, but the president’s spokesman later told GlobalPost they found no
evidence of this. His inner circle cronies Juan Jose Esparragoza and Ismael Zambada also still operate freely.
And while they succesfully evade capture, the cartel has made substantial territorial advances, and has amassed
extravagant wealth. “El Chapo is going to get stronger if he is not arrested in the next year and a half,” a senior
official of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) told Forbes in a June 2011 interview. Since then, the
Sinaloa cartel ousted its rivals in the lucrative smuggling corridors of Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez. El Chapo
himself is now the most wanted man on the globe, with US authorities offering a $5 million reward for any
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
information leading to his capture. In a business as opaque as the drug trade, it’s hard to get reliable figures on
the size of a crime group’s territory, the breadth of its wealth or the extent of its market share. Court documents,
arrests and drug seizures, however, paint a picture of the Sinaloa cartel as a multinational, highly flexible
organization, quick to adapt to new circumstances and showing a resilience unlike any of its rivals. Compared
to its humble beginnings in the 1980s, when it controlled only a single Pacific trafficking route into Arizona, the
cartel’s territorial expansion has been staggering. Key areas it now controls include most of Mexico’s Pacific
coast states and parts of central Mexico. Even more impressive is its global reach. Sinaloa operatives have been
arrested from Egypt to Argentina and from Europe to Malaysia. Properties attributed to El Chapo Guzman have
been seized in Europe and South America. US law enforcement reports that the group is now present in all
major American cities. Recent US court documents involving the case of Vicente Zambada-Niebla, Mayo
Zambada's son, even suggest the Sinaloa cartel now controls the cocaine trade in Australia. Earlier this month,
Chicago named El Chapo Guzman public enemy No. 1, the first to receive that title since the city’s legendary
crime boss, Al Capone. Sinaloa's share in the drug market is titanic. Even by the most sober estimates, Mexican
drug trafficking amounts to over $6 billion per year, with El Chapo's Sinaloa cartel controlling an estimated half
of that market, raking in billions each year. No wonder Forbes has listed El Chapo Guzman on its annual list of
billionaires since 2009. “The Sinaloa cartel certainly has the upper hand now,” says Javier Valdez, co-founder
of Rio Doce, a Sinaloa-based weekly magazine covering the drug war. “It’s the only cartel that has grown over
the years, extending its reach into Europe, Africa and South America, while all others have lost.” Some have
accused the Calderon administration of collusion with El Chapo, claiming the government struck a deal by
taking out its rivals. And last October, leaked emails from security analysis firm STRATFOR suggested
that even the US government facilitated them. Accusations of government collusion, however, are
rejected by Malcolm Beith, a British-American journalist and author of "The Last Narco," a book about
El Chapo Guzman. “Since 2009, the Sinaloa cartel has been hit very hard too, completely obliterating
those criticisms,” he contends. Beith points out that Sinaloa's survival and recalcitrant power should
instead be attributed to the way it operates. “There is a level-headedness about the leadership that the
other groups lack,” he says. “To the authorities, first priority always has to be quelling violence. When
other groups throw grenades into a crowd of innocents or behead[s] people, it's obvious what needs to be
done. Sinaloa has perpetrated its share of violence, but by and large it did not cause disruption to the
general well-being of the population." The Sinaloa cartel’s relatively low profile in terms of violence is
partly due to its relatively long history — it’s been around for 25 years. In Sinaloa itself the goup is
deeply rooted in society. Not only do its senior leaders hail from the region, but the cartel reputedly funds
hospitals and schools, thus winning support from locals who aid the "capos" in their never-ending
struggle to escape arrest. El Chapo and his cronies have also perfected the strategy of “bribe over bullet,”
preferring to corrupt authorities rather than fighting them into submission. Government officials on all
levels in Mexico have been accused of being on Sinaloa’s take, as have some of their US counterparts. “El
Chapo has an apparent ability to [allegedly] corrupt and infiltrate elements of law enforcement on both sides of
the border and seemingly play the authorities' every move to his advantage,” Beith says. “When the Mexican
army moved into Juarez, so did El Chapo, seizing an opportunity. When the authorities took down the ArellanoFelix cartel, El Chapo was already poised to take Tijuana.” All things considered, El Chapo Guzman and his
Sinaloa cartel seem to have been profiting rather than suffering from the drug war, Javier Valdez argues. “The
drug war has helped them stay on top. While they continue to keep the heat away from their home turf, their
rivals have been weakened.” The most recent National Drug Threat Assessment of the Justice Department
(2011) suggests the same, by stating that overall drug availability in the US is increasing, as are production of
marijuana, heroin and synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine. Those are all businesses in which El Chapo
Guzman and his Sinaloa cartel have a large stake. “The organization is particularly dominant because it is one
of the few that can obtain multi-ton quantities of cocaine from South America, as well as produce large
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
quantities of heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine,” the report claims. Felipe Calderen left office in
December. His succesor Enrique Peña Nieto promises to cut the murder rate in half in the next six years, but
most Mexicans doubt he is able to; during his first two months in office at least 1,500 people are estimated to
have died in gangland violence. All the while El Chapo Guzman continues to make a mockery of the drug war
with every day he remains at large. His Sinaloa cartel has been around longer than any other crime group in
Mexico, and it may just outlast everybody else
3.) The aff causes power jockeying between the cartels that increases marijuana violence
Pavlik 14 (Jim, "Legal Pot Means More Violence in Mexico–Not Less," High Technocracy, FEbruary 5,
hightechnocracy.com/2014/02/05/legal-pot-means-more-violence-in-mexiconot-less/)
So I think legalizing marijuana can actually have a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts effect on Mexican state capacity. Why I eventually come to the same conclusion as Hope is because of the
Most of the violence in Mexico is not between state actors and the ICOs; it’s between
ICOs.¶ If it’s hard to determine how much money is made in the marijuana biz, it’s even harder to determine which ICOs are profiting the most from this sector (relative to the other
sectors they are in). And that’s an important point. Whichever cartels are most affected by the loss of the additional revenues
are going to become weaker relative to those cartels which aren’t as affected. ¶ These relative power
nature of the violence in Mexico.
shifts are the primary driver of inter-ICO violence. In other words, legalized marijuana—at least for a while— should
increase violence in Mexico . The plazas that abut the US border will be important geographical areas to
control so long as there remain any black or grey market goods to smuggle across them. Disrupting the
ICOs relative positions as they battle for equilibrium is exactly the kind of thing that will make violence
worse .
4.) Winning in Mexico. Enhanced intelligence, collaboration with U.S, confiscations,
decrim, and social agencies solving now.
PoirÉ 2011 (Alejandro, “By working with Mexican civil society and reforming the police force, we are
scoring major victories.” http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/2989) RJT
Can Mexico win the war against drugs? Yes Success in Mexico's fight against drugs can’t be measured like a
game of baseball, in which you simply add up the score at the end of nine innings. It’s a war with many fronts,
and it requires a much different perspective. Drug trafficking is only one element of the larger problem: the
reach of organized crime into every facet of our national life and economy. Mexico has chalked up major
victories—and will continue to do so, thanks to its multi-track approach that focuses not just on eliminating
drug trafficking, but on building stronger law enforcement institutions and reinforcing our social fabric. That
would not have been possible without the engagement of both government and civil society. Thanks to the
leadership of President Felipe Calderón and the work of groups such as Asociación Alto al Secuestro, led by
Isabel Miranda de Wallace, and México SOS, headed by Alejandro Martí, we have come a long way. In recent
decades, the drug traffickers’ criminal business model has changed, and Mexico is bearing the brunt. Before, the
primary goal of drug traffickers was securing an uninterrupted flow of drugs into the United States. But the
sealing of cocaine trafficking routes through the Caribbean, the increased security on the U.S. border after 9/11,
the mismanagement of Mexico’s economy from the 1970s through the 1990s, and the lack of
professionalization in municipal and state police departments—among other factors—have led drug traffickers
to seek control of a large variety of unlawful activities as a means of enhancing their earnings and competitive
position in the criminal market. The end of the Assault Weapons Ban in the U.S. in 2004 has made this change
all the more threatening to Mexico’s security. Addressing this escalation of crime and insecurity required not
only a plan for domestic action, but also recognition of the transnational dimension of the problem. That
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
recognition has been the key to our comprehensive, multifaceted approach. The National Security Strategy,
launched in 2006, rests on three main tenets: severely weakening criminal organizations; massively and
effectively reconstructing law enforcement institutions and the legal system; and repairing the social fabric
through, among other things, enhancing crime prevention policies. To date, there have been significant
achievements. Our enhanced intelligence capabilities and close collaboration with U.S. agencies have
allowed us to arrest or kill 21 of the 37 most-wanted leaders of major criminal organizations. Moreover,
Mexican authorities have seized over 9,500 tons of drugs that will never reach U.S. or Mexican children,
and captured more than 122,000 weapons since 2006—most of which were bought in the United States. At
the same time, the professional caliber of Mexico’s Federal Police force has improved significantly
through strict recruitment, vetting and extensive training—even as the force has grown nearly sixfold to
35,000 federal policemen. But it is not just a question of numbers; police intelligence capabilities have been
reinforced by the recruitment of an additional 7,000 federal law enforcement intelligence personnel from
top-level universities. A new judicial framework is in place, thanks to the introduction of legal reforms
designed to strengthen due process guarantees, provide fuller protection to victims and increase the
efficiency and transparency of trials. Much of this has been the result of the introduction of oral procedures in
the federal court system, which is expected to be fully implemented in 2016. We have also achieved significant
success in dismantling criminal financial networks. Authorities have confiscated a record amount of cash
from the drug cartels—although more can still be done—and special investigative units are spearheading a
national effort to combat money laundering. Currently, Congress is working on passing a bill aimed at
increasing the capacity of the federal government to investigate and prosecute money launderers. To improve
Mexico’s social fabric, we have focused on the economic and social roots of crime and addiction since
Calderón took office. We consider drug addiction to be a public health problem. Accordingly, national
legislation has decriminalized personal consumption of drugs, while directing drug users to proper
medical help. Also, public spending devoted to addiction/prevention programs has more than doubled during
the first five years of Calderón’s administration. Mexico now boasts the largest network in Latin America of
centers for prevention and early treatment of addiction, with more than 330 units distributed throughout
the country providing counseling, medical treatment and referrals to over 2 million people every year. We have
recovered thousands of public places—including parks, civic plazas and sports fields—through the
improvement of infrastructure, recreational activities, citizen participation, and more effective security
measures. This shared responsibility between federal and local authorities and community members provides
people with safe places to gather and forge stronger social ties. We have also implemented the Safe School
Program, where over 35,000 elementary and middle schools provide some 9 million young kids with a violencefree and addiction-free environment. Mexico sits between the largest consumer of drugs to the north, and the
largest producers of many of these drugs to the south. That gives us a special challenge. But all countries in the
region need to coordinate their drug and crime interdiction programs if we are ever going to break the power of
transnational criminal networks. The spread of these networks threatens not just Mexico but all of us in the
region. Final success in the war against drugs can only be achieved when we tackle together the conditions that
allow these networks to operate with impunity.
No heg impact
Fettweis, 11 Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free
Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO
It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism and
international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s,
the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100
billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s
if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening
norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence.
The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No
state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took
any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no
security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the
stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the
responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand,
reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton,
and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are
insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead
U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could
believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that
either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue
in the alternative for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend
cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought
to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur
irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S.
. If increases in conflict would have
been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands
that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely
systemic reaction to a more restrained United States suggests that the current peaceful trends are
unrelated to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the
presence of a global police[women]. Those who think otherwise base their view on faith alone.
defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled
No I/L to Nanotech - they have no evidence that Mexico gets us there.
Zero impact to cyber-attacks --- overwhelming consensus of qualified authors goes neg
- No motivation---can’t be used for coercive leverage
- Defenses solve---benefits of offense are overstated
- Too difficult to execute/mistakes in code are inevitable
- AT: Infrastructure attacks
- Military networks are air-gapped/difficult to access
- Overwhelming consensus goes neg
Colin S. Gray 13, Prof. of International Politics and Strategic Studies @ the University of Reading and
External Researcher @ the Strategic Studies Institute @ the U.S. Army War College, April, “Making Strategic
Sense of Cyber Power: Why the Sky Is Not Falling,” U.S. Army War College Press,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1147.pdf
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: THE SKY IS NOT FALLING This analysis has sought to explore, identify, and explain the strategic meaning of
cyber power. The organizing and thematic question that has shaped and driven the inquiry has been “So what?” Today we all do cyber, but this behavior usually has not been much informed by
an understanding that reaches beyond the tactical and technical. I have endeavored to analyze in strategic terms what is on offer from the largely technical and tactical literature on cyber. What
can or might be done and how to go about doing it are vitally important bodies of knowledge. But at least as important is understanding what cyber, as a fifth domain of warfare, brings to
national security when it is considered strategically. Military history is stocked abundantly with examples of tactical behavior un - guided by any credible semblance of strategy. This inquiry
has not been a campaign to reveal what cy ber can and might do; a large literature already exists that claims fairly convincingly to explain “how to . . .” But what does cyber power mean, and
how does it fit strategically, if it does? These Conclusions and Rec ommendations offer some understanding of this fifth geography of war in terms that make sense to this strategist, at least. 1.
Cyber can only be an enabler of physical effort.
its immateriality.
Stand-alone (popularly misnamed as “strategic”) cyber action is inherently grossly limited by
The physicality of conflict with cyber’s human participants and mechanical artifacts has not been a passing phase in our species’ strategic history. Cyber
the strategic logic of such behavior, keyed to anticipated
success in tactical achievement, is not promising. To date, “What if . . .” speculation about strategic cyber attack usually is either
action, quite independent of action on land, at sea, in the air, and in orbital space, certainly is possible. But
contextually too light, or, more often, contextually
unpersuasive . 49 However, this is not a great strategic truth, though it is a judgment advanced with considerable confidence.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
i]n the absence of physical
combat, cyber war cannot lead to the occupation of territory. It is almost inconceivable that a
sufficiently vigorous cyber war can overthrow the adversary’s government and replace it with a more
pliable one.” 50 In the same way that the concepts of sea war, air war, and space war are fundamentally unsound, so also the idea of cyber war is unpersuasive. It is not impossible,
Although societies could, of course, be hurt by cyber action, it is important not to lose touch with the fact, in Libicki’s apposite words, that “[
but then, neither is war conducted only at sea, or in the air, or in space. On the one hand, cyber war may seem more probable than like environmentally independent action at sea or in the air.
cyber warfare would be very unlikely to harm human beings directly , let alone damage physically
the machines on which they depend. These near-facts (cyber attack might cause socially critical machines to behave in a rogue manner with damaging physical
consequences) might seem to ren - der cyber a safer zone of belligerent engagement than would physically violent action in other domains. But most likely there would be
serious uncertainties pertaining to the consequences of cyber action, which must include the possibility of
escalation into other domains of conflict. Despite popular assertions to the contrary, cyber is not likely to prove a precision
weapon anytime soon. 51 In addition, assuming that the political and strategic contexts for cyber war were as serious as surely they would need to be to trigger events
warranting plausible labeling as cyber war, the distinctly limited harm likely to follow from cyber assault would hardly
appeal as prospectively effective coercive moves. On balance, it is most probable that cyber’s strategic future in war will be as a contribut - ing enabler
After all,
of effectiveness of physical efforts in the other four geographies of conflict. Speculation about cyber war, defined strictly as hostile action by net - worked computers against networked
computers, is hugely unconvincing. 2.
Cyber defense is difficult, but should be sufficiently effective.
The
structural advantages of
the offense in cyber conflict are as obvious as they are easy to overstate. Penetration and exploitation, or even attack,
would need to be by surprise. It can be swift almost beyond the imagination of those encultured by the traditional demands of physical combat. Cyber attack may be so
stealthy that it escapes notice for a long while, or it might wreak digital havoc by com - plete surprise. And need one emphasize, that at least for a while, hostile cyber action is likely to be hard
(though not quite impossible) to attribute with a cy - berized equivalent to a “smoking gun.” Once one is in the realm of the catastrophic “What if . . . ,” the world is indeed a frightening place.
On a personal note, this defense analyst was for some years exposed to highly speculative briefings that hypothesized how unques - tionably cunning plans for nuclear attack could so promptly
disable the United States as a functioning state that our nuclear retaliation would likely be still - born. I should hardly need to add that the briefers of these Scary Scenarios were obliged to
The literature of cyber scare is more than mildly reminiscent of the nuclear attack
stories with which I was assailed in the 1970s and 1980s. As one may observe regarding what Winston Churchill wrote of the disaster that was the
make a series of Heroic Assumptions.
Gallipoli campaign of 1915, “[t]he terrible ‘Ifs’ accumulate.” 52 Of course, there are dangers in the cyber domain. Not only are there cyber-competent competitors and enemies abroad; there
are also Americans who make mistakes in cyber operation. Furthermore, there are the manufacturers and constructors of the physical artifacts behind (or in, depending upon the preferred
The more sophisticated—usually meaning complex—the code for
cyber, the more certain must it be that mistakes both lurk in the program and will be made in digital
communication. What I have just outlined minimally is not a reluc - tant admission of the fallibility of cyber, but rather a statement of what is obvious and should be anticipat - ed
definition) cyber - space who assuredly err in this and that detail.
about people and material in a domain of war. All human activities are more or less harassed by friction and carry with them some risk of failure, great or small. A strategist who has read
Clausewitz, especially Book One of On War , 53 will know this. Alternatively, anyone who skims my summary version of the general theory of strategy will note that Dictum 14 states
explicitly that “Strategy is more difficult to devise and execute than are policy, operations, and tactics: friction of all kinds comprise phenomena inseparable from the mak - ing and execution of
strategies.” 54 Because of its often widely distributed character, the physical infrastruc - ture of an enemy’s cyber power is typically, though not invariably, an impracticable target set for
physical assault. Happily, this probable fact should have only annoying consequences. The discretionary nature and therefore the variable possible characters feasible for friendly cyberspace(s),
mean that the more danger - ous potential vulnerabilities that in theory could be the condition of our cyber-dependency ought to be avoidable at best, or bearable and survivable at worst.
Libicki offers forthright advice on this aspect of the subject that deserves to be taken at face value: [T]here is no inherent reason that improving informa - tion technologies should lead to a rise
in the amount of critical information in existence (for example, the names of every secret agent). Really critical information should never see a computer; if it sees a computer, it should not be
Cyber defense admittedly is difficult to do, but so is cyber
offense. To quote Libicki yet again, “[i]n this medium [cyberspace] the best defense is not necessarily a good offense; it is usually a good defense.” 56 Unlike the geostrategic context for
nuclear-framed competition in U.S.–Soviet/Russian rivalry, the geographical domain of cyberspace definitely is defensible. Even when the
one that is networked; and if the computer is networked, it should be air-gapped.
enemy is both clever and lucky, it will be our own design and operating fault if he is able to do more than disrupt and irritate us temporarily. When cyber is contextually regarded properly—
which means first, in particular, when it is viewed as but the latest military domain for defense planning—it should be plain to see that cyber performance needs to be good enough rather than
Landpower, sea power, air power, and prospectively our space systems also will have to be capable of accepting
combat damage and loss, then recovering and carrying on. There is no fundamental reason that less
should be demanded of our cyber power. Second, given that cyber is not of a nature or potential character at all likely to parallel nuclear dangers in the menace
perfect. 57 Our
it could con - tain, we should anticipate international cyber rivalry to follow the competitive dynamic path already fol - lowed in the other domains in the past. Because the digital age is so
young, the pace of technical change and tactical invention can be startling. However, the mechanization RMA of the 1920s and 1930s recorded reaction to the new science and technology of
We can be confident that cyber defense should be able
to function well enough , given the strength of political, military, and commercial motivation for it to do
so. The technical context here is a medium that is a constructed one, which provides air-gapping options for choice regarding the extent of networking. Naturally, a price is paid in
the time that is reminiscent of the cyber alarmism that has flour - ished of recent years. 58
convenience for some closing off of possible cyberspace(s), but all important defense decisions involve choice, so what is novel about that? There is nothing new about accepting some
limitations on utility as a price worth paying for security. 3. Intelligence is critically important, but informa - tion should not be overvalued. The strategic history of cyber over the past decade
, cyber power is not technically forgiving
of user error. Cyber warriors seeking criminal or military benefit require precise information if their
confirms what we could know already from the science and technology of this new domain for conflict. Specifically
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
intended exploits are to succeed. Lucky guesses should not stumble upon passwords, while efforts to disrupt electronic Supervisory Con - trol and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems ought to be unable to achieve widespread harmful effects. But obviously there are practical
limits to the air-gap op - tion, given that control (and command) systems need to be networks for communication. However, Internet connection needs to be treated as a potential source of
It is one thing to be able to be an electronic nuisance, to annoy, disrupt, and perhaps delay. But it is quite another
to be capable of inflicting real persisting harm on the fighting power of an enemy. Critically important
military computer networks are, of course, accessible neither to the inspired amateur outsider, nor to the
malignant political enemy. Easy passing reference to a hypothetical “cyber Pearl Harbor” reflects both poor
history and ignorance of contemporary military common sense. Critical potential military (and other) targets
serious danger.
for cyber attack are extremely hard to access and influence (I believe and certainly hope), and the technical
knowledge, skills, and effort required to do serious harm to national security is forbiddingly high.
to claim, foolishly, that cyber means absolutely could not secure
This is not
near-catastrophic results. However, it is to say that such a scenario is extremely
improbable . Cyber defense is advancing all the time, as is cyber offense, of course. But so discretionary in vital detail can one be in the making of cyberspace, that confidence—real
confidence—in cyber attack could not plausibly be high. It should be noted that I am confining this particular discussion to what rather idly tends to be called cyber war. In political and
strategic practice, it is unlikely that war would or, more importantly, ever could be restricted to the EMS. Somewhat rhetorically, one should pose the question: Is it likely (almost anything,
strictly, is possible) that cyber war with the potential to inflict catastrophic damage would be allowed to stand unsupported in and by action in the other four geographical domains of war? I
believe not. Because we have told ourselves that ours uniquely is the Information Age, we have become unduly respectful of the potency of this rather slippery catch-all term. As usual, it is
helpful to contextualize the al - legedly magical ingredient, information, by locating it properly in strategic history as just one important element contributing to net strategic effectiveness. This
mild caveat is supported usefully by recognizing the general contemporary rule that information per se harms nothing and nobody. The electrons in cyber - ized conflict have to be interpreted
and acted upon by physical forces (including agency by physical human beings). As one might say, intelligence (alone) sinks no ship; only men and machines can sink ships! That said, there is
no doubt that if friendly cyber action can infiltrate and misinform the electronic informa - tion on which advisory weaponry and other machines depend, considerable warfighting advantage
could be gained. I do not intend to join Clausewitz in his dis - dain for intelligence, but I will argue that in strategic affairs, intelligence usually is somewhat uncertain. 59 Detailed up-to-date
intelligence literally is essential for successful cyber offense, but it can be healthily sobering to appreciate that the strategic rewards of intelligence often are considerably exaggerated. The
basic reason is not hard to recognize. Strategic success is a complex endeavor that requires adequate perfor - mances by many necessary contributors at every level of conflict (from the political
to the tactical). When thoroughly reliable intelligence on the en - emy is in short supply, which usually is the case, the strategist finds ways to compensate as best he or she can. The IT-led
RMA of the past 2 decades was fueled in part by the prospect of a quality of military effec - tiveness that was believed to flow from “dominant battle space knowledge,” to deploy a familiar
con - cept. 60 While there is much to be said in praise of this idea, it is not unreasonable to ask why it has been that our ever-improving battle space knowledge has been compatible with so
troubled a course of events in the 2000s in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we might have misunderstood is not the value of knowledge, or of the information from which knowledge is quarried, or
even the merit in the IT that passed information and knowledge around. Instead, we may well have failed to grasp and grip understanding of the whole context of war and strategy for which
battle space knowledge unquestionably is vital. One must say “vital” rather than strictly essential, because relatively ignorant armies can and have fought and won despite their ig - norance.
History requires only that one’s net strategic performance is superior to that of the enemy. One is not required to be deeply well informed about the en - emy. It is historically quite
commonplace for armies to fight in a condition of more-than-marginal reciprocal and strategic cultural ignorance. Intelligence is king in electronic warfare, but such warfare is unlikely to be
the sky will
not fall because of hostile action against us in cyberspace unless we are improb - ably careless and foolish. David J. Betz and Tim Ste vens strike
solely, or even close to solely, sovereign in war and its warfare, considered overall as they should be. 4. Why the sky will not fall. More accurately, one should say that
the right note when they conclude that “[i]f cyberspace is not quite the hoped-for Garden of Eden, it is also not quite the pestilential swamp of the imagination of the cyber-alarmists.” 61 Our
understanding of cyber is high at the technical and tactical level, but re - mains distinctly rudimentary as one ascends through operations to the more rarified altitudes of strategy and policy.
Nonetheless, our scientific, technological, and tactical knowledge and understanding clearly indicates
that the sky is not falling and is unlikely to fall in the future as a result of hostile cyber action. This
analysis has weighed the more technical and tactical literature on cyber and concludes, not simply on
balance , that cyber alarmism has little basis save in the imagination of the alarmists. There is military and civil peril in the hostile use of cyber, which is
why we must take cyber security seriously, even to the point of buying redundant capabilities for a range of command and control systems. 62 So seriously should we regard cyber danger that
it is only prudent to as - sume that we will be the target for hostile cyber action in future conflicts, and that some of that action will promote disruption and uncertainty in the damage it will
cause. That granted, this analysis recommends strongly that the U.S. Army, and indeed the whole of the U.S. Government, should strive to comprehend cyber in context. Approached in
isolation as a new technol - ogy, it is not unduly hard to be over impressed with its potential both for good and harm. But if we see networked computing as just the latest RMA in an episodic
succession of revolutionary changes in the way information is packaged and communicated, the computer-led IT revolution is set where it belongs, in historical context. In modern strategic
history, there has been only one truly game-changing basket of tech - nologies, those pertaining to the creation and deliv - ery of nuclear weapons. Everything else has altered the tools with
which conflict has been supported and waged, but has not changed the game. The nuclear revolution alone raised still-unanswered questions about the viability of interstate armed conflict.
How - ever, it would be accurate to claim that since 1945, methods have been found to pursue fairly traditional political ends in ways that accommodate nonuse of nuclear means,
notwithstanding the permanent pres - ence of those means. The light cast by general strategic theory reveals what requires revealing strategically about networked computers. Once one sheds
some of the sheer wonder at the seeming miracle of cyber’s ubiquity, instanta - neity, and (near) anonymity, one realizes that cyber is just another operational domain, though certainly one very
different from the others in its nonphysi - cality in direct agency. Having placed cyber where it belongs, as a domain of war, next it is essential to recognize that its nonphysicality compels that
There are
stand-alone possibilities for cyber action, but they are not convincing as attractive options either for or in
opposition to a great power, let alone a superpower. No matter how intriguing the scenario design for
cyber war strictly or for cyber warfare, the logic of grand and military strategy and a common sense
fueled by understanding of the course of strategic history, require one so to contextualize cyber war that
its independence is seen as too close to absurd to merit much concern.
cyber should be treated as an enabler of joint action, rather than as an agent of military action capable of behav - ing independently for useful coercive strategic effect.
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Pharma
Can’t solve innovation - current business model fails
Light 12 (Donald W. Light, professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Medicine and Dentistry of
New Jersey, Joel R Lexchin professor, York University School of Health Policy and Management,
“Pharmaceutical research and development: what do we get for all that money?,” 2012;344:e4348
The real innovation crisis
More relevant than the absolute number of new drugs brought to the market is the number that
represent a therapeutic advance. Although the pharmaceutical industry and its analysts measure
innovation in terms of new molecular entities as a stand-in for therapeutically superior new medicines, most
have provided only minor clinical advantages over existing treatments. The preponderance of drugs without
significant therapeutic gains dates all the way back to the “golden age” of innovation. Out of 218 drugs
approved by the FDA from 1978 to 1989, only 34 (15.6%) were judged as important therapeutic
gains.12 Covering a roughly similar time period (1974-94), the industry’s Barral report on all
internationally marketed new drugs concluded that only 11% were therapeutically and
pharmacologically innovative .13 Since the mid-1990s, independent reviews have also concluded that
about 85- 90% of all new drugs provide few or no clinical advantages for patients. 14-19 This small,
steady increase in clinically superior drugs contrasts with the FDA granting “priority” review status to 44% of
all new drugs from 2000 to 2010.20 The percentage of drugs with a priority designation began to increase in
1992 when companies started funding the FDA’s approval process. Other regulatory agencies have classified
far fewer of the same medicines as needing accelerated reviews.21 Post-market evaluations during the same
period are much less generous in assigning significant therapeutic advances to medications.18 21 This is the
real innovation crisis: pharmaceutical research and development turns out mostly minor variations on
existing drugs, and most new drugs are not superior on clinical measures. Although a steady stream of
significantly superior new drugs enlarges the medicine chest from which millions benefit, medicines have
also produced an epidemic of serious adverse reactions that have added to national healthcare costs.22
How much does research and development cost? Although the pharmaceutical industry emphasises how
much money it devotes to discovering new drugs, little of that money actually goes into basic research.
Data from companies, the United States National Science Foundation, and government reports indicate that
companies have been spending only 1.3% of revenues on basic research to discover new molecules, net of
taxpayer subsidies.23 More than four fifths of all funds for basic research to discover new drugs and
vaccines come from public sources.24 Moreover, despite the industry’s frequent claims that the cost of new
drug discovery is now $1.3bn (£834m; €1bn),25 this figure, which comes from the industry supported
Tufts Center,26 has been heavily criticised . Half that total comes from estimating how much profit would
have been made if the money had been invested in an index fund of pharmaceutical companies that increased in
value 11% a year, compounded over 15 years.26 While used by finance committees to estimate whether a new
venture is worth investing in, these presumed profits (far greater than the rise in the value of pharmaceutical
stocks) should not be counted as research and development costs on which profits are to be made. Half of
the remaining $0.65bn is paid by taxpayers through company deductions and credits, bringing the estimate
down to one quarter of $1.3bn or $0.33bn.27 The Tufts study authors report that their estimate was done on
the most costly fifth of new drugs (those developed in-house), which the authors reported were 3.44 times
more costly than the average, reducing the estimate to $90m. The median costs were a third less than the
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
average, or $60m. Deconstructing other inflators would lower the estimate of costs even further. Hidden
business model How have we reached a situation where so much appears to be spent on research and
development, yet only about 1 in 10 newly approved medicines substantially benefits patients? The low bars of
being better than placebo, using surrogate endpoints instead of hard clinical outcomes, or being non-inferior to a
comparator, allow approval of medicines that may even be less effective or less safe than existing ones. Notable
examples include rofecoxib (Vioxx), rosiglitazone (Avandia), gatifloxacin (Tequin), and drotrecogin alfa
(Xigris). Although the industry’s vast network of public relations departments and trade associations
generate a large volume of stories about the so called innovation crisis, the key role of blockbuster drugs,
and the crisis created by “the patent cliff,”28 the hidden business model of pharmaceuticals centres on
turning out scores of minor variations , some of which become market blockbusters. In a series of articles
Kalman Applbaum describes how companies use “clinical trial administration, research publication, regulatory
lobbying, physician and patient education, drug pricing, advertising, and point-of-use promotion” to create
distinct marketing profiles and brand loyalty for their therapeutically similar products.29 Sales from these drugs
generate steady profits throughout the ups and downs of blockbusters coming off patents. For example,
although Pfizer lost market exclusivity for atorvastatin, venlafaxine, and other major sellers in 2011, revenues
remained steady compared with 2010, and net income rose 21%.30 Applbaum contends that marketing has
become “the enemy of [real] innovation.”31 This perspective explains why companies think it is worthwhile
paying not only for testing new drugs but also for thousands of trials of existing drugs in order to gain approval
for new indications and expand the market.32 This corporate strategy works because marketing
departments and large networks of sponsored clinical leaders succeed in persuading doctors to prescribe
the new products.33 An analysis of Canada’s pharmaceutical expenditures found that 80% of the
increase in its drug budget is spent on new medicines that offer few new benefits .16 Major contributors
included newer hypertension, gastrointestinal, and cholesterol drugs, including atorvastatin, the fifth statin on
the Canadian market.
Patent cliff good – causes innovations and facilitates emerging markets, turns the aff
Hornig 13 (Doug, Senior Editor, Casey Research, “Is the Patent Cliff a Lethal Blow to Big Pharma?,” The
Technology Investor, http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/is-the-patent-cliff-a-lethal-blow-to-big-pharma, 5-2313)
A little over a year ago in this space, we called your attention to a developing situation in the
pharmaceutical industry, as shown by the chart below that dramatically illustrates the arrival of the socalled " patent cliff ". Today, the results are in from 2012. The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics has
released its annual survey of the US drug market. It found that the market shrank last year for the first time ever.
Specifically, nominal drug spending in the US declined by 1% in 2012, to $325.8 billion. Real per-capita
spending dropped even more, by 3.5% to $898. Branded drug spending dipped by $11.4 billion, to $230.2
billion. Generic drug makers, as you would expect, were the beneficiaries here. Generics were used for a
full 84% of dispensed scripts, with overall spending on them growing by $8 billion, not quite offsetting the
diminishing dollars spent on branded meds. This spending slide had the predictable consequence of
slamming big pharma. Eli Lilly, for example, was hit hard. The company's revenues, which reached an alltime high of $24.3 billion in 2011, skidded to $22.6 billion last year. Its revenues look set to keep sliding, as
Lilly will lose patent protection for blockbuster Cymbalta – which brings in $4 billion in revenue annually – at
the end of this year. This April, Lilly announced it will be dealing with the revenue erosion by laying off up to
1,000 employees in its US sales force. Merck lost its protection of Singulair – a $5 billion/year drug responsible
for 16% of US sales – in August of last year. Looking ahead, Merck had already begun cutting jobs in 2011 and
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
wound up axing 30,000, nearly a third of its workforce. With Singulair sales falling 67% in 4Q12, the company
experienced a 7% decline in fourth-quarter profits. Novartis also took drastic steps ahead of its September 2012
loss of Diovan, which produced $2.5 billion/year in domestic revenues, or 15.9% of US sales. The company did
$1.9 billion in cost cutting in 2011, followed by another $1.9 billion in 2012. That included the elimination of
2,400 jobs. Bristol-Myers Squibb was hammered after losing Plavix, the world's second best-selling drug, last
May. By 1Q13, Plavix sales had plummeted 95%, dragging down the company's revenues from $5.25 billion to
$3.83 billion, and net income from $1.1 billion to $609 million. And so on, pretty much down the line. As the
chart shows, this is not a one-time phenomenon. Patent expirations remain relatively high this year and
next, and balloon again in 2015, when branded drugs' losses will almost equal last year's, at an estimated
$33.5 billion. So, the question must be raised: will big pharma slowly waste away after tumbling over the
patent cliff? The short answer is " no ." These are going to be some lean years, no question. But there's some
good news, too. "Initially the figures do look depressing, but I don't think people should be running for the hills
just yet," says editor Lisa Urquhart of pharma analysts EP Vantage. "The efforts the industry has put in to
change business models , which have included investing more in niche busters, mean this time round things
might not be as bad." In addition, most of the patent expiries from last year involved small-molecule drugs,
which are easy to replicate. Going forward, a good number of those expiring are biologics, or large-molecule
drugs, and these are not as simple to pick apart. Big pharma is also emerging from a relative dry spell in the
way of new products. Sales of newly introduced drugs – defined as products that have been on the market for
less than 24 months – actually grew last year, accounting for $10.8 billion in spending, up from $10.3 billion in
2011. In line with recent trends in the field, the lion's share of new-drug spending came in the specialty
category. Rollouts will continue at a brisk pace, too. IMS projects the launch of new molecular entities
(NMEs) to come in at 32-37 per year, potentially including new mechanisms of action in Alzheimer's,
autoimmune disorders, diabetes, a number of cancers, and orphan diseases. That would establish a pace of
160-185 NMEs introduced between 2012 and 2016, well above the 140 launched in 2006-2010. "We're not
talking a return to the late '90s or the early 2000s, when there were forty or more some years," and the growth
rate was in the high single or double digits, says IMS research chief Michael Kleinrock. He notes that we
should expect fewer mega-blockbusters and more high-priced specialty and orphan treatments, and adds that,
"Rumors to the contrary, the US market is still alive and well. The patent cliff will take some of those
dollars out of the mix, but once it's past its peak … we're going to see a significant rebound in what's
available for both branded and generics companies." Furthermore, although the US market is likely to stagnate
– IMS estimates an anemic cumulative growth of 1%-4% from now through 2016 – the emerging nations are
poised for explosive 12%-16% growth over the same period. "In the next five years," Kleinrock says, "we
will see the maturation, the evolution, of emerging markets – which are heavily generic and driven by
volumes primarily rising from very low-income people that have become more affluent or are otherwise
getting better access to medical care." The US still will remain by far the world's leading drug consumer,
with a 31% share of the global market by 2016. But that's sharply down from its 41% share in 2006, with most
of the shift going to the "pharmerging" countries, as the IMS calls them. They made up only 14% of the market
in 2006 and 20% in 2011, but are predicted to draw nearly even with the US in 2016, when they'll gobble up
30% of the overall pie. And a substantial pie it will be. Some $1.2 trillion is destined to be spent on
pharmaceuticals in 2016, the IMS says – up from $956 billion in 2011 – with a still-hefty $615-645 billion
going to branded drugs and $400-430 billion siphoned off by generics. What does it all mean for big pharma?
With sales from existing drugs falling off the patent cliff, there will inevitably be an increased emphasis on
development of new therapies that show high earning potential. That means plenty of employment for inhouse researchers, but that source is not likely to be rich enough. The current negative economics of giant
mergers probably indicates that we will see few if any of those in the near future. But it's a certainty that
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
big pharma is going to be keeping close tabs on smaller companies that have promising drugs in Phase II or III
trials. Those are certain to be acquired at an accelerating rate, as their larger brethren seek to restock their R&D
shelves in the most cost-effective manner. Small companies with strong pharmaceutical pipelines are
mainstays of the Casey Extraordinary Technology portfolio. While we would never buy shares of a company
solely because we were betting on a buyout, that can provide some very nice icing on the cake for early
investors when it happens.
Key to Chinese access to cheap pharmaceuticals
Singer 10 (Natasha, “Drug Firms Apply Brand to Generics,” 2-15-10, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/business/16generic.html?_r=0)
Some prestigious brand-name pharmaceutical companies that once looked askance at the high-volume,
low-cost business of generic drugs are now becoming major purveyors of generic medicines. Just don’t call
them no-name drugs. Giants like Sanofi-Aventis and GlaxoSmithKline are not looking to enter the commodity
generics market in the United States, where chain pharmacies often determine which generics they offer based
on the lowest available price — and where consumers often view generic makers as interchangeable. Instead,
the big drug makers are pursuing a growing consumer base in emerging markets like Eastern Europe,
Asia and Latin America where many people pay out of pocket for their medicines but often cannot afford
expensive brand-name drugs. And, in some emerging markets, where the fear of counterfeit drugs or lowquality medicines runs high, consumers who can afford it are willing to pay a premium for generics from
well-known makers, industry analysts said. These products are known as company-branded generics, or
branded generics. They carry the name of a trusted local or foreign drug maker stamped on the package, seen as
a sign of authenticity and quality control. “We are able to create different tiers of products at prices they haven’t
previously seen with our stamp of approval,” said Andrew P. Witty, the chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline.
Last year, Glaxo bought a stake in Aspen, a generic maker in South Africa, and signed agreements with Dr.
Reddy’s, an Indian generic firm, to sell their products in emerging markets. Under the distribution agreement,
the Dr. Reddy’s products are subject to Glaxo quality control checks and, eventually, will carry a Glaxo logo, a
company spokeswoman said. Until recently, many brand-name drug makers invested the bulk of their
research and marketing dollars in the development of blockbuster drugs, only to cede their intellectual
property and market share to lower-priced generic competitors once patents expired. But now, with an
estimated $89 billion in brand-name drug sales in the United States at risk to generic competition over the next
five years, according to IMS Health, some drug makers are selling generics to offset revenue declines — as well
as wring some post-patent profits from the innovative drugs they developed. It is a topic sure to be discussed at
the Generic Pharmaceutical Association’s annual meeting, which begins Tuesday in Naples, Fla. “It definitely
represents a change in thinking,” said David Simmons, the president of Pfizer’s established products business
unit. That recently started division sells off-patent brand-name Pfizer products like the antidepressant Zoloft. It
also markets generic versions of those off-patent drugs under its own Greenstone label, and distributes a number
of generic drugs licensed from a few other producers. In the last year, Pfizer signed licensing deals with three
India-based generic makers to sell those companies’ pills and injectable drugs in the United States and other
markets, adding more than 200 products to the company’s generic portfolio. Pfizer said its Greenstone generic
subsidiary had become the world’s seventh-largest purveyor of generic medicines, as measured by number of
prescriptions dispensed. While drug sales in developed markets like North America have low single-digit
annual growth, emerging markets, including India, China , Russia and Brazil, have growth in the
midteens, said Doug Long, vice president for industry relations at IMS Health, a health information firm. As a
result, some drug makers are pursuing a two-tiered strategy in developing markets: selling their own lines of
more expensive name-brand products to the more affluent, as well as offering midpriced branded generic
lines that include prescription and over-the-counter medicines for the broader market. Branded generics can
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
give prominent drug makers a way to capitalize on those markets without having to compete with no-name
generic producers whose selling point is rock-bottom pricing. Company-branded generics can charge more for
the promise of quality. “It’s an economic opportunity for Watson and Pfizer and Sanofi and Teva,” said Paul M.
Bisaro, the chief executive of Watson Pharmaceuticals, a leading generic maker. “They have a reputation that
says, ‘You can count on us.’ ” Watson itself had primarily been focused on the United States market, but last
year the company spent $1.75 billion in cash and stock to acquire Arrow, a generic maker that operates in 20
countries, Mr. Bisaro said. And in markets that may need antibiotics and antifungal drugs more than
quality-of-life drugs like sleep aids or erectile dysfunction pills, there is a logic to branded drug makers’
acquiring local generic makers or licensing generic products to tailor their product portfolios to the local
market. Last year, for example, Sanofi-Aventis spent more than 1.5 billion euros to buy Zentiva, a leading
Czech generic maker; Medley, the leading producer of generics in Brazil; and Laboratorios Kendrick, a generic
producer in Mexico. Sanofi is now the world’s 11th-biggest generics player in terms of sales, the company said.
“For me, the interest in Medley, Kendrick and Zentiva is to acquire a portfolio of affordable medicines,
recognizing that outside of the United States and Europe people are really paying for medicines out of their own
pocket,” said Christopher A. Viehbacher, the chief executive of Sanofi-Aventis. “Therefore you have to have
medicines that fit the pocketbook and, to me, generics really fit the bill.” Medley even has its own generic brand
identity, Mr. Viehbacher said, which includes mint-green packaging that is a visible logo on pharmacy shelves.
The Swiss drug maker Novartis, which unified its generic business in 2003 under the name Sandoz, recognized
the consumer interest and business opportunity in generic drugs early on. “In the beginning, of course,
especially other pharmaceutical companies were very skeptical about it,” said Dr. Daniel Vasella, the chairman
of the board and former chief executive of Novartis. “Some competitors said that this was not right to enter a
field that was competing with our own.” Now, with organic growth and the acquisition of branded generics like
the German maker Hexal, Sandoz is the world’s second-largest purveyor of generic drugs, after Teva. Branded
generics may appeal to leading drug makers because they represent a hybrid of the generic and name-brand
models — allowing drug makers to use their existing commercial distribution system and marketing skills to
sell premium-priced generics as if they were brand-name drugs, said Ronny Gal, an analyst at Sanford C.
Bernstein & Company.
Checks epidemics
Staton 13 (Tracy, “Want China? Get ready to wheel-and-deal on drug prices,” 4-9-13,
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/want-china-get-ready-wheel-and-deal-drug-prices/2013-04-09)
Bring on the discounts, China says. Former health minister Chen Zhu figures Big Pharma will need to give
the government a break on drug costs , in exchange for access to a "huge market," Bloomberg reports. In
other words, drugmakers need to be prepared to sacrifice on price, counting on sales volume to make the
discounts worthwhile. This may temper pharma's hopes for Chinese growth, but the country remains one of the
fastest-growing drug markets on the globe. Chen's recommendations go far beyond the government's
ongoing price cuts on its list of essential drugs. That list just grew more than 50% to 317 from 205, BioCentury
reports. It includes some basic cancer drugs now, as well as the usual primary care products. Take, for instance,
the deal Novartis ($NVS) made with Jiangsu province to temper the price on its cancer treatment Gleevec,
which isn't on that list of price-controlled drugs. With the purchase of each Gleevec dose, the Swiss drugmaker
will give the government three doses for free. And that brings down the cost of annual treatment to about
$12,000, he said. In the U.S. Gleevec's wholesale price is about $77,000. Because Gleevec's Chinese list price is
unchanged by the three-for-one deal, it won't trigger automatic price cuts in other countries that might peg their
prices to China's, and it won't undermine Novartis' pricing power in established markets. "If the cost is too
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
high, maybe only a few percent of patients can benefit," Chen told Bloomberg. "If we can arrange an
appropriate, acceptable, affordable price, then you can have a huge market." So, it's a question of access to
treatments. And as you know, that argument has spawned a series of Big Pharma losses in India. The
government has ushered cheap copies of Bayer's cancer drug Nexavar onto the market, and is weighing similar
compulsory licenses on several other cancer meds. Meanwhile, the patent office has yanked previously granted
patents on several drugs, including Pfizer's ($PFE) Sutent and Roche's ($RHHBY) Pegasys. Chen wouldn't rule
out compulsory licensing in China, but he said they should be limited to " national emergencies " like an
epidemic , rather than routine use of expensive drugs. "We keep the right of using this measure, but it has to
be studied carefully," he told Bloomberg.
Unchecked, Chinese epidemics causes state collapse and nuclear war
Huang 3 (Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, professor at
Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations, assistant professor International
Relations at Seton Hall University, 2003, http://www.cbaci.org/pubs/special_reports/number_7.pdf)
Given China’s status as a major player in international relations, the resulting spillover can have serious
implications for health, stability, prosperity, and security at the regional and global levels. To begin with,
the health challenges in China could influence the course of epidemics elsewhere in the world, including
the United States. The impact can be felt in various ways. For example, China has currently one-fifth of the
world’s population and one-seventh of the world’s disease burden, measured in years of healthy life lost.227
Against the background of a globalized economy, diseases originating in China can be spread and
transported globally through trade, travel, and population movements. Not coincidentally, New York City,
which has one of the largest Chinese immigrant groups in the United States, also has the highest rate of
tuberculosis in this nation. According to the Department of Health, the percentage of new tuberculosis cases
among foreign-born New Yorkers rose from 18 percent in 1992 to 64 percent in 2001.228 Since February 2003,
a form of atypical pneumonia called SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) has spread at the speed of a
jet to Southeast Asia, Europe, and North America, prompting WHO to declare the ailment “a worldwide health
threat.” According to WHO, as of 29 March 29 2003, a cumulative total of 1550 cases and 54 deaths have been
reported from 13 countries. Most scientists believe that the new disease first emerged in Guangdong of
Southern China, where the cumulative SARS cases from 16 November 2002 to 31 March 2003 stand at 1153
cases and 40 deaths. As immigrants from China and other developing countries are perceived as creating
further demands on the public health system and other public services, the issue of minorities and
immigration could become a sensitive domestic political issue. The 2002 presidential election in France
highlights the danger of such an issue being exploited by political extremists to challenge a country’s political
system. While the potential dangers in this scenario should not be exaggerated, the U.S. commitment to
antiterrorist wars could create an anti-immigrant public mood, which might be exploited by the
politically ambitious to fan xenophobia and racism and influence election outcomes. Moreover, the
increased burden of disease diminishes the government’s capacity to address broader political and social
demands. Inability to meet these demands can then produce massive population movements, which not
only facilitate the spread of diseases, but also lead to heightened regional-wide tensions and
destabilization . Already, the collapse of the health system in North Korea has added to its socioeconomic
crisis, resulting in a flow of 100,000-200,000 people into China.229 As more and more North Koreans chose
to seek asylum in foreign diplomatic compounds, China’s relations with its East Asian neighbors, especially
South Korea and Japan, became strained.230 The North Korean case by no means represents the worst
scenario. History is full of examples showing that the weakening of state bodies, if caught in a crisis, can
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
easily spark coups, revolts, and other political and ethnic struggles to secure control over resources .231
If this leads to the ultimate collapse of state capacity in China, today’s recipient of refugees could be
tomorrow’s exporter. At the stake are the lives and welfare of the largest population on earth. In addition,
the nation borders 14 other countries. This has tremendous implications for regional and global stability
and security . As the author of the apocalyptic novel Yellow Peril warned in 1992: Imagine someday chaos in
China leads to shrinking production, and the land can no longer support so many people, the desire to survive
will undoubtedly drive Chinese to cross the national border and head for other countries. … In the past,
hundreds and thousands of Vietnamese traveled far away across the sea, shocking the whole world. What kind
of chain reaction will be produced if millions of, tens of millions of, or hundred of millions of Chinese
move to other countries? What is the end result? We cannot predict this by now, but this is surely going to be
devastating.232 Equally important, an unsustainable economy or state collapse spawned by poor health
will deal a serious blow to the global economy . Among the developing countries, China has been the largest
recipient of foreign investment, averaging about $40 billion per year during the late 1990s. As foreign
companies are shifting manufacturing to China, the country is becoming a workshop for the world. As
demonstrated in the 1998 Asian financial crisis, China’s robust economy can be the anchor of global
economic stability . China also has the potential to replace Japan as the engine of economic growth in
Asia. The rising market demand in China has been the main factor behind the recent increase of exports in
Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. Only one quarter of the size of Japanese economy, China is now the
market to $40 billion worth of Asian export goods, which is half of the size of the Japanese market.233 A world
economy that is so dependent on China as an industrial lifeline can become increasingly vulnerable to a major
supply disruption caused by “war, terrorism, social unrest, or a natural disaster.”234 Last but not least, social
and political instability caused by poor health can combine with the authoritarian characteristics of the
Chinese regime to make it war-prone .235 It is not farfetched to imagine that authoritarian leaders in
China might undertake aggressive action abroad to divert the public’s attention from domestic political
turmoil. Alternatively, the single- party dictatorship can be strengthened as the leaders embrace hypernationalism to rally the masses and restore political order. The end result will be a fascist state that by
definition praises military virtues and embarks upon military expansion. While this probability remains
quite low, the “third way” of the corporate state, or the “market economy with Chinese characteristics,” seems
to make the latter outcome more likely.236 In the words of David Shambaugh, China may “become more
confrontational externally, even as it becomes more fragmented internally.”237 The state of the Chinese state
is of clear national interest to the United States. Arguably, U.S.-China relations are the most important
and most complex bilateral relationship in the world. China is the fourth largest trading partner of the United
States, while the United States is the second largest in trading, the largest exporting market, and the biggest
investor for China. With economic interdependence that high, any major upheaval in China is likely to have
profound negative repercussions on the U.S. economy. Furthermore, a failed state tends to become a haven
for the new enemies of global order because it gives extremist groups freedom of operation, with
dangerous consequences a world away. State failure in China would also mean the loosening of its grip
on nuclear weapons, increasing the threat of unauthorized access to nuclear materials or nuclear
weapons by some terrorist groups or terrorist states . As far as nuclear nonproliferation is concerned,
China’s dubious export behavior only makes the latter outcome more likely. In addition, China is listed by
the U.S. government as one of the countries of greatest concern regarding biological weapons (BW)
proliferation. 238 This led former U.S. President Bill Clinton to conclude: “The weakness of great nations can
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
pose as big a challenge to America as their strengths.”239 While the rise of China as a belligerent superpower is
not in the interest of the international community, the collapse of China into a “messy state” or “failed state”
can be equally dangerous, given the sheer size and the strategic importance of this country.240 In short,
growing health problems in China will not only harm the economic, social, political, and military
structure in China, but will also undermine economic and security interests of the international
community, including the United States.
No Extinction from disease
Posner 5—Senior Lecturer, U Chicago Law. Judge on the US Court of Appeals 7
th
Circuit. AB from Yale and LLB from Harvard. (Richard, Catastrophe, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-
4150331/Catastrophe-the-dozen-most-significant.html)
Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to assail it in the 200,000 years or so of its existence is a source of genuine
none has come close to
destroying the entire human race. There is a biological reason . Natural selection favors germs of limited
lethality; they are fitter in an evolutionary sense because their genes are more likely to be spread if the
germs do not kill their hosts too quickly. The AIDS virus is an example of a lethal virus, wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for years maximizes
its spread. Yet there is no danger that AIDS will destroy the entire human race. The likelihood of a natural pandemic that would cause the
extinction of the human race is probably even less today than in the past (except in prehistoric times, when people lived in small, scattered bands, which would have limited the spread of disease), despite
Yet the fact that
comfort, at least if the focus is on extinction events. There have been enormously destructive plagues, such as the Black Death, smallpox, and now AIDS, but
wider human contacts that make it more difficult to localize an infectious disease.
Economic decline won’t cause war – prefer new data
Drezner, 14 - IR prof at Tufts (Daniel, “The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great
Recession” World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, p. 123-164)
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and
violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of
force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater
internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border
disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest
otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is
approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the
financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession
has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of
relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the
end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in
protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43
Global economy resilient
Drezner, 14 - IR prof at Tufts (Daniel, “The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great
Recession” World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, p. 123-164)
Since the Great Recession began, there has been no shortage of scorn for the state of global economic
governance in public perception, policy analysis, and scholarly assessment. Nevertheless, a closer look at the
global response to the financial crisis reveals a different picture. Despite initial shocks that were more severe
than the 1929 financial crisis, global economic governance responded quickly and robustly. Whether one
looks at economic outcomes, policy outputs, or institutional resilience, these governance structures either
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
reinforced or improved upon the status quo after the collapse of the subprime mortgage bubble. These
regimes performed particularly well during the acute phase of the crisis in the fall of 2008, ensuring the
continuation of an open global economy. To be sure, there remain areas where global governance either
faltered or failed. Even if the policy outcomes have been suboptimal, they have not been subpar. International
institutions and frameworks performed contrary to expectations. Simply put, the system worked—the open
global economy survived because of “good enough” global governance. If global economic governance has
worked, why has there been such a widespread consensus that it has not? Misperceptions about global
economic governance persist because the Great Recession has disproportionately affected the core economies,
a fact that is also the center of gravity for commentary about the global political economy. Commentators based
in the advanced industrialized states have conflated national governance with global governance. They have
also overestimated the effectiveness of prior periods of global economic governance. Why the system has
worked better than expected remains a more open question. We can tentatively conclude that both the power of
the United States and the resilience of neoliberal economic ideas were underestimated during the depths of
the Great Recession.
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
2nc
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
1nr
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Addons
Species loss has no impact and is slow.
Sagoff 97 – U Maryland School of Public Affairs Institute for Philosophy and Public policy Senior Research
Scholar, Mark, “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE
PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE
THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, 38 Wm and
Mary L. Rev. 825, Lexis
Somewhat fewer than 1,000 domestic species are listed as endangered, and roughly one third that number or more are
considered threatened or in jeopardy. n335 In biodiversity-rich California, the problem is particularly
troubling. About one third of the species in jeopardy in the United States reside in California, and of
these approximately 125 are listed as endangered. n336 Although these grim statistics should appall
us for ethical reasons, we may wonder if the extinction of hundreds of species in California and thousands nationwide
will cause any harm to human welfare. If any of these extinct species had a known economic use, for example, as crops, we
would be able to judge the value of the species in terms of its market price. As a rule, creatures that have a direct
economic use, such as crops, have habitats created for them (e.g., farms) rather than taken from them. The economic
benefits, if any, that flow from endangered species are indirect and not likely to fetch a market price. To estimate the
economic value of such an endangered species we must determine its worth "at the margin," in other
words, in relation to the cost of obtaining the least expensive substitute species that performs the
same function or service. Suppose, for example, that the American burying beetle, a marvelous but
endangered creature, n337 functions in the ecosystem by decomposing the corpses of small animals.
We would ask to what expense we must go to find a different kind of beetle or some other animal
ready, willing, and able to do the same work of decomposing [*904] small corpses. Nothing can be
assessed economically except at the margin, that is, in relation to the price of substitutes. "Healthy
ecosystems carry out a diverse array of processes that provide both goods and services to humanity," observed the
Ecological Society of America in a recent report. n338 Ecosystem services, according to the report,
include: "Maintaining hydrological cycles[;] [r]egulating climate; [c]leansing water and air;
[m]aintaining the gaseous composition of the atmosphere; [p]ollinating crops and other important
plants[;] [g]enerating and maintaining soils[;] [s]toring and cycling essential nutrients; [a]bsorbing and
detoxifying pollutants[;] [and] [p]roviding beauty, inspiration, and research[.]" n339 For one reason or
another, no extinction of any species in the United States seems thus far to have altered the capacity of the ecosystems
to provide these services. The reason may be that for any species that is lost, tens, hundreds, or thousands of others
are ready, willing, and able to perform the same functions and services valuable to human beings. Perhaps twenty
species of birds have vanished in the United States since 1492; of those, fifteen have vanished in
Hawaii. n340 What specific losses in ecosystem services, such as those listed above, have occurred as
a result? Mammals that have become extinct include Goof's pocket gopher, Shaman's pocket gopher,
and the Tacoma pocket gopher-all of which disappeared this century. "The loss of a species from a particular
area may have little or no net effect on the ability of the ecosystem to perform its ecological processes if competitors take
the species' place." n341 Has any ecosystem service diminished owing to the loss of these gophers? Or
have other species, including many other kinds of gophers, simply taken their place? [*905] To be
sure, if extinctions continue at present rates indefinitely, at some point there may be too few viable
species ready, willing, and able to substitute for those that have been lost. How much of a "buffer"
exists? How many "extra" rivets are in the wings? Many ecologists follow Paul Ehrlich, Peter Raven, and
others in declaring that with every extinction we run the risk of calamitous damage to the
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
environment. n342 Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the
brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result.
On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more
than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild
systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of other
species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the elimination of all
but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This
skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that
are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "The human species could survive just as well if
99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we
need." n346
No solvency – many other human activities destroy marine ecosystems
Kunich, 2005 (John Charles, Associate professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law,
“Losing Nemo: The Mass Extinction Now threatening the World’s Ocean Hotspots,” 30 Colum. J. Envtl. L.
1)
There is evidence that human activities adversely affect the sea in a variety of ways, some more readily
apparent than others. Ocean dumping, introduction of invasive species, development of coastal areas
and the attendant discharge of materials into the waters, sedimentation and eutrophication from
agriculture and silviculture, and over-harvesting in a particular area may well have severe impacts on
life in that immediate region and often beyond. n61 Within a given marine locality, in terms of depth,
proximity to major currents, ambient temperature, and the like, living things are interdependent in
much the same way as are the denizens of any terrestrial ecosystem. When there is a major
perturbation of that ecosystem, whether by chemical pollution (organic or inorganic), noise pollution,
underwater detonation of explosives, over-harvesting, n62 introduction of exotic species, trawling,
dredging, sedimentation from run-off, climate change, or any other stressor, a significant decimation of
one species will affect other species with a nexus to it in the food web and in the broader array of
ecological relationships. n63 In the marine realm, the term "ripple effect" thus has special relevance.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
DA
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
2NC L---China Module
The plan causes high-level backlash from China – universal opposition to legalization
Watanabe 11-11-14 (Hayato Watanabe is a freelance political writer and currently works at a legal-nonprofit in New York City, “China’s Marijuana Surprise,” http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/chinas-marijuanasurprise/, CMR)
The current administration of President Xi Jinping shows no sign of relenting on its anticorruption crusade, which encompasses social ills such as prostitution and drug use. Xi has been dogged in his attempt to shore
up his image as a no-nonsense law-and-order leader. He has doubled down in recent months, ordering police to conduct widespread and high-profile crackdowns. The latest
Except for one significant obstacle:
casualties in his war on drugs even include the arrests and blacklisting of celebrities like Ko Chen-tung and Fang Zuming (better known as Jackie Chan’s son), whose legal troubles have only brought more attention to the
one need not have more than a cursory understanding of China’s history to find a reason for its reflexive
rejection of progressive drug policy. The idea of others, or more specifically the West , peddling the medicinal benefits and economic
opportunities of cannabis recalls an unsettling time in Chinese history: the mid-19th century Opium Wars between China and the U.K.
The Chinese government responded with the traditional approach to drug control: criminalization, surveillance, and
punishment. Still politics often follows the money, and there is a real market in China for the production of medical marijuana. Don’t expect to see marijuana dispensaries
hitting the streets of Beijing anytime soon; China still has a strong institutional revulsion against drug
liberalization and it is likely to continue its relentless war on drugs. However, it will need at some point to reconcile its history with the fact that it is very well placed to be a major player in a growing market.
issue. In fact,
Legalization impairs treaty credibility – spillsover to climate change
Ruschmann 4 (Paul, Legal analyst and writer based in Canton, Michigan, “Legalizing Marijuana,” pg. 104105, CMR)
In the United States, there is less support for liberalizing marijuana laws
America's Marijuana Policy
the
than there is abroad, primarily
because harm reduction has less support here. Many Americans cannot accept a key assumption of harm reduction: that people will use mind-altering drugs, even if it is against the law. Our country has a long tradition of
Another reason often given for not liberalizing the laws is
our treaty commitments. The United States has not only signed, but was instrumental in bringing about, the
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs which outlaws the nonmedical use of marijuana. Supporters of current marijuana policy
argue that changing the law would send the wrong message to the world , especially at a time when America is
being criticized for rejecting the Kyoto Accord limiting "greenhouse" gases and has asked other countries to join the fight against terrorism. Furthermore, our public
obeying the law, and our legislators often pass laws intended to stop behavior the majority considers immoral.
officials, especially at the federal level, believe not only that the war on drugs is winnable, but that we are making progress. The Drug Enforcement Administration argues forcefully against abandoning the fight against drugs:
Should we abdicate ourselves of the need to enforce equitable immigration laws? Should we declare that our education system is an irreparable failure? Should we throw up our hands in frustration about cancer, or AIDS and
halt researching for cures? Clearly such suggestions are prepos- terous. We are a people committed to solving problems, not avoiding them.3
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
A2: Violations
Other states are unwilling to violate - the potential cost is too great and they'd work
through existing frameworks.
Bewley-Taylor 12 - Professor of International Relations and Public Policy at Swansea
University, Wales (2012, “Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions: The logic and dilemmas of
Like-Minded Groups,” http://www.tni.org/files/download/dlr19.pdf)
As in many other issue areas, States parties wishing to deviate further from the regime’s prohibitive norm
than its current flexibility will permit are unlikely to consider withdrawal by simply disregarding all, or
even specific parts of, the instruments. This has a great deal to do with the ongoing utility to be found
within the regime; for instance, for many states the regime allows the effective regulation of the licit trade
in pharmaceuticals. In addition, there would be high potential costs incurred, in terms of both
reputational and more substantive geopolitical consequences, in any radical departure from treaty
obligations, an important point to which we will return. Accordingly, most Parties, as members of an
international community of UN states with respect for international law, are likely to seek an alteration
of their commitments to the regime by working according to the options contained within the conventions
and international legal practices more widely.
The squo has sustainable support.
Bewley-Taylor 12 - Professor of International Relations and Public Policy at Swansea
University Wales (David R, March 2012, “Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions: The logic
and dilemmas of Like-Minded Groups,” http://www.tni.org/files/download/dlr19.pdf
As the diplomatic manoeuvrings around La Paz’s efforts demonstrate, despite a fractured consensus on
international drug control, there remains considerable support for the existing shape of the regime. This
was also evident at the High Level Segment (HLS) of the 2009 CND. Then, many national delegations,
including those from influential regime members like the USA and the increasingly important Russian
Federation, displayed displeasure when, having failed to gain consensus on the insertion of even a footnote in
the document, twenty-six states added an Interpretative Statement on harm reduction to the Political
Declaration.17 Importantly, rather than a challenge to the conventions, the Statement itself represented only a
formal justification of the use of the flexibility within them. Yet, both instances in their different ways reveal
the ongoing logic of like-mindedness.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Meixco Rezil
Nieto is doing those reforms
Perez, 14 (Santiago, "Mexico's President Says Drug Violence Has Been Contained, Isolated",
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304675504579391553263022472)
MEXICO CITY—The wave of drug-related violence that swept through Mexico in recent years has been
contained and isolated , and further improvement could allow the government to pull back the armed forces from the fray, President Enrique Peña Nieto
said late Monday. "I can´t say that this would happen over the short term, based on the decline of crime rates, but what´s desirable over the medium term is that at
some point the army goes back to the barracks, and that the Mexican State could have civilian authorities
that are much more reliable," the Mexican leader said in an interview at the presidential compound in Mexico City. Since taking office in late 2012,
Mr. Peña Nieto shifted the focus of his government to a package of ambitious economic reforms and away
from the fight against organized crime that dominated the six-year term of his predecessor Felipe Calderon, when some 60,000 people died in drugrelated killing. There has been good news. The overall murder rate in Mexico fell about 16% last year compared with the
previous year. But kidnapping and extortions rose. And in the western state of Michoacan, where the army had pulled back somewhat, the brutal Knights
Templar cartel gained strength, Mr. Peña Nieto was forced to call an unprecedented deployment of federal forces. " There has been a decline in
homicides and theft, but sadly, we have to acknowledge that extortion and kidnapping grew in some
states," Mr. Peña Nieto said. This is primarily the result of the government´s effort to dismantle some drug gangs, forcing kingpins to resort to other illegal activities,
he added. Mr. Peña Nieto said the federal government and local authorities have focused on specific areas or
regions that were deeply affected by crime and lawlessness, improving security in cities such as Monterrey or Ciudad
Juárez, which "just a few months ago were in critical condition ."
Mexico is attracting international investment
AI 8/21 (American interest, “Mexico Poised for a Breakout” http://www.the-americaninterest.com/blog/2014/08/21/mexico-poised-for-a-breakout/)
There’s a lot to be excited about in Mexico these days. The country is pushing through a number of reforms
that, as President Enrique Peña Nieto described in an opinion piece for the Financial Times, “intertwine in a single goal: to increase Mexico’s productivity and
competitiveness.” Of particular note are the ambitious energy reforms, which Peña Nieto details here: Today we are the world’s 10th-largest oil producer
and our recoverable shale gas resources rank sixth. The energy reform will allow us to take advantage of our natural resources in a sustainable
way, while observing basic principles of sovereignty. This reform will ensure the energy sector again becomes an engine for economic
growth, by guaranteeing the supply of oil, gas and electricity at competitive prices. It creates opportunities for private companies to invest, and improve and expand the sector’s
infrastructure. This will increase oil production from the current 2.5m barrels a day to 3m by 2018. Likewise, natural gas production will grow from 5.7bn cubic feet a day to 8bn by 2018.
Pemex (Petróleos Mexicanos) will be more competitive and will have the autonomy needed to operate as a modern company, as well as the opportunity to forge alliances and reduce operating
Mexico has immense potential. It is expected that with this reform, Mexico’s gross
The media, when it deals with our southern neighbor at all,
would still rather focus on immigration issues or the country’s grisly battle with drug cartels. But while both of
those are serious problems, there’s another side to Mexico that deserves recognition, a side that Peña Nieto highlighted in
this FT piece. Mexico has sizable reserves of oil and gas, a burgeoning manufacturing sector, oodles of human
capital, and now, with this raft of reforms, a path toward making the most of all of these resources. This reform agenda is
ambitious, and it’s good news for both Mexico and the United States. North America’s star is rising.
costs. The reform will promote investment in renewable energies, an area where
domestic product will increase by 1 per cent by 2018 and 2 per cent by 2025.
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
Failed state hypothesis is absurd
Neil Couch 12, Brigadier in the British Army, July 2012, “’Mexico in Danger of Rapid Collapse’: Reality or
Exaggeration?” http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/rcds/publications/seaford-house-papers/2012-seaford-housepapers/SHP-2012-Couch.pdf/view
A ‘collapsed’ state, however, as postulated in the Pentagon JOE paper, suggests ‘a total vacuum of
authority’ , the state having become a ‘mere geographical expression’.16 Such an extreme hypothesis of
Mexico disappearing like those earlier European states seems implausible for a country that currently
has the world’s 14th largest economy and higher predicted growth than either the UK, Germany or the
USA; that has no external threat from aggressive neighbours, which was the ‘one constant’ in the European
experience according to Tilly; and does not suffer the ‘disharmony between communities’ that Rotberg says
is a feature common amongst failed states.17,18¶ A review of the literature does not reveal why the JOE paper
might have suggested criminal gangs and drug cartels as direct causes leading to state collapse. Crime and
corruption tend to be described not as causes but as symptoms demonstrating failure . For example, a
study for Defense Research and Development Canada attempting to build a predictive model for proximates of
state failure barely mentions either.19 One of the principal scholars on the subject, Rotberg, says that in failed
states, ‘corruption flourishes’ and ‘gangs and criminal syndicates assume control of the streets’, but
again as effect rather than trigger.20 The Fund for Peace Failed States Index, does not use either of them
as a ‘headline’ indicator, though both are used as contributory factors.¶ This absence may reflect an assessment
that numerous states suffer high levels of organised crime and corruption and nevertheless do not fail.
Mandel describes the corruption and extreme violence of the Chinese Triads , Italian Mafia , Japanese
Yakuza and the Russian Mob that, in some cases, has continued for centuries.21 Yet none of these
countries were singled out as potential collapsed or failed states in the Pentagon’s paper. Indeed,
thousands of Americans were killed in gang warfare during Prohibition and many people ‘knew or at least
suspected that politicians, judges, lawyers, bankers and business concerns collected many millions of dollars
from frauds, bribes and various forms of extortion’.22 Organised crime and corruption were the norm in the
political, business, and judicial systems and police forces ran their own ‘rackets’ rather than enforcing the
law.23 Neither the violence nor the corruption led to state failure.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Sinola
That causes Peace - stomping out competition solves
Dotinga 2014
(Randy, “Tijuana Vilence ticks up, but don’t blame cartels” Voice of San Diego,
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/18/tijuana-violence-ticks-up-but-dont-blame-cartels/) RJT
What calmed the drug wars? Part of the reason we’re seeing things calm down is that competition has
largely eroded. The Sinaloa Cartel largely won. You have one big organization that calls the shots, and
nobody really challenges them. The cartel is still very strong even after the arrest of leader Joaquin “El
Chapo” Guzman. It’s still the largest and most powerful organization, and his business partners who are at
large still have effective control of the organization’s drug operations. When there’s no competition in the
black market, it’s a terrible thing if you’re trying to stop the flow of drugs. But it’s a great thing if you
want peace . Why hasn’t violence in Mexico spread to the U.S.? Several American border cities, like San
Diego and El Paso, are among the safest in the country. If you kill someone in Mexico, there an 80
percent chance you go free. If you kill someone in the U.S., the odds are at least reversed. The impunity —
the lack of punishment for people who commit crimes, the inability to enforce the law — is what leads to
criminal behavior and bad behavior in Mexico. If there were real and immediate consequences for assassins
and murderers, you’d have a lot fewer murderers on the street, and they wouldn’t be able to continue to murder
people. And it would provide a serious disincentive to anyone thinking about committing a crime
The U.S is working with Sinaloa because we know they are good for stability.
Cawley 2014 ( Marguerite, “Did the U.S help Sinaloa Cartel Win Turf War,
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/us-help-sinaloa-cartel-win-turf-war) RJT
A prominent news site has released information suggesting US officials allowed informants from Mexico's
Sinaloa Cartel to continue trafficking drugs during a turf war with the Juarez Cartel, but did officials
really aim to help the cartel gain the upper hand in the conflict? Based on federal court and police records,
testimony and interviews, the Daily Beast reported that the actions of US agencies between 2007 and 2010
"directly served the interests of El Chapo [cartel boss Joaquin Guzman] and the Sinaloa Cartel ." As
evidence of this, the publication pointed to claims and indications that US Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) officials processed visas for Sinaloa Cartel informants that facilitated the movement
of major drug shipments into the US, helping fund the groups' war with the Juarez Cartel. In the case of
Fernando Arambula, a high-ranking Sinaloa lieutenant who reportedly continued moving multi-ton
marijuana shipments during his time as an informant, his lawyer claimed after his 2010 arrest that the US
Attorney's Office had given him license to move freely across the border. ICE Special Agent Louie Gomez
later said in court that the agency had been informed of Arambula's continued illicit activity by an unidentified
government body prior to his arrest. Another case was that of Mario Nuñez Meza, alias "M10," a Sinaloa plaza
chief who worked in Chihuahua and is believed to be responsible for some 388 murders. Between 2007 and
2008 he was allowed free entry to the US to meet with ICE officials, according to a former police captain
and informant.
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
Cartels will make sure violence doesn't spillover.
The Monitor 13 (“Police: After cartel attack, 'nothing to fear' from spillover violence”,
http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/police-after-cartel-attack-nothing-to-fear-from-spilloverviolence/article_b75ceb28-9e98-57aa-97a9-7145ea272ccd.html?mode=jqm) RJT
Residents have “nothing to fear” from drug war violence spilling over from Mexico, authorities said. “The
people that go about their business and lead a regular life really have nothing to fear from this,” Brownsville
Police Chief Carlos Garcia said. “If you are not involved in illegal trade or organized crime, this won’t affect
you.” Garcia said that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, police saw an average of 20 to 25 murders a year with a
large part of them attributed to the drug trade. “Back in the days of Juan Garcia Abrego, we actually saw
more murders related to the cartels than now,” Garcia said. “Back then, Abrego controlled certain routes in
Mexico and when another organization would try to move in they wouldn’t allow it.” Brownsville police
confirmed that Thursday night’s fatal shooting that left two dead was connected to the Gulf Cartel. “This is an
ordered hit by the Gulf Cartel,” Garcia said. Authorities discovered the bodies of Omar Castillo Flores, 25, and
of Jose Guadalupe Lopez Perez, 38, in a bullet-riddled pickup truck Thursday night in Olmito. Investigators
said Castillo Flores had ties to both the Gulf Cartel and the Zetas criminal organization through his brothers
Alberto ``Beto Fabe'' Castillo Flores and Oscar ``El Apache'' Castillo Flores. According to the police chief,
because of the location and the way the murders were carried out, the hit is an isolated incident dealing
only with elements of organized crime. Thursday’s murders are an indication that the violence has crossed
over but Garcia said the scope is minor compared to the 1980s. “Hopefully it doesn’t get to that point again,” he
said. George W. Grayson, author of “Mexico: Narco-Violence and a Failed State?” and a professor at the
College of William and Mary, said Thursday that drug cartel assassinations on the U.S. side were not surprising.
“It was just a matter of time before you found the violence spilling over,” Grayson said. “The Zetas work on
both sides and reportedly some live on the U.S. side for security.” Grayson said the recent border violence is
attributed to a trio of drug smuggling cartels – the Gulf Cartel, La Familia Michoacana and the Sinaloa Cartel
— who are “cooperating to decimate the Zetas.” “They don’t care where they do it,” Grayson said. “If they
can catch vulnerable Zetas near the border, they will take them out. This is a battle to the death.” The trio of
cartels is the lesser of two evils because they are simply businessmen who seek to make a profit through
the commerce of narcotics, said Grayson, who recently spoke at the University of Texas-Pan American in
Edinburg. Meanwhile, the Zetas are involved in more than 20 criminal activities and are a threat to public
safety, he said. “I didn’t perceive that there was fear on the U.S. side that the war was spilling over,” Grayson
said of his visit to the Rio Grande Valley. Grayson reckons that more violent incidents could occur in the Valley
as Mexican cartel members take refuge in the U.S. But the professor believes those not involved in smuggling
activities will remain safe — mostly. “It’s an all-out war, but the cartels have been extremely wary of
killing foreigners and especially of killing Americans, not because they are ‘sacerdotes’ (priests) but
because they don’t want to raise hackles in Washington,” Grayson said, adding that killing U.S. citizens
could lead to Army troops patrolling the border. Grayson foresees the drug war escalating until the Zetas are
eliminated — a challenge due to their constant and resourceful recruiting. “It might be premature to write their
epitaph just yet,” he said. “I don’t see that happening until (Zeta leaders) are captured, convicted and extradited
to the U.S.”
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Heg
The liberal order will outlast unipolarity.
Ikenberry, Prof Politics @ Princeton, 2010
John, “The Liberal International Order and its Discontents”, Millenium, 38
In the great narratives of this moment, the world is transitioning away from the American led liberal
order. it is a story of the return to multipolarity, the rise of new great powers and multiple pathways to
modernity. The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent world economic downturn - the most severe since
the Great Depression - has also been a blow to the American-led system. Unlike past post-war
economic crises, this one had its origins in the United States. The repercussions of this economic crisis
are complex and still playing out. But it has served to tarnish the American model of liberal capitalism
and raised new doubts about the capacities of the United States to act as the global leader in the
provision of economic stability and advancement. . I want to be skeptical of these views. Yes, the
American liberal hegemonic order is in crisis. But it is a crisis of authority within the liberal international order and not a
crisis of its underlying principles and organizational logic . That is, it is a crisis of the American governance of
liberal order and not of liberal order itself. The crisis of liberalism today will ultimately bring forth ’more
liberalism’. This is true it by liberal order we mean an open, rule-based relations system organized around expanding forms
of institutionalized cooperation. in this sense, liberal international order can be contrasted with alternative logics of order
- blocs, exclusive spheres and closed geopolitical systems. The future still belongs to the liberal international
order. I argue that the post Cold War liberal international order is more durable than many think. Russia and China are
not its inevitable enemies. A grand alternative does not exist. To put it sharply: the pathway to the future still
runs through institutions and relationships created over the last 60 years. American unipolarity will no
doubt eventually give way to something new. Power and authority will shift in the global system as they have
over the centuries. But rival orders will not emerge – even if new leaders will. In the decades ahead, the United
States and Europe and rising states - many of which are in Asia —~ will have more reasons and not fewer reasons to
cooperate in open and rule-based ways.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
nanotech
US defense leading Nano research – solves the i/l to their scenario.
Purcell 14 (Richard, “Hagel’s ‘Third Offset Strategy’ Key to Maintaining U.S. Military Supremacy,” World
Politics Review, 12-29-14, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/14744/hagel-s-third-offset-strategykey-to-maintaining-u-s-military-supremacy)
Beginning in the second half of the 1970s, the Pentagon embarked on a number of research and
development projects that sought to exploit the U.S. lead in the emerging fields of electronics and
information technology. The payoffs from these efforts were impressive, coming in the form of enhanced communications and information networking,
improved battlefield intelligence and surveillance, stealth aircraft and “smart” weapons that could strike their targets with unprecedented accuracy, even when fired
from long distances. While
each innovation was significant in its own right, it was the integration of these new
capabilities into new operational concepts that ultimately transformed the American way of war and
ushered in an era of unprecedented military dominance. That era now appears to be coming to an end due to the proliferation of
advanced military technologies originally pioneered by the U.S. as part of the second offset strategy, particularly those that enable precision strike capabilities. Potential
U.S. adversaries are fielding increasingly potent anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) weapons systems that threaten the ability of U.S. forces to deploy to, and operate
effectively in, distant regions. Of particular concern is China’s growing ability to mount long-range attacks on American ships and bases in the Asia Pacific region
using cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, submarines and strike aircraft. Other hostile nations, such as Iran, North Korea and Russia, are developing or acquiring similar
capabilities. All of these developments put the U.S. ability to project military power abroad increasingly at risk. In this context, Hagel’s
initiative is a
welcome development—and one that is almost a decade overdue. Bogged down by guerrilla insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 13 years, the
Pentagon has been slow to react to the emergence of these new threats. Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, whom Hagel named to lead the effort, has spoken of
the need for “a sense of urgency” in developing new American military advantages. In Washington, Hagel’s plan has generated interest in policy circles. In October, the
Center for a New American Security announced its new “Beyond
Offset” project to study ways of ensuring continued U.S. military superiority, an issue
be to identify the most
promising innovations on the horizon. The possibilities include directed energy weapons, rail guns, human
performance modification (HPM), automated unmanned systems, miniaturization and nanotechnology ,
hypersonics and 3-D printing. Some of these emergent technologies, like robotics, are virtually certain to play a pivotal role in shaping warfare in the
also examined in a recent report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The initiative’s first task will
coming years. Others, like HPM, are more embryonic and will require further research before their viability can be demonstrated. Unlike during the Cold War, when
research and development was driven by defense spending, technical innovation now comes primarily from the civilian commercial sector. As a result, the Pentagon
will have to be willing to look beyond the traditional defense industry in its quest for new technological advancements. Finding ways to apply breakthrough
technologies to the combat arena will be just as important—and challenging—as identifying and developing them in the first place. From
rail guns to
robotics, these innovations have the potential to be highly disruptive to current methods of warfare,
perhaps even rendering some of them obsolete. Historically, revolutionary weapons systems such as tanks and aircraft carriers were fielded
before their impact on warfare was fully understood. The U.S. defense community would do well to begin thinking now about how best to adapt and modernize its
existing war-fighting concepts and force structure in light of coming innovations. This will likely prove easier said than done, however, as institutional interests within
in the Pentagon may oppose making fundamental changes to the American way of war. Since
it came just before Hagel announced his
retirement, the third offset strategy initiative may end up being his most enduring legacy as defense
secretary. It will almost certainly continue under Hagel’s apparent successor, Ashton Carter, and probably even
beyond his tenure. It is far from clear at this point how this effort will unfold, but . At the same time, fiscal constraints on defense spending mean that the new initiative
will have to compete for funding with other priorities, such as readiness and force modernization. Strong, steady leadership from the top will therefore be necessary if
this endeavor is to succeed.
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
1nr
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Pharma
Empirically denied- more money doesn’t solve innovation, companies just buy up existing
technology to make more profit, and maintain monopolies, decreasing innovation
Fernholz ’14 http://qz.com/203669/pfizers-100-billion-deal-shows-pharma-patents-perverse-incentives/
Pfizer, the US pharmaceutical giant, has made a $100 billion cash-and-stock offer to purchase AngloSwedish rival AstraZeneca . Is this the best use for that much money? Perhaps, from a shareholder’s
perspective: The goal is to obtain AstraZeneca’s collection of patent-protected cancer drugs, a guaranteed cash
cow. As an added bonus, Pfizer can fund the takeover with untaxed foreign revenue and structure the deal as a
reverse merger, incorporating the combined group in the UK, which further cuts its American tax bill. Pfizer
and other pharmaceutical companies are reliant on patent laws that grant them a time-limited monopoly
on their drugs, especially in the US, the world’s largest and most profitable pharmaceutical market. Drugs are
much more expensive in the US than other rich nations—by 150% on average, according to the OECD—
thanks to Americans’ appetite and ability to buy expensive drugs for niche conditions; strict and sometimes
outdated regulatory procedures; and a lack of competition for branded drugs. Maintaining a monopoly goes
against what economists have learned about tuning market forces for maximum prosperity, but we make
the otherwise unpalatable trade-off with pharmaceuticals to encourage companies to spend the vast sums
it takes to develop life-saving medicines. Pfizer, however, has decided it’s better to plough a big chunk
money into buying existing patents instead of funding new research. As a result, society may not be
getting the trade-off it was promised. That’s one reason economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
made the case for abolishing the patent system in 2012— patents can lead companies to fight over existing
intellectual property instead of invest in innovation . The economists found that patent protection wasn’t
the major advantage pharma firms make it out to be, with more relative importance placed on being first
to market, having proper manufacturing infrastructure in place, and effective sales and service efforts.
The dreaded “patent cliff” is proving much less daunting these days , with drugmakers employing a variety
of tactics to lose only a third of sales of medicines to generic competitors when their patents expire, according
to EvaluatePharma. A few years ago these firms routinely lost 70% of a drug’s sales when it lost patent
protection. Pfizer has spent an average of $8 billion on research and development over the past five years,
or around 14% of revenue. It keeps nearly $70 billion in cash on its balance sheet outside of the US, which
would trigger taxes if it brought it back home. With the AstraZeneca bid, those resources will be used to buy
existing drugs, not fund more research. This is despite 2012 being a record a year for new molecule
approvals by US regulators and 2013 seeing the highest-ever sales for newly-approved drugs, according
to EvaluatePharma. All of this suggests that the incentives aren’t correctly aligned . Eliminating drug
patents is a bit of a blue-sky provocation at the moment, given the industry’s political clout. But reforms to limit
patent duration and upgrade America’s aging regulatory infrastructure—a key source of the costs pharma
companies face when developing new drugs—could provide better returns to society. Like a good vaccine,
injecting a bit more competition won’t kill the pharma industry, but will make it stronger.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Impact OV
Chinese lashout turns heg, econ and cyber attack
Doddrill 14 (Tara, “Cyber Hackers Could Cause An Economic Collapse, President Obama Warns,” 11-26-14,
http://www.survivalbased.com/survival-blog/5918/cyber-hackers-could-cause-an-economic-collapse-presidentobama-warns/)
The U.S. power grid has reportedly been under a constant state of attack by English-speaking Chinese
computer experts nestled in a rather unimposing building in Shanghai. The alleged cyber-attacks by the
computer hackers pose as significant a threat to America as the two million soldiers in the Chinese army ever
could, if the cyber warfare studies by the Mandiant security firm are accurate. One of the top targets of the
People’s Liberation Army is allegedly Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor in the United
States. Government officials have acknowledged the distinct similarities between the F-35 fighter jet and a
version of the plane manufactured in China. Crippling the power grid would be perhaps the quickest way to
destroy the American economy and decrease the effectiveness of our military at the same time. The
P eople’s L iberation A rmy would not have to step foot on American soil or fire a single shot, in order to
win a virtual and silent war against the United States. American infrastructure was noted as some of the
“most troubling” targets of Chinese hackers in an ABC News report about Chinese cyber hackers. Twentysomething cyber theft experts are reportedly honing their skills by hacking into business and governmental
entities in order to steal either identities or funds. The Chinese hackers are reportedly targeting the American
water supply, pipelines and the power grid. What purpose other than the wreaking havoc, would hackers have
for attempting to cripple our infrastructure? Analyst Richard Clarke noted during the ABC report that the only
reason someone would want to get into the control system for the power grid would be to cause “damage,
destruction, and disruption.” Commerce would come to a screeching halt if the power grid collapsed. If you owe
someone a debt, as we most undoubtedly do with China, taking away the ability to generate funds defies
common sense. But, punishing an entity that appears to never be able to make good on a debt is a tried and true
loan shark tactic. Chinese officials likely discuss our struggling economy as much as we do ourselves.
Miscalculated war between the US and China is the only scenario for conflict – disad turns
the case, but not the other way around
Scobell 9 (Dr. Andrew, Professor of International Affairs and Director of the China Certificate Program –
Texas A&M University, “Is There a Civil-Military Gap in China’s Peaceful Rise?”, Parameters, Summer,
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/09summer/scobell.pdf)
The actions suggest a lack of civilian control , although after the fact they have been explained as acts of
deterrence. The reins of civilian control over the PLA seem to be quite loose. At the very least there is poor
communication and coordination with key civilian entities, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The
result appears to be a roguish PLA that makes crisis management all the more difficult and heightens the
potential for worrisome misunderstandings and misperceptions. While these explanations may help one to
make sense of the words and deeds of the Chinese military, they do not provide much relief or reassurance.
First, the risk of miscalculation between the U nited S tates and China may be higher than many assume.
It is dangerous for American policymakers and analysts to consider US resolve in isolation. This strategy
presumes that China’s perception of the strength of US resolve in and of itself will be enough to deter
Beijing from military action.50 The logic is flawed. For China, US resolve on the question of Taiwan is viewed
as limited, especially in comparison to other issues, and smaller than China’s own unshakeable resolve. For
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
Chinese analysts, accurately assessing US resolve is tricky. While Beijing can have a high degree of confidence
in its own degree of resolve, it is much harder to judge Washington’s. Second, once a crisis or confrontation
develops, the potential for unintended escalation is significant . The militaries of the U nited S tates and
China continue to think about and plan for a possible conflict over Taiwan. This does not mean that a war is
inevitable, but it does mean that in a crisis, escalation might be rapid and difficult to control .51 At least
there is improved communication between the two militaries; a hotline linking the Pentagon with the Central
Military Commission was established in early 2008.
Extinction
Yee and Storey 2 (Herbert Yee, Professor of Politics and IR, Hong Kong Baptist University --AND-- Ian
Storey, Lecturer in Defence Studies at Deakin, 02 “The China Threat: Perceptions, Myths and Reality,” p5)
The fourth factor contributing to the perception of a China threat is the fear of political and economic collapse in the PRC,
resulting in territorial fragmentation, civil war and waves of refugees pouring into neighbouring countries.
Naturally, any or all of these scenarios would have a profoundly negative impact on regional stability. Today the Chinese leadership faces a raft of internal
problems, including the increasing political demands of its citizens, a growing population, a shortage of natural resources and a deterioration in the natural environment caused by rapid industrialisation and pollution. These problems are putting a strain on the
Political disintegration or a Chinese civil war might result in millions of Chinese
refugees seeking asylum in neighbouring countries. Such an unprecedented exodus of refugees from a collapsed PRC would no doubt
put a severe strain on the limited resources of China's neighbours. A fragmented China could also result
central government's ability to govern effectively.
in another nightmare scenario - nuclear weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible local provincial leaders or warlords.2 From this perspective, a
disintegrating China would also pose a threat to its neighbours and the world.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Disease
Collapsing patent revenue incentivizes new business models – encourages outreach to
emerging markets, crucial to solve infectious disease
Bennett 14 (Shannon, member of the Thomson Reuters API Intelligence team,
http://lsconnect.thomsonreuters.com/author/shannon-bennett/#sthash.9kuO5xdy.dpuf, “Current Trends in the
Pharmaceutical Industry: Emerging Markets,” 10-28-14)
One of the largest pharmaceutical trade shows, CPhI Worldwide, recently concluded in Paris. The event
brought together companies from an expanse of geographical regions and played host to countless meetings
where industry professionals worked to identify potential suppliers, partners and opportunities for growth.
Much of the discussion and presentations during the event focused on the increasingly globalized industry, and
new markets presenting interesting opportunities. As the industry evolves in the wake of the patent cliff, and
small molecule opportunities in mature markets wane, more companies are scouting emerging markets for
prospects. Business models for both innovators and generics are changing ; strategic partnering and
outsourcing for specific capabilities are becoming integral decisions as firms strive to gain or maintain a
competitive edge. There has been an increase in the presence of companies exhibiting from
Latin
America , Africa , Russia, Middle East and South East Asia . These regions with large, thriving
populations and increasing personal wealth are at the forefront of strategic planning for many
companies. The potential for novel research and development programs as well as large populations of
treatment-naive candidates for clinical trials command the attention of innovators. Meanwhile, expanded sales
and marketing opportunities appeal to the industry as a whole. These regions, excluding Russia, are
comprised of a number of countries with separate governments, laws and regulations; navigating the
requirements of each country can be cumbersome. Many of these emerging regions are heavily dependent
on the importation of medicines, and while various governments are enacting legislation encouraging and
even requiring local manufacturing, the challenges in many areas continue to dissuade many companies
from fully investing. Pharmaceutical companies assessing the potential and challenges of these markets may
find partnering with local manufacturers a successful option. Partnering for marketing, manufacturing or
product licensing is a strategy a number of foreign companies have used to enter emerging markets allowing
entrance without a tremendous amount of financial gambling. Partnering with local companies can offer value
through familiarity with regulatory requirements, and governmental policies; as well as aid in market access
through distribution to an existing customer network and knowledge of cultural aspects of the customer base.
These partnerships can also offer insight into the deeper challenges of succeeding in that particular market.
Companies entering emerging markets must evaluate not only their potential return on investment but
also the populations they will be serving. Companies may find their pricing structure incompatible with these
markets as middle class income, affordability of medicines and healthcare have different definitions in
developing economies than in more mature markets. While many emerging markets are looking to
strengthen access to essential medicines and fight infectious disease , the mature markets are seeing
business models changing. Western medical treatments are becoming increasingly specialized, personalized,
and targeted to specific therapies. The shift in drug portfolios has impacted not only the innovation
landscape, but also the generic drug and the active ingredient landscape. Understanding how these shifts
will impact business strategies, partnerships, and potential competition is critical for any company’s long term
growth and success.
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
Patent collapse faciliates innovations in antivirals and immuno-stimulants, allows smaller
firms to compete
Ahmed 14 (Rizwan, Triple Helix, “The Patent Cliff: Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry”,
http://triplehelixblog.com/2014/07/the-patent-cliff-implications-for-the-pharmaceutical-industry/)
The pharmaceutical industry is a trillion dollar international market, dominated by only a few major companies that create and supply the most
important prescription drugs available. The top fifteen pharmaceutical companies consist of nearly half the total revenue in the industry in 2008 [1],
inspiring a preconceived notion that the pharmaceutical industry was an oligopoly with nearly impossible barriers to entry. However, over the
last three years major pharmaceutical companies have lost tens of billions of dollars to smaller companies
for one primary reason: the patent cliff – a series of patent expirations of important prescription drugs. This phenomenon has led to
the mass production of generic versions of major drugs by small pharmaceutical companies, causing steep revenue losses for big pharmaceuticals. In
the coming years, many prescription drugs that make up many large pharmaceutical companies’ profits,
known as blockbuster drugs, are set to expire as intellectual property. This will create a gateway for small companies to
flood the market with generics. With hundreds of billions of lost revenue projected, the patent cliff has the opportunity to change
the face of the pharmaceutical industry in the consumer perspective, as well as the back-end research,
development, and business standpoints of major pharmaceutical companies in the years to come. The first
major instance to display the severity of patent expiration came in 2011 after Pfizer lost exclusivity to their blockbuster drug Lipitor. The drug was
released for prescription in 1998 and became an instant success, propelling Pfizer to become the world’s premier pharmaceutical company by the
early 2000s. By 2011, Lipitor generated $115 billion in revenue since its release, and comprised about forty percent of total profits for Pfizer in 2005.
[2] Pfizer attempted to minimize the inevitable profit loss that would follow the patent’s expiration by completing a licensing agreement with the
Indian pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy, which provided the India-based generic drugs producer 180 days of exclusive production of the generic
version of Lipitor. However, profit losses for Pfizer were still very steep. After the patent for Lipitor expired in 2011, Pfizer instantly suffered from
losing exclusivity; by the end of the first fiscal quarter after Lipitor’s patent expiration, global sales of Lipitor fell by forty two percent and Pfizer’s
total profit declined by nineteen percent. [3] While analysts predicted drops in revenue, nobody expected Pfizer to fall so steeply. The result from
Pfizer’s loss of patent exclusivity over Lipitor was a warning sign for many other pharmaceutical companies, shareholders, competitors, payers, and
consumers. Although Lipitor was the largest blockbuster drug faced patent expiration in 2011, the patent cliff for other blockbuster drugs did not end
with Pfizer. Major pharmaceutical companies like Novartis experienced losses after the patent for their blood-pressure-reducing drug Diovan expired
in 2012. Merck had a similar issue with Singulair in the same year; Bristol-Myers Squibb with Plavix in 2011; and Sanofi-Aventis with Lovenox in
2012. [4] Even looking onwards, the patent cliff does not end for blockbuster drugs by large pharmaceutical companies. Nexium, a drug produced by
AstraZenica that produced over $4.9 billion in sales in 2010, faces patent expiration in 2014. Eli Lilly’s Cymbalta, which grossed $4 billion in global
sales in 2011, will face a similar fate in 2014. [5] Pfizer, Allergan, GlaxoSmithKline, and many other major pharmaceutical companies will have
patents for many drugs expiring within the next three years. Losses in revenue for major pharmaceutical companies will be tremendous, with
projections showing the pharmaceutical industry will lose upwards to $127 billion in brand spending by 2016 due to patent expiration and cheaper
generics in the market (Figure 1). [6] Due to the staggering losses in profits big pharmaceutical companies will face
in the coming years, it is evident the patent cliff will have serious implications on the future of the
pharmaceutical industry. Apart from obvious implications for the consumer, such as cheaper drug options and over-the-counter
accessibility, the pharmaceutical companies will face a great deal of change from the current model of the
industry. The major changes will come in the research and development (R&D) sector of companies. Innovation in
drug discovery over the last decade has been considerably slower than before [7], and the necessity for a
differentiable drug is imperative for sustained success among large pharmaceutical companies. In addition, as a result of generic destroying
prescription drug dominance in various areas of treatment, pharmaceutical companies will be forced to focus research to specific areas exclusive to
prescription drugs. Consequently, considerable spending will go towards R&D of specialty medicines, such as
oncologics, immunostimulants, and antivirals . It is also very likely that spending will be slowed,
or even decreased, over the next few years for general therapy drugs such as lipid regulators and anti-ulcerants
(Figure 2). [6] The lack of funding and drive for innovation in these areas are primarily due to patent expirations of prescription drugs and a
generics-dominated market. Another change that pharmaceutical companies will have to face due to the patent cliff is a change in the
development phase, particularly in market segmentation and brand development. The result of the patent cliff on many significant
drugs in the pharmaceutical industry will lead to a decrease in blockbuster drugs , since it is clear that
relying on a single drug for the majority of company revenue can lead to very sudden and steep losses
after the patent expires. As a result, there will be a greater need to create a multitude of drugs that are specific
and differentiable for patenting purposes and portfolio diversity for a company. Creating a much more detailed drug leads
Trinity 2012
NR
<File Name>
<Tournament>
to a more specific group of consumers that the drug must be targeted to, which can lead to different techniques and marketing strategies to appeal to
smaller target groups. [7] This was rarely the case before due to the blockbuster drugs and the resulting companies’ single-drug portfolios, which
required only a single market to focus onto. The patent cliff in the upcoming years has implications on more than just the pharmaceutical industry.
Apart from drug discovery research and drug marketing, the current healthcare system will also face new challenges in coverage, while physicians
and hospitals must provide adequate care with diminished specialty therapy. While these academic institutions, hospitals, and corporations operate
very differently, each institution has the same underlying mission of improving the lives of people in need. With this mission statement in mind, the
patent cliff provides an important opportunity for these health systems to collaborate and reinvent the
current model of drug research, development, and distribution for the future.
Smaller firms crucial to developing new drugs to target mutating, drug resistant pathogens
Harack 5 (Joanne Harack, vice president, Affinium Pharmaceuticals, DDN News, September 2005,
http://www.ddn-news.com/index.php?newsarticle=367)
Affinium Pharmaceuticals is a small structure-guided drug discovery company founded in 2000 that is focused
on the development and commercialization of novel anti-infective medicines. Recently, company vice president
Dr. Joanne Harack and the scientific team at Affinium took the time to talk to Executive Editor Randall C Willis
about the current state of the anti-infectives market. DDN: How has the anti-infectives market developed
over the years and what challenges does it face? Harack: The first half of the last century was truly a golden age
for the discovery of anti-infective compounds. Interestingly, however, at the same time that market
opportunities were expanding in the latter half of the century, companies began to focus more on incremental
developments in drugs, tweaking compounds from existing drug families and focusing less on identifying
entirely novel chemical entities. Similarly, the economics of drug discovery, combined with consolidation in
the industry, has caused Big Pharma to turn away from anti-infective market toward the chronic
disease and "lifestyle" markets, and to search for "blockbuster" drugs rather than niche anti-infectives.
At the same time, "bugs" (e.g., bacteria, viruses, fungi) have become "smarter", mutating and developing
resistance to the current crop of drugs. The rapid development of resistance/mutation means that there is a
very real and very urgent need for novel antibiotics and new antivirals and antifungals. That need is
clearly articulated by infectious disease clinicians and various public interest groups. Resistance creates unmet
medical needs that clinicians and patients look to the industry to fill. In the post-9/11 era, there is increased
interest on the part of the U. S. government in the development of drugs targeting infectious diseases to
combat potential bioterrorism. The challenge for the industry is to be "smarter" and "faster" than the
bugs. Speed and agility are not necessarily associated with Big Pharma, however, so small, more agile
biopharmaceutical companies have taken up the cause of anti-infectives. As well, developments in
genomics and proteomics mean that we can design drugs more specifically and more efficiently than previously.
We have not reaped the benefit from this yet, in part, because of issues such as regulatory approval of
"unvalidated targets", which will be slower than that for incremental development of existing drugs. Many
products will come off patent soon , and that is certainly fuelling some interest in developing completely
new drugs.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
Econ
Pharma innovation is crucial to industry survival – locking into a patent troll business
model spells doom
Reddy 11 (Ramana Reddy is Assistant Vice President and Consulting Practice Leader for Cognizant’s Life
Sciences Business Unit, “The Future of Pharma: A U.S. Sector Review,”
http://www.cognizant.com/InsightsWhitepapers/The-Future-of-Pharma-A-US-Sector-Review.pdf
Two powerful megatrends — dramatic deceleration in U.S. market growth and significant restructuring
of the healthcare system — are at play in the U.S. pharmaceuticals industry. On the one hand, market
growth in “developed” markets (mostly the U.S., Western Europe and Japan) are significantly lagging the
“pharmerging” markets (mostly China, India, Brazil and Russia), exerting enormous margin pressure on
global pharma companies. On the other hand, the U.S. healthcare market is fundamentally restructuring how
healthcare is cost-effectively developed, delivered and reimbursed to improve the overall health of the
population. For an industry whose business has sustained decades of respectable growth and margins, the
new environment is testing the resilience and ingenuity of pharma companies across the sector. Some
business models lack the adaptability to survive the imminent end of the “ blockbuster drug ” era, even
while resource constraints and sluggish innovation hinder the development of new capabilities needed to
thrive in a rapidly evolving market. These are indeed disruptive times for the U.S. pharma industry.
Succeeding in a shifting global market and evolving healthcare landscape will require pharmaceutical
companies to adopt innovative business models focused on novel strategies, including: Emphasis on
“economic” outcomes: More attention to the “economic value” of a therapy as a determinant for research
funding and commercialization. Personalized medicine: Shifting from “blockbuster drugs” to
“personalized health and wellness.” Externalization and collaboration: More reliance on external partners,
academia, industry consortia and entrepreneurs for innovation, productivity and global expansion.
Globalization: Rapid expansion to pharmerging countries for scientific talent and new markets. Health IT
adoption: Investing in new technologies to enable innovation and drive efficiencies. The future of U.S.
pharma will depend on whether companies can overcome structural shifts and adopt operating models aligned
to new business priorities. For example, some companies are implementing strategies that respond to
structural shifts by diversifying products and services to address global demand, and others are
rethinking their operating models by leveraging externalization as a means to boost R&D productivity.
Regardless of whether one follows a single or multi-pronged approach, it is imperative for U.S. pharma
companies to develop strategies in response to these megatrends and take steps to sustain their next phase
of growth and competitiveness in the global market.
Trinity 2012
<File Name>
NR
<Tournament>
impact d
Global economy resilient – 2008 proves even severe crisis won’t escalate
Drezner 14 (Daniel, an international relations professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at
Tufts University and popular world affairs writer, interview with Zach Beauchamp, “The biggest surprise of the
financial crisis,” 6/12, http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5801206/dan-drezner-interview-the-system-worked)
Zack Beauchamp: So, it feels totally ridiculous to say the financial system worked. DD: First of all, we've got to
be clear. When I said " the system worked ," I'm not talking about the financial system. I'm talking about the
system of global economic governance — the rules of the game and the collection of institutions both
international and domestic that are supposed to regulate the economic system. I'm not even saying that the
governance system that I'm talking about worked terribly well before 2008. What I am saying is that, in the
middle of the worst crisis since the Great Depression and despite the fact that there were many excellent
reasons to think that the system was going to crack up in the fall of 2008, most of these institutions did what
they had to do to preserve the global economy. The initial shock of the 2008 financial crisis was worse
than what happened in 1929, and yet we didn't experience another Great Depression. Outside the
developed world, the global economy has actually done remarkably well. That's the interesting story, as far
as I'm concerned.
Recovery deep and resilient – no risk of relapse
Perry 13 (Mark J, full professor of economics at the Flint campus of The University of Michigan, where he
has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in economics and finance since 1996. Starting in the fall of
2009, “A testament to economic resilience,” 12-24, http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-testament-to-economicresilience-world-trade-and-output-both-reached-new-all-time-record-highs-in-october/)
Bottom Line: World industrial output and world merchandise trade both reached new record monthly
highs in October. The volumes of world output and trade are now both solidly above their previous peaks
during the early months of the global slowdown in 20 08 (by 10.1% and 7.2% respectively), suggesting that
the global economy has now made a complete recovery from the 20 08 -2009 economic slowdown. At the
forefront of the global economic expansion this year are the emerging economies, which experienced
especially strong growth over the last year through October in both trade volumes (4.7% export growth and
5.4% import growth) and industrial output (4.1%). The complete recovery over the last several years in the
global economy to new record highs for both global trade and global industrial output demonstrates the
incredible resiliency of economies around the world to recover and prosper, even following the worst
financial crisis and global economic slowdown in generations.