TEXAS 2 NEG V. GONZAGA BJ
VAGUENESS/REGS
1NC
The plan text is meaningless
Boire, 95 – Richard Glen Boire holds a Doctorate of Jurisprudence from the University of
California Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. (Entheogen Law Reporter - quarterly newsletter
produced by attorney Richard Glen Boire in the 1990s, Issue 7,
https://www.erowid.org/library/periodicals/journals/telr/telr_7.pdf)
On the date of his speech, Solomon introduced HR 1453 which would amend the federal tax code to deny tax exempt status to any
organization "if any portion of the activities of such organization consists of promoting the legalization of any controlled substance."
I have long argued that the term "legalization" means very different things to different people, and' hence
is vague to the point of being incomprehensible absent specific details of the plan. What is
not unclear, however, is Solomon's intent to censure those with opposing viewpoints.
Voting issue – this debate is pointless – how to legalize is far more important than
whether we should – structures all neg ground
Kleiman, 13 – Mark Kleiman is Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA School of Public
Affairs. He teaches courses on methods of policy analysis, on imperfectly rational decisionmaking at the individual and social level, and on drug abuse and crime control policy (Mark,
“How to legalize cannabis” 12/25, http://www.samefacts.com/2013/12/drug-policy/how-tolegalize-cannabis/)
Debating whether to legalize pot is increasingly pointless. Unless there’s an unexpected shock to public
opinion, it’s going to happen, and sooner rather than later.
The important debate now is how to legalize it. The results of legalization depend strongly on
the details of the post-prohibition tax and regulatory regimes. In the current situation, continued
prohibition might be the worst option. Full commercial legalization on the alcohol model might well be the second-worst. But that’s
the way we’re heading.
I’m preparing an essay about designing a post-prohibition regime. After the jump is a set of topic sentences and paragraphs for
sections of that essay, not yet in a well-defined order. (UPDATE: Numbers inserted to facilitate comments.)
Substantive comments are welcome. Rant and snark will be ruthlessly zapped.
1. We probably should legalize cannabis. Prohibition is now breaking down. $35B/yr. is a lot of money to give to criminals, and no
one has a plausible plan to shrink the illicit market under prohibition. Even where “medical marijuana” has degenerated into system
when anyone can buy a user license from a crooked doctor, the voters still like it. Arguably, prohibition was worth trying. But it’s
time to go home.
2. Everything has advantages and disadvantages. Cannabis legalization will reduce criminal revenue, intrusive enforcement, arrest,
incarceration, and disorder around illicit markets, and enhance personal liberty, consumer choice, and respect for the law, and
probably reduce bloodshed in Mexico. It might foster safer and more beneficial practices of cannabis use.
3. Legalization will certainly increase drug abuse, including heavy use by minors. Every adult is a potential source of leakage to
minors. And if we insist on making minors consume illicitly-produced pot, we reserve 20-25% of the market for criminals. Much
better to tolerate leakage and have a grey-market supply to minors like the current system that provides them with alcohol.
4. The polarized nature of the debate means that both sides wind up spending lots of time denying the obvious.
5. Good design tries to get as much of the advantages, and as little of the disadvantages, as possible.
6. The policies most likely to help control increases in drug abuse are taxation and other efforts to keep prices high, rules about
consumer information (labeling and marketing), and “nudge” strategies to enhance consumer mindfulness.
7. It matters a lot whether, under conditions of legality, cannabis turns out to be a substitute for alcohol or instead a complement.
Right now, no one knows the answer, which might not be the same for all parts of the population or the same in the long run as in
the short run.
8. Analysis can help, but there’s no substitute for experience. The trick is not to get locked in to a set of bad
policies. We need a process designed to learn from mistakes.
9. Neither “cannabis” nor “legalization” names its object with enough specificity. Lots of
different things are legalization. Lots of different things are cannabis.
2NC
Leaving implementation to the political process = disaster
Jonathan P. Caulkins et al, 12, Prof of Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie
Mellon, Dr. Angela Hawkin, Associate Prof of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, Dr. Beau
Kilmer, Co-Director of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, and Dr. Mark Kleiman, Prof of
Public Policy at UCLA, MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION: WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW,
p 119
Those are all imaginable options (see chapter 14). Whether they are practical alternatives would
have to be worked out in the real world rather than on paper. The details of implementation
can matter quite a bit, and there is no guarantee the political process would settle on a
scheme as well-crafted as the ones that can be drawn up as an academic exercise by scholars
who can safely ignore political realities.
STATES CP
1NC STATES
Text: The fifty United States state governments and relevant territories should
legalize marijuana and implement energy and cultivation regulations and not
cooperate with federal law enforcement efforts with regards to the Controlled
Substances Act. The fifth United States should institute and provide necessary
resources for the implementation of renewable portfolio standards.
States solve despite the federal ban
Mikos, 12 - Robert A. Mikos is professor of law and director of the Program in Law and
Government at Vanderbilt University Law School (“On the Limits of Federal Supremacy
When States Relax (or Abandon) Marijuana Bans” 12/12,
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf)
When Congress bans some activity that has been legalized by the states, however, both the legal status and practical import of state
law are far less obvious.2 Contrary to conventional wisdom, state laws legalizing conduct banned by Congress
remain in force and, in many instances, may even constitute the de facto governing law of the
land. The survival and success of these state laws are the result of previously overlooked constraints on Congress’s preemption
authority under the Supremacy Clause as well as practical constraints on its enforcement power. Using medical marijuana as a case
study, this paper will examine the states’ underappreciated power to legalize activity that Congress bans.
Congress has banned marijuana outright, recognizing no permissible medical use for the drug. Violation of the ban carries a variety
of modest to severe sanctions, both criminal and civil. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’s power to enact
the ban.3 In fact, the Court suggested that Congress’s power to regulate, and hence to proscribe, medical marijuana (among other
things) was almost unlimited.4 The decision caused some commentators to declare that the war over medical marijuana was over,
and that the states had clearly lost.5 As long as Congress wanted to eradicate marijuana, the states seemingly could do nothing to
stop it.
But Raich did not stop (or even slow) state legalization campaigns. At the time Raich was decided, when Congress’s authority was
still (somewhat) doubtful, 10 states had legalized medical marijuana.6 Since that time, however, 8 more states (and the District of
Columbia) have passed legislation legalizing the use of medical marijuana,7 and several more states may soon join the fray.8 The
flurry of legislative activity is puzzling: If the war on medical marijuana is truly over, why are the states still fighting?
The states retain both de jure and de facto power to exempt medical marijuana from criminal sanctions, in spite of Congress’s
uncompromising ban on the drug. States may continue to legalize marijuana because Congress has not
preempted—and more importantly, may
not preempt—state laws that merely permit (i.e., refuse to punish) private
conduct the federal government deems objectionable. To be sure, the objectives of the state and
federal governments clearly conflict: states want some residents to be able to use marijuana, while Congress wants total
abstention. But to say that Congress may thereby preempt state inaction (which is what legalization amounts to, after all) would, in
effect, permit Congress to command the states to take some action— namely, to proscribe medical marijuana. The Court’s
anti-commandeering rule, however, clearly prohibits Congress from doing this.9
In this paper I will develop a new framework for analyzing the boundary between permissible preemption and prohibited
commandeering—the state-of-nature benchmark. The state-of-nature benchmark eliminates much of the confusion that has clouded
disputes over state medical marijuana laws. It suggests that as long as states go no further—and do not actively assist marijuana
users, growers, and so on—they may continue to look the other way when their citizens defy federal law.
On a more practical level, the fact that state exemptions remain enforceable is consequential; these states laws, in other words, are
not merely symbolic gestures. The main reason is that the federal government lacks the resources needed to
enforce its own ban vigorously: although it commands a $2 trillion dollar (plus) budget, the federal government is only a
two-bit player when it comes to marijuana enforcement. Only 1 percent of the roughly 800,000 marijuana
cases generated every year are handled by federal authorities. 10 The states, by virtueof their greater law
enforcement resources (among other things), hold the upper hand. The federal ban may be strict—and its penalties severe— but
without the wholehearted cooperation of state law enforcement authorities, its impact on private behavior will remain limited. Most
medical marijuana users and suppliers can feel confident they will never be caught by the
federal government.11
Even more interesting, an analysis of the medical marijuana conflict reveals that states also have comparatively strong sway over the
private (non-legal) forces that shape our actions, such as our personal beliefs about behavior and our social norms. Simply by
allowing their residents to use marijuana for medical purposes, the states have arguably fostered more tolerant attitudes toward the
practice, making it seem more compassionate, less dangerous, and less wicked, thereby removing or softening the personal and
societal reproach that once suppressed medical use of the drug. The expressive power of permissive state
legislation— largely ignored by the academy—cannot easily be undone or countered by Congress. As a result,
the states may possess even more de facto power vis-à-vis Congress than is commonly perceived.
The CP and the squo solve the industry
Troutman, 14 – writes for Wall Street Cheat Sheet, an investing website (Katey, “Here’s Why
Investing in Marijuana May Not Be as Risky as You Think” Wall Street Cheat Sheet, 7/22, Read
more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/heres-why-investing-in-marijuana-may-not-be-asrisky-as-you-think.html/?a=viewall#ixzz3P0Szpe1E)
In recent weeks, though, it seems that the
potential economic benefit of a legalized medical marijuana industry
is beginning to tear down some of the political barriers which have, in the past, kept investors
out of the game.
At the end of May, Congress made a decision — bipartisan, no less – that may change investors’ outlook on the marijuana industry.
In a monumental move, Congress ruled to prohibit the Drug Enforcement Agency from conducting raids on
medical marijuana patients as well as the growers and businesses that provide to them in states where the substance is legal.
It’s kind of a big deal. MSNBC notes that the House has never passed a measure that restricts the jurisdiction of the DEA before. The
decision, an amendment which required 218 votes in order to pass, is a rare bipartisan decision in an era when it seems Congress
can’t agree on anything.
The clincher? Money. The DEA’s raids on medical marijuana providers are – or rather, were – funded by tax dollars. Simply put,
Congress decided that it’s a waste of time and money to raid providers in states that have
already decided to legalize pot. It’s important to note that while the amendment was primarily a Democratic effort,
several more right-leaning senators were critical to its success.
The amendment isn’t the only big political news for the marijuana industry in the recent months and weeks. Last week, in particular,
saw some important reforms. On Monday, the Obama administration called marijuana policy a “states’ rights
issue,” and wrote that it opposes federal interference on reforms. On Wednesday, the House voted to allow banks to
do business with state-level marijuana dispensaries, and on Thursday, Washington, D.C., passed a bill that
decriminalized possession of marijuana, according to The Huffington Post and NORML, an organization working to promote the
legalization of marijuana.
With these recent political measures changing the game for investors interested in what some are
calling the next big American industry, it seems that legal
marijuana sales will continue indefinitely into the near
investors in the industry a bit more peace of mind and opening up the playing field for
those more cautious investors who have previously found marijuana to be too much of a gamble.
The numbers indicate that it may be worth the risk, and the news lately seems to have established that the
industry isn’t going anywhere. Thus far, 22 states have legalized medical marijuana. In 2013, medical marijuana
future, giving
dispensaries sold $1.43 billion worth of pot legally, and Californians spent more than $1 billion on legal marijuana last year, a figure
that doesn’t include the sales which happen on the state’s black market.
ArcView Group, an organization that studies the marijuana industry, says it predicts the legal medical marijuana
business will swell to become a $10 billion industry by 2018, with more than half of that money being
generated by legal recreational sales.
According to BusinessVibes, other industry experts estimate that over time, the marijuana business may grow larger still, predicting
that the industry has the potential to eventually reach $100 billion, a level that would make pot bigger business even than corn or
soybeans, which are currently the two biggest cash crops in the United States.
A number of challenges associated with the marijuana industry remain. Perhaps one of the more difficult issues to surmount when
considering investing in the marijuana business is the fact that the industry, having been previously underground, has no records
and too little standardization to establish prices or quality standards.
BusinessVibes notes that all industries carry some risk, though now, it seems the marijuana industry’s legal risks
may be lessening. As more states begin to legalize the substance, investors should soon be able to
gain access to more credible numbers, as well.
FEDERAL PREEMPTION
No over-enforcement
Jacob Sullum 15, senior editor at Reason magazine and Reason.com and a nationally
syndicated columnist, 1/5/15, “Is Obama the Drug Warrior Becoming Obama the Reformer?,”
http://reason.com/archives/2015/01/05/is-obama-the-drug-warrior-becoming-obama
In a 2011 Reason cover story, I explained why drug policy reformers had been bitterly disappointed by
President Obama's performance during his first few years in office. With the notable exception of his support for shorter
crack sentences, which Congress approved almost unanimously in 2010, Obama had done very little to de-escalate
the war on drugs, despite comments prior to his election that led people to believe his administration would be less repressive
than his predecessor's.
To the contrary, the feds cracked down on medical marijuana more aggressively under Obama than they had
under George W. Bush, even though he and his attorney general, Eric Holder, repeatedly promised the opposite. The administration
continued to defend marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug, a category supposedly reserved for substances with a high potential for
abuse that have no accepted medical applications and cannot be used safely, even under a doctor's supervision. When the subject of
marijuana legalization came up, Obama literally laughed at the idea. Finally empowered to release drug offenders serving sentences
that he had said were too long, Obama issued only one commutation during his first term and was on track to leave behind the
stingiest clemency record of any modern president.
Some critics of the war on drugs—a crusade that Obama had declared "an utter failure" in 2004—predicted that he
would improve in his second term. Safely re-elected, he would not have to worry that looking soft on drugs would cost
him votes, and he would finally act on his avowed belief that the war on drugs is unjust and ineffective. As Obama embarks
on the third year of his second term, it looks like the optimists were partially right, although much hinges
on what he does during the next two years. Here are some of the ways in which Obama has begun to deliver on his
promises of a more rational, less punitive approach to psychoactive substances:
Marijuana Legalization. Although the federal government cannot stop states from legalizing marijuana, it
can make trouble for the ones that do by targeting state-licensed growers and retailers. Under a policy
announced in August 2013, the Justice Department has declined to do so, reserving its resources for
cannabis operations that violate state law or implicate "federal law enforcement priorities." The
department also has refrained from challenging state marijuana regulations in court, a strategy that could have delayed the opening
of cannabusinesses in Colorado and Washington even if it was ultimately unsuccessful. In a New Yorker interview last January,
Obama said "it's important for [legalization] to go forward" in those states. Speaking to reporters at the U.N. last October, William
Brownfield, the assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, said international anti-drug
treaties should be interpreted to allow such experiments.
Unlike earlier promises of forbearance regarding medical marijuana, the respect for state policy
choices signaled in that 2013 memo has visibly restrained the actions of U.S. attorneys and the Drug
Enforcement Administration. "They've reversed course on marijuana after, I guess, previously reversing
course on marijuana," says Bill Piper, director of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance. "They've reverted back
to their original position, before they launched the biggest crackdown on medical marijuana ever.
They had to have put their foot down, because there's been such a substantive change with respect to the
raids. I think the politics shifted even further, to the point where some of the U.S. attorneys
may have just given up."
Public is enough to block federal preemption
Mikos, 12 - Robert A. Mikos is professor of law and director of the Program in Law and
Government at Vanderbilt University Law School (“On the Limits of Federal Supremacy
When States Relax (or Abandon) Marijuana Bans” 12/12,
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf)
The conventional wisdom suggests that Congress’s conditional spending and conditional
preemption powers are federalism’s Trojan Horses—powers that enable Congress to sidestep jurisprudential
limits on its authority and accomplish otherwise impermissible objectives.136 As regards state marijuana laws, however,
the threat from Congress’s conditional spending and preemption powers seems more apparent than real. It
seems implausible that Congress could muster the votes needed to pass legislation conditioning
federal grants of money or power on the agreement of states to abandon permissive marijuana laws. Congress has banned
marijuana and that ban seems likely to remain the official federal policy for the foreseeable future, but the opportunity for Congress
to take any further action against medical marijuana (e.g., by passing legislation designed to repeal state exemptions) has clearly
passed. Public support for medical marijuana exemptions has grown considerably since the CSA was originally enacted; indeed, a
strong majority of citizens— over 70 percent in most polls—now supports medical exemptions for marijuana.137 This majority,
although perhaps not large enough to formally repeal the categorical ban, is large enough to block measures that would reinforce
it.138 In fact, Congress has rejected recent proposals that would withhold grant monies from local law enforcement agencies in
medical marijuana states and redirect the monies to federal drug enforcement agencies instead.139
In sum, the anti-commandeering rule bars Congress from preempting state medical marijuana
exemptions and accompanying registration/ID programs. To be sure, medical use of marijuana will
surely rise once states legalize it. However, that is not because the states have removed any privately created obstacles, such as
wealth constraints, that inhibit marijuana use—that is, not because states have departed from the proverbial state of nature. Some
state laws, including those involving state distribution of marijuana, may be, and have been, preempted. Congress could go a step
further and preempt state laws protecting citizens from private sanctions, but any further action—including action to
exert pressure on states to abandon exemptions voluntarily—seems highly unlikely. The
window of opportunity may have closed already, as public support for medical marijuana, while
perhaps not yet high enough to undo the federal ban altogether, may at least block more
aggressive congressional efforts to undo state laws. This means that most state medical marijuana laws remain in
place.
Preemption suits would be dead on arrival
Kreit 13 (Alex, December, “The Federal Response to State Marijuana Legalization: Room For
Compromise?” 91 Oregon Law Review 1029, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2369682)
The Supremacy Clause might seem to present a straightforward and cost effective method for blocking state marijuana legalization
laws. Colorado and Washington’s laws certainly make it more difficult to enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act, after all. So,
don’t they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress’s full objectives under the”27 Controlled Substances Act? The
problem for any preemption challenge to Colorado and Washington is that while the federal government
can prosecute marijuana cases under the Controlled Substances Act, it cannot conscript state
and local actors into doing so. The anti- commandeering principle forbids the federal government from forcing states to
criminalize conduct28 and, for this reason, would be likely to make any preemption lawsuit dead on
arrival.29 Tellingly, the federal government has never sued to block any state or local medical marijuana law on preemption
grounds.
Direct enforcement may be effective at keeping marijuana stores from opening up in Colorado and Washington in the short term,
but over time it can become a bit like trying to drain the ocean with a thimble. This has certainly been the case with medical
marijuana.30 During the Bush administration, the federal government raided nearly 200 medical marijuana dispensaries and
criminally prosecuted a number of medical marijuana caregivers. However, around the time Bush left office, there were between
300,000 and 400,000 medical marijuana patients in California and over 700 medical marijuana storefronts in the state.31 Since
2011, the Obama administration has waged war on state medical marijuana laws,32 and yet in late-2012, it was estimated that there
were at least 500 (and perhaps more than 1,000) dispensaries in Los Angeles alone.33
The problem for the federal government is that it is almost entirely dependent upon states
to enforce drug prohibition. In 2010, for example, there were 853,838 arrests for marijuana
offenses.34 That same year, there were only 7,130 marijuana cases disposed of in federal
court35—just 0.8 percent of the number of arrests. To put this in perspective, if the federal
government were to attempt to prosecute all medical marijuana dispensaries in Los
Angeles, that would represent between a seven percent and fourteen percent increase in the
number of all federal marijuana cases nationwide. Even more revealing, in 2011, there were only thirty-nine
federal marijuana prosecutions (including medical and non-medical marijuana prosecutions) in the Central District of California,
which includes Los Angeles. 36 This dynamic explains why the federal government has been unable to
successfully block state medical marijuana laws and, in the long run, is not likely to have any
more success when it comes to state marijuana legalization laws. Indeed, instead of stopping the
implementation of state medical marijuana laws, the primary effect of federal enforcement efforts seems to have been to make state
medical marijuana laws less well controlled than they otherwise might be.37
It is worth noting that even if it were possible to effectively block implementation of state marijuana
legalization laws, federal elected officials may not have the political will to pursue this strategy
for long. One January 2013 poll reported that, while Americans remain split roughly evenly in their views
on marijuana legalization, a sizable majority believes states should have the option to pursue
legalization laws without federal interference.38 Sixty-eight percent of respondents said the
federal government should not arrest marijuana growers who are in compliance with state law
while sixty-four percent said sellers in compliance with state law should also be protected.39
INDUSTRY/REAL ESTATE/BANKS
Colorado alone disproves their theoretical claims
Smith, 1/12/15 (Ernie, “MARIJUANA INDUSTRY TAKES MORE STEPS TOWARD
VIABILITY” http://associationsnow.com/2015/01/marijuana-industry-takes-steps-towardviability/)
With high-profile venture capitalists beginning to invest in legal cannabis businesses and a potfocused nonprofit credit union launching in Colorado, the industry is gaining momentum on the financial
front.
For the legal weed industry, the roots of financial growth and stability may be taking
hold.
And a
big reason for that—beyond, of course, the improving legal status of marijuana—is the infusion of fresh
capital into the industry, thanks to a guy who was once portrayed in the Oscar-winning film The Social Network.
Founders Fund, the venture capital fund that counts Facebook investor and PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel among its founders,
announced that it would invest millions in Privateer Holdings, a private-equity firm focused on expanding the legal
cannabis industry. The investment is significant, particularly as the firm has backed big-name companies such as SpaceX, Airbnb,
Lyft, and … Facebook.
“We always try to find founders with huge, audacious visions and the chops to actually pull those visions off in markets where they’re
going to grow massively,” Founders Fund partner Geoff Lewis told The Washington Post last week. “And this company checks all
those boxes.”
The move was welcomed by the National Cannabis Industry Association, which called it a significant step
in building the industry’s long-term future.
“It’s a big moment in terms of planting a flag for the industry,” NCIA Deputy Director Taylor West told the San Francisco Chronicle.
“Up until now, almost all of the investment has come from individuals, from private investors—often from friends and family of the
business owners.”
A POT STARTUP IN ACTION
One thing that’s helping startups in the cannabis world is a willingness by businesses in the
industry to work together, often with nonprofit groups.
A great example is the Colorado-based Fourth Corner Credit Union, a banking institution focused
solely on marijuana purveyors. The business, which received a state charter in November, will remove a
long-standing hurdle for pot operators in the state: a lack of access to banking services.
Greater state legalization boosts the trend
Chang, 14 (Ellen, “Is Marijuana the Next Bubble?” Main Street (an investing website), 2/26,
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/marijuana-next-bubble)
Investments in the legal cannabis industry are booming as Americans are demonstrating their support to
continue legalization with the passage of new marijuana regulations in several states.
The legal marijuana market is estimated to grow by 64% to $2.34 billion in 2014 from $1.44 billion,
according to a recent report by The ArcView Group, a cannabis investment and research firm based in San Francisco. The legal
market consists of all states which have open sales of marijuana to people are allowed to possess it under their state law.
Six new states recently passed legislation allowing the use of medical marijuana, including Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, plus the District of Columbia. There are now 20 states permitting the use of medical
marijuana. New York and Minnesota are likely to approve laws for medical use by 2016, according to ArcView's report.
Washington and Colorado passed laws recently which allow adults 21 and older the ability to legally purchase cannabis from licensed
retailers. By 2017, seven new states are likely to seek the adult use regulations, the report said.
Legal marijuana businesses are cropping up in many states, but those who have definitive business models
and mainstream strategies are able to attract funding from investors, boost their growth and achieve scale.
The potential for the marijuana market to increase to $10.2 billion within the next five years or a 700%
increase from the current U.S. market value is very likely, said Douglas Leighton, managing partner of Dutchess Capital, a New
York investment firm which manages $125 million in assets, has $200 million in direct investments and made its first investment in
the cannabis industry recently. The "real growth" will arise when more states decriminalize
the use of marijuana.
"I've never seen it where a market already exists for the product," he said. "The market is already there and it will gain wider
acceptance."
This is idiotic – here’s the version you should call for – says current state
legalization solves and has some concerns about landlords, but it doesn’t matter
because there’s momentum and massive demand – difference between aff good
and aff key is all we need given the absurd notion of pot solving all of commercial
real estate
Garcia 14 (Nelson, entrepreneur specializing in commercial real estate, 7-2-14, "The Other
“Green” Real Estate Legalization of Marijuana and its Impact on Commercial Real Estate" The
Realnovator) therealnovator.com/green-real-estate/
American’s today feel differently about pot than they did twenty, ten, even one year ago. Startup
Business Failure Rate By Industry Source: 1991, 2010, 2013, 2014 In two U.S. states —
Washington and Colorado — marijuana is now legal for recreational use, driving the debate
about how it should best be regulated, consumed and taxed as it gains acceptance across the
U.S. and in other countries. These states’ decisions are also contrary to federal statues, hence
marijuana still being illegal in the Fed’s eyes. U.S. policy is also finally acknowledging that
hemp, a cannabis plant related to marijuana but lacking the THC chemical that makes
marijuana users high, can help restore our agricultural economy. Industrial hemp is harvested
in other countries for its versatile use in food products, textiles and building and construction
materials. It also takes half the water that wheat does, and provides four times the income. A
provision in the 2014 farm bill signed by President Obama on Feb. 7 allowed for the
establishment of pilot growing programs. This generational shift, which is also driving
acceptance of other trends like same-sex marriage, is causing a domino effect and forcing
legislative change faster than had previously been imagined. mj_legalization_map So what does
it have to do with real estate? marijuana_blog_icon_small First, it’s big business. The cannabis
industry could generate about $20 billion a year, or more, if it was legal nationally, according to
Jeffrey Miron, an economics professor at Harvard University. Many believe that the most
promising and overlooked opportunities will be in ancillary businesses, commercial real
estate being one. “Most of the guys digging the gold ore in the gold rush didn’t make much
money but the vendors selling picks and shovels made a killing.” So before one gets to enjoy the
devil’s lettuce, it needs to be cultivated and grown (generally indoors for reasons of quality and
state laws), packaged, distributed and sold. This requires land and warehouse space
(cultivation & production facilities), retail space to sell it (dispensaries) and office space to
manage it (corporate offices, testing labs, etc.). Grow facilities range anywhere from a couple of
thousand square feet, up to 50,000 square feet. Retail dispensaries typically lease between
1,000 and 3,000 square feet (think size of today’s e-cig stores). Then you also have the benefit of
“marijuana tourism” driving significant hotel demand to these first-to-legalize cities. Coinciding
with the legalization of recreational marijuana, Denver hotel occupancies and average daily
room rates have climbed to all-time peaks. Growth rates experienced are comparable to what
metros see when they host the Super Bowl or the Republican or Democratic national
conventions. Evidently the most irregular jump in demand is coming from states with the
strictest drug laws in the country. So you have an entirely new demand driver being created for
various types of properties in places where legalization of marijuana occurs. High Times in
Coloradodispensary_line Colorado in particular has been a great test bed for legalization
of marijuana and a preview of what’s in store for the rest of the country when inevitable countrywide legalization occurs. In Denver for example, the theme seems to be “you can’t grow the stuff
fast enough”. The legalization of marijuana has created a boom, so much so that some
recreational stores have been forced to curtail sales because strong demand from customers has
outpaced supply. Marijuana for recreational use also appears to be a net positive for real
estate, not only for industrial space but for retail and office space as well according to Todd
Davis, with Cassidy Turley’s San Diego office. In fact, there’s actually a shortage of warehouses
in Denver’s industrial real estate market. Denver’s industrial vacancy rate of 3.1 percent is
abnormally low — the lowest in decades, according to brokerage firm Colliers International.
Commercial real estate tracker Xceligent Inc. estimates that marijuana cultivation and
manufacturing facilities in the city occupy about 4.5 million square feet — the equivalent of 78
football fields. Where’s the financing?pot_bank Capital in the industry often comes in the form
of cash. A marijuana-related tenant’s credit is sometimes a duffel bag full of $100 bills.
Marijuana’s illegal status under federal law means banks cannot take deposits, nor lend money
to marijuana-related businesses as most are regulated by federal laws and can face harsh penalty
and even loss of charter. Insurance companies and institutional investors remain wary of
participating, while there are cases of CMBS loans secured by retail containing marijuanarelated tenants. Some banks such as Wells Fargo have forced landlords to drop marijuanarelated tenants in order to keep a loan, while others have even begun moving immediately to
eviction or simply calling the note. In step the opportunistic lenders. Private equity backed
lenders, like Montegra Capital Resources, have heeded the call and begun offering short-term,
high interest rate loans to properties occupied by marijuana-related tenants. These loans are
bridges to the hopeful event that federal regulators come around and allow the industry to
access banking services like any other business. Earlier this year the Feds gave guidance for
banks on how to deal with marijuana focused businesses, though operators continue to have a
difficult time opening bank accounts and establishing lines of credit. Industry experts claim that
the only real solution is an act of Congress, which isn’t likely in the near future. “Put simply:
Banks need the permanence of law versus changeable guidance,” said Colorado Bankers
Association president and CEO Don Childears. Until then, there’s a major opportunity for bold
entrepreneurs and institutions that are willing to provide financing to this industry so long as
they do their homework and are comfortable with the risks involved. Still, not many
landlords are cool with the reefer Since federal law makes it impossible to obtain
financing, many cannabis operations can’t afford to purchase land outright and are either
forced into risky and unattractive leases, or face tying up capital in real estate and having
working capital shortages that can inhibit their ability to capitalize on the industry’s rapid
growth rates. As a landlord, even if I was the biggest advocate for the legalization of marijuana,
I’d still have a business to run and would have to acknowledge certain potential issues if
considering a marijuana-related business as a tenant. These include anything from being at risk
of federal forfeiture, concerns of impact to other tenants and putting me in violation of
requirements under deposit and loan agreements, or losing my credit facility with the bank.
Landlords who are taking on these types of tenants are the minority and will
continue to be until Uncle Sam makes them all comfortable at the federal level.
Those that are accepting the risk are reaping the rewards, but also taking proper precaution such
as inserting special provisions in lease agreements like 30-day lease termination notices and
stringent operational and signage restrictions.
[CARD ENDS]
Opportunity knocks but once
A handful of landlords with an appetite for risk are capitalizing on the supply/demand
imbalance in these markets by charging premium lease rates. Industrial brokers report instances
of warehouse space leasing for as much as four times the prices paid before medical marijuana
sales began to boom in 2009.
It’s no surprise that marijuana related tenants can afford to pay these steep premiums though if
you look at the economics and margins of the business.
Growers are paying between $450 and $1,100 a pound (about 4 to 8 plants worth) to grow all in
and selling that wholesale for $3,000 to $4,000 a pound and retail for $11,000 a pound.
Colorado has approved licenses for almost 200 stores and more than 50 grow facilities housing
businesses, and the pace of these approvals dictates the supply/demand dynamics.
The companies playing in the marijuana-landlord sector include Advanced Cannabis Solutions,
Zoned Properties, and Cannabis-RX Inc., among others, all mainly specializing in finding
warehouse space for cannabis cultivation and some providing other services such as financing.
Cannabis-RX Inc. for example owns almost 40 properties in states including Washington and
California and has raised $30 million in capital with plans to invest in light industrial and
commercial properties suited for the needs of dispensaries, medical clinics, growers, and those
who may supply products and services to the cannabis industry. Cannabis-RX’s CEO Llorn Kylo,
said the company has achieved an average internal rate of return of about 32 percent per
property.
These investors usually upgrade the properties for growing purposes. The buildings need more
amperage than typical warehouses, special air conditioning and ventilation systems, and the
interiors have to block all daylight so growing cycles aren’t disrupted.
Many times it also creates the opportunity to fill buildings that may be obsolete for traditional
uses like distribution, in turn filling a void in the market.
On the retail side of things, dispensaries are facing scarcity issues themselves, which certain
zoning restrictions are also amplifying. But if you’re a retail landlord and having trouble filling
small shop vacancy, there’s plenty of demand in the pipeline. An example: Seattle-based
businessman and former Mircosoft executive Jamen Shively plans to invest $100 million over
the next three years in the nation’s first chain of marijuana stores, which will sell cannabis for
both medical and recreational purposes in Washington, California and Colorado.
Final Thoughts
Like with technological innovation, it’s generally difficult for governments to ignore popular
demand, whether it’s Uber or Mary Jane. And with any new industry, especially one riddled with
this much legal uncertainty, the majority of people will take a wait and see approach. Some will
tip toe their way into the opportunity and a handful of innovators will smash straight through
with a Kool-Aid Man-like entrance.
Only time will tell when it is in every state that you’ll be able to grab an 8 ounce Frappuccino at
Starbucks and walk to the shop next door for a one ounce servcing of ‘super silver sour diesel’.
Whenever that time comes, you can be sure that these legitimate businesses will fuel economic
growth, local real estate markets, and be run like any other institution with a seasoned CEO at
its helm, perhaps wearing a Hermès tie patterned with a familiar green leaf.
Banks are spreading into the weed sector
Berman January 23, 2015 (Douglas A. [editor of lawprofblog]; Are the marijuana industry's
banking difficulties starting to work themselves out?;
lawprofessors.typepad.com/marijuana_law/; kdf
The question in the title of this post is prompted by this notable recent Denver Post article sent
my way by one of my terrific students. The article is headlined "Oregon bank opens doors to
Colorado marijuana businesses," and here are excerpts:
An Oregon bank is openly offering service to the marijuana industry in Colorado at a time
when banks here are lurking mostly in the shadows. MBank, based outside Portland, is part of a
growing number of financial institutions, mostly Washington-based credit unions, that are
banking openly with marijuana businesses.
But it is the first to venture across state lines and the only bank to announce publicly that it is
serving Colorado marijuana businesses. The bank said it also is taking marijuana-related
deposits in Washington, the other state where recreational pot is legal and has been serving
Oregon-based medical marijuana dispensaries since September.
While some industry analysts see its announcement as somewhat brazen, considering pressure
from regulators to keep any participation with the marijuana sector quiet, MBank officials say
they're confident it's a good idea. "It's a bold maneuver and not one for a lot of folks to take on,"
MBank president and CEO Jef Baker said Tuesday. "We looked to regulators, both state and
federal, to help us come to the conclusion that we can do banking in this sector."
The $165 million bank, in business since 1995, is putting trust in what it said is "tacit approval"
— bank-speak for acceptance that isn't in writing — from the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. "We had to vet the program and expose ourselves to additional audits," Baker said.
"But to be sure, we've put together something that meets without objection, though not
necessarily specific approval."
An FDIC spokesman said the agency does not comment on bank operations.
MBank partnered with Guardian Data Systems to hook marijuana businesses. Already about five
in Colorado have established accounts, Baker said, with about 30 other applications pending.
"Finding access to traditional banking services has been one of the most daunting challenges
faced by owners and operators in our industry" said Lance Ott, principal at GDS, which is
handling the preliminary screening of account applicants.
"To date, there has not been a permanent (federally) compliant solution to the cannabis
industry. With this partnership, cannabis industry operators no longer must shield the nature of
their business from banking institutions," he said....
Federal regulators have offered guidance to bankers willing to work with the
industry, mostly by requiring a restrictive set of rules and filing reports about account-holder
transactions. Bankers balked at opening their doors to the industry, at least publicly. Some
business owners offered anecdotes of account closures if even a hint of their participation
became known to others. As a result, banks willing to work with the industry have remained a
trade secret that businesses protect.
Banks not key
Ariel Schwartz 14, Senior Editor at Co.Exist. She has contributed to SF Weekly, Popular
Science, Inhabitat, Greenbiz, NBC Bay Area, GOOD Magazine, Pay Close Attention To This
Marijuana Millionaire's Weed Venture Capital Fund, www.fastcoexist.com/3025170/pay-closeattention-to-this-marijuana-millionaires-weed-venture-capital-fund
Before medical marijuana, before Colorado and Washington's legalization initiatives, there was only the
underground weed economy. There was no such thing as a mainstream marijuana entrepreneur. How
things have changed.¶ Now there's a new crop of buttoned-up weed entrepreneurs who have never
been involved in the black market, with a support system of marijuana venture capital firms and
private equity funds popping up beside them. "We used to get questions like "Isn't it true that marijuana causes
men to grow breasts?' Now 98% of the questions we get have to do with capital formation, taxation, regulation, port liability, and
zoning," says Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of NORML.¶ The poster boy for the above-ground weed entrepreneur movement
is Justin Hartfield, the CEO of marijuana review and discussion site WeedMaps. Hartfield makes big money from
WeedMaps—the company generates over $25 million per year. He's continuing to expand his
empire, co-founding marijuana technology venture capital firm Ghost Group in 2012 (brands include
WeedMaps, MMJMenu.com, Marijuana.com, and marketing company Bonfire), and more recently, launching marijuana
VC investment fund Emerald Ocean Capital.¶ The fund's goal, according to its website:¶ The Emerald Ocean Capital
team seeks to cement a leading position within the legal cannabis industry by consolidating market share through strategic
investments. The principals look to build upon their past experience in the legal cannabis industry
to
navigate the opportunities in this emerging industry.¶ The 29-year-old Hartfield launched Emerald Ocean
Capital in 2013 for the same reason that he's launched all his other marijuana ventures: There was an opening in the market. "We
started to see a lot more investors and entrepreneurs coming through our contact form and submitting business plans. We always
got a bunch of business plans in past, but they were starting to get better and better," he says. "We decided we wanted to capitalize
on those opportunities. It just made a lot of sense."¶ While Emerald Ocean is investing in marijuana-related business, it won't put
money into any dispensaries or grow operations—at least not in the near future. With a federal ban still in place on marijuana, that
would be too risky even for Hartfield, who is already peripherally participating in a semi-legal industry. And up until recently, banks
didn't allow marijuana businesses to open bank accounts, making direct weed investments even more dicey.¶ He's more interested in
software companies that dance around the edges of the marijuana economy, like WeedMaps.¶ Hartfield also says that his firm, which
is working with friends and family investors to raise up to $25 million, is keeping an eye on marijuana testing labs. These days,
testing labs often just scrape by; they're hardly raking in cash since most states don't yet require safety testing for marijuana. But
Washington will have mandatory testing when its recreational marijuana program rolls out. So will Illinois' upcoming medical
marijuana program. "Right now, it's really expensive to do the tests. As machinery gets more sophisticated, prices are going to come
down," Hartfield believes.¶ Of course, if the next president decides to take a more aggressive approach in enforcing federal
marijuana law, many of these investments could go down the tubes. "Justin has a high tolerance for risk, that's for sure, compared to
most people. Maybe it's his age or general libertarianism," says St. Pierre. "Most other venture capitalist and hedge fund folks are
well into their 40s, 50s, 60s, and have lived life long enough to be sufficiently paranoid to know what happens if you look like you're
a deviant or standing out."¶ If legalization continues at its current rate, though, Hartfield stands to become even more wealthy.
The rapid pace at which marijuana dispensaries cleared their stock when Colorado
legalized the drug is only a harbinger of things to come: the $1.4 billion legal marijuana
market is projected to grow to $10.2 billion in the next five years. Once more states start to
legalize onsite marijuana consumption in dispensaries—like the Netherlands "coffeeshop"
model—the market will grow even larger.¶ Emerald Ocean is investing in about one company per quarter, eschewing
what Hartfield calls "that traditional Silicon Valley thing" of picking dozens of companies and banking that a few will make it big.
Instead, he says, "It's much more bootstrapped. ... We'll be providing management and installing help and experienced
professionals."¶ But marijuana entrepreneurs have a growing number of options besides Emerald
Ocean. The
ArcView Angel Investor Network--which includes VC fund representatives, dispensary owners, and
successful entrepreneurs—banks on a wide range of marijuana-related companies. High Times (yes, the
magazine) recently announced the High Times Growth Fund, a private equity fund that also invests in businesses on the outskirts of
the industry.¶ Hartfield isn't concerned about competitors. "I think the pie is about to get a lot bigger," he says. There are also other
related industries, like LED lighting and nutraceuticals, that could use their own funds, especially as more states—like New York and
California—put full legalization on the ballot in the coming years.¶ Now that marijuana is seeming more like a
legitimate industry every day, Hartfield's employee talent pool is also looking up. "My summer internship group this
summer is crazy," he explains. "It's going to look like an Ivy League Daily Show writer's staff or something like that."
FED MODELS
Fed models! Many reasons:
--State demo effect
Briggs, 14 – Bill Briggs started as a contributing writer for NBCNews.com in 2006 (“Pot
Legalizations Push U.S. Closer to Weed Business Boom” NBC News, 11/8,
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/pot-legalizations-push-u-s-closer-weedbusiness-boom-n243861)
Voter legalization of recreational marijuana in two more states plus the District of Columbia this week mounts
pressure
on the federal government to decriminalize cannabis — nudging America closer to a weed
business boom, pot advocates and opponents agree.
A federal law banning marijuana sales remains the biggest blockade to the dawn of a national cannabis industry. That law causes
many banks to avoid dealing with legal pot retailers, forcing weed entrepreneurs in Colorado and Washington to run cash-only
operations — a daily danger, the owners say.
“But the direction voters are moving in is obvious, and with additional states it’s now harder to call Colorado and Washington
'experiments,’” said Derek Peterson, founder and CEO of Terra Tech Corp. The Irvine, California company focuses on local farming
and medical cannabis — likely the first publicly traded company, Peterson said, to hold a medical marijuana license.
“These are the same voters who elect our federal lawmakers, which I think is the major reason
you’re seeing such a quick and dramatic turnaround on these policies in Congress,” Peterson said.
In July, for example, the U.S. House voted in support of a measure to make it easier for banks to conduct business with legal pot
shops and providers of medical marijuana. That bill has not yet cleared the Senate.
Tipping the scale?
At Seattle-based Privateer Holdings — which invests in the cannabis industry to acquire and create mainstream brands, like
Leafly.com — Patrick Moen, a former DEA agent now on staff, says he remains cautiously optimistic that a federally
reversal is “inevitable” given the latest votes.
"This is just another thumb on the scale with regard to the whole panoply of federal issues here,” said Moen, managing director of
compliance at Privateer. “It represents the will of the people. Eventually, the federal government will catch up.”
But one more federal obstacle, Moen said, also must be removed: IRS tax code 280E, which bars companies from deducting
expenses if their business dealings consist of “trafficking in controlled substances.” Under federal law, marijuana is a Schedule I
drug, classified as such like heroin and ecstasy.
That’s where voter legalization of pot in the District of Columbia will be particularly meaningful to changing minds on Capitol Hill
and in the White House, Moen said.
“It's right in their backyard. They’ll get to see firsthand, not only is legalization not harmful, but it’s actually
beneficial to society,” Moen said. “And Congress will have the opportunity to potentially veto or override this (federal) legislation.
So, we’re going to see, probably in short order, exactly how Congress feels about this.”
Anti-marijuana activist Kevin A. Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), calls the D.C. approval merely symbolic.
In the near term, he expects no change in the federal position on cannabis because neither
party seems to have an appetite to address the issue.
Sabet also contends that most Americans don’t favor a commercialized pot industry that “acts like like Big Tobacco or Big PhRMA.”
In fact, a recent Gallup poll showed the majority of Americans supporting legalized marijuana has narrowed to 51 percent from 58
percent last year — and that trend coincided with the first legal recreational marijuana businesses opening their doors.
Is change on the horizon?
Still, Sabet sees the legal pot business eventually going coast-to-coast.
“Indeed, I do envision a national marijuana industry. They already have a lobbying group in D.C., and that is exactly the direction
they are heading," he said.
“They are taking their cues from Big Tobacco: Downplay the risks, encourage heavy use, start em' young, and fund your own
advocacy. We're seeing history repeat itself before our eyes,” he added. “The question really is: Who will we listen to this time? A
national industry, or the scientific warnings of expanded use of a mind-altering substance?”
Some pot supporters see a historic, federal change on pot laws occurring within four to six years.
To be more precise: That shift may come one congressional session after the 2016 election, predicts Tom Angell,
chairman of Marijuana Majority, an advocacy group that favors regulating cannabis sales and ending pot arrests.
--Empirics—Prohibition
Armentano and Franklin* 12 – the Deputy of NORML, his work has appeared in
approximately 1,000 publications, AND a 34-year law enforcement veteran of the Maryland
State Police and Baltimore Police Department and the Executive Director of LEAP. During his
time on the force, he held the position of commander for the Education and Training Division
and the Bureau of Drug and Criminal Enforcement (Paul and Neil, *each author writes a
specified portion of this card, November 19th, 2012. “Legalizing Marijuana”
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/ask-the-experts/ask-the-experts-legalizingmarijuana/15474/)
PA: I believe that it is. The parallels are obvious. Like alcohol prohibition before it, the criminalization of cannabis is a failed federal
policy that delegates the burden of enforcement to the state and local police. How did America’s ‘Nobel Experiment’ with
alcohol prohibition come to an end? When a sufficient number of states, led by New York in 1923 and
ultimately joined by nearly a dozen others, enacted legislation repealing the state’s alcohol laws, prohibition
effectively discontinued. With state police and prosecutors no longer enforcing the Federal
government’s unpopular law, politicians eventually had no choice but to abandon the
policy altogether. History now repeats itself.
NF: Absolutely. It wasn’t considered possible to repeal federal alcohol prohibition until
states ramped up the pressure by repealing their own prohibition laws from the
books. Now that polls consistently show nationwide majority support for marijuana legalization and that voters in two states
have actually passed legalization measures, expect to see more states jumping on board quickly. We can also expect to see more
members of Congress and elected officials who heretofore have only supported us silently, behind closed doors start to speak out and
take action publicly. The politicians have been behind the people on this one, but more savvy leaders are starting to realize that
there’s political opportunity in getting in front of this issue.
CYBER ADD-ON
Their ev’s from March—squo solved
Walker, 14 (Hunter, “The FBI Can’t Hire Cyber Security Recruits Because They All Smoke
Weed” Slate, 5/21,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/05/21/fbi_director_james_comey_has_tr
ouble_recruiting_it_savvy_workers_because.html)
FBI Director James Comey is starting to think the law enforcement agency's zero tolerance policy on marijuana might be,
like, a total bummer.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Comey discussed
how the bureau's pot prohibition was making it
harder to find tech savvy recruits when he spoke to the annual White Collar Crime Institute conference Monday.
"I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to
the interview," Comey said.
As a result of this, Comey said the FBI is "grappling with the question right now" of whether or not to change its marijuana policy.
Currently, the agency will not accept job applicants who have smoked pot at any point within the past three years.
In fact, Comey indicated the bureau is already relaxing its restrictions on marijuana. When one
attendee at the conference said one of their friends was discouraged from trying to work at the FBI due to the pot policy, Comey
said they "should go ahead and apply" in spite of their marijuana smoking.
No cyber impact
Healey 13 Jason, Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, "No,
Cyberwarfare Isn't as Dangerous as Nuclear War", 3/20,
www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/03/20/cyber-attacks-not-yet-anexistential-threat-to-the-us
America does not face an existential cyberthreat today, despite recent warnings. Our
cybervulnerabilities are undoubtedly grave and the threats we face are severe but far from comparable to
nuclear war. ¶ The most recent alarms come in a Defense Science Board report on how to make military cybersystems more
resilient against advanced threats (in short, Russia or China). It warned that the "cyber threat is serious, with potential consequences
similar in some ways to the nuclear threat of the Cold War." Such fears were also expressed by Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2011. He called cyber "The single biggest existential threat that's out there" because "cyber actually more
than theoretically, can attack our infrastructure, our financial systems."¶ While it is true that cyber attacks might do these
things, it is also true they have
not only never happened but are far more difficult to accomplish
than mainstream thinking believes. The consequences from cyber threats may be similar in some ways to nuclear, as
the Science Board concluded, but mostly, they are incredibly dissimilar. ¶ Eighty years ago, the generals of the U.S. Army Air Corps
were sure that their bombers would easily topple other countries and cause their populations to panic, claims which did not stand up
to reality. A study of the 25-year history of cyber conflict, by the Atlantic Council and Cyber Conflict Studies
Association, has shown a similar dynamic where the impact of disruptive cyberattacks has been
consistently overestimated. ¶ Rather than theorizing about future cyberwars or extrapolating from today's concerns,
the history of cyberconflict that have actually been fought, shows that cyber incidents have so far tended to have effects that are
either widespread but fleeting or persistent but narrowly focused. No attacks, so far, have been both widespread and persistent.
There have been no authenticated cases of anyone dying from a cyber attack. Any widespread
disruptions, even the 2007 disruption against Estonia, have been short-lived causing no significant GDP
loss. ¶ Moreover, as with conflict in other domains, cyberattacks can take down many targets but keeping them
down over time in the face of determined defenses has so far been out of the range of all but the most dangerous
adversaries such as Russia and China. Of course, if the United States is in a conflict with those nations, cyber will be the least
important of the existential threats policymakers should be worrying about. Plutonium trumps bytes in a shooting war. ¶ This is not
all good news. Policymakers have recognized the problems since at least 1998 with little significant progress. Worse, the threats and
vulnerabilities are getting steadily more worrying. Still, experts have been warning of a cyber Pearl Harbor for
20 of the 70 years since the actual Pearl Harbor. ¶ The transfer of U.S. trade secrets through Chinese cyber
espionage could someday accumulate into an existential threat. But it doesn't seem so seem just yet, with only handwaving estimates
of annual losses of 0.1 to 0.5 percent to the total U.S. GDP of around $15 trillion. That's bad, but it doesn't add up to an
existential crisis or "economic cyberwar."
Their author says other inducement solves—we’ll insert it into the record and read
new args if they make this add-on a complete argument
Aliya Sternstein 14, Next Gov Senior Correspondent, FEDERAL CYBER HIRING COULD
TAKE A HIT UNDER MARIJUANA MANDATE, March 14,
http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2014/03/federal-cyber-hiring-could-take-hit-undermarijuana-mandate/80527/) Smith = Kathleen Smith, chief management officer at
ClearedJobs.Net
Federal employers might be able to entice nonconventional computer whizzes with stimulants
instead of hallucinogens, Smith said.
"What I found with people who like doing cleared work and working for the government is they
like to work on the really cool stuff," said Smith, whose clients include security cleared
professionals in the federal government and private sector. "The price to work on the really cool
stuff might be: Some of the recreational drug use I can't do any longer."
Cleared personnel already inside the government likely will not protest the administration’s
stance, said Kathy Lavinder, executive director of Security and Investigative Placement
Consultants, who helps professionals with military and government experience.
"The jobs pay very well and they want to keep that clearance," she said. "If you are inside that
tent, you are already emotionally tied in."
Jeff Snyder, president of Colorado-based SecurityRecruiter.com, said the antimarijuana
mandate for government employees "has not been an issue for me or anyone I have heard
about."
Maybe it's not a topic that comes up in job interviews?
"They can be a little confessional at times -- but they won't tell me what they are doing in their
off hours," Lavinder said.
BANKING
1NC
Commercial real estate fine now and the AFF isn’t key
Burley and Lynn, 1/5/14 [Six Trends in Commercial Real Estate to Watch for in 2015 By
Peter Burley and David Lynn January 5, 2015, http://urbanland.uli.org/economy-marketstrends/six-trends-commercial-real-estate-watch-2015/]
While many
variables will determine the course of U.S. commercial real estate, here are
six potential trends for 2015 based on the current outlook: Increased allocations and capital flows. With
most institutions—not to mention high-net-worth investors—still being underallocated to real estate, combined with the strong fourand five-year performance of both NCREIF and NAREIT, we can expect more investment capital coming into
commercial real estate. The significant amount of capital would be vexing if not for the fact that real estate seems to
offer some of the best risk/reward propositions around, particularly given the multiyear run-up in equity and
bond values. Look for higher allocation targets, and more foreign and retail investor money to continue to push capital values up
well beyond the 2007 peaks, which should be cause for concern. completions_full Continued low supply. New supply is at
a historic low (see figure above), in part because market rents generally have not justified new construction and because
financing has remained constrained. This leaves enormous upside potential in the property sectors to push occupancies and rents.
Increased appetite for risk. It has only been in recent quarters that investors have been willing to accept some
additional risk to achieve higher yields. That has brought new activity to a number of secondary markets, including Philadelphia,
Denver, Austin, and Charlotte, where well-priced Class A properties have come into play. In addition, there has been some “trickle
out” through the marketplace into still-riskier placements in the suburban office arena, and into some Class B and C properties,
where some investors are making strategic value plays. Finding the best investments in unfamiliar markets can be difficult. Class A
office properties in one market are not always comparable to Class A office properties in another. The same is true across the
spectrum of property sectors across the range of markets—from secondary markets to tertiary markets—anywhere in the country.
Investors continue to follow the jobs and people. Markets such as San Francisco, Austin, Seattle, and others have
demonstrated advantageous population and job growth dynamics. Many of the jobs that are created in those cities are tied to
technology as well as to energy and banking. Employment growth in the San Francisco area, for instance, outpaced the nation’s last
year, with job gains exceeding 4 percent, and San Francisco is among the top tier of cities where a solid mix of job-creating industries
is concentrated. Other Pacific Coast cities, including Seattle and Portland, also exhibit high concentrations of job-creating industries,
driven in large part by technology. Other metropolitan areas, including Washington, D.C., with its still-substantial government
employment base and growing financial services and technology sectors, and Houston, with its enormous energy sector and export
machine, promise to be near the top of any list for investment—and not just in the office sector. Multifamily still popular.
Multifamily transaction volume has reached pre-recession levels, outstripping office transactions for the first time in ten years, as
real estate investment trusts (REITs) and pension funds have fed a fierce appetite for the multifamily sector. The pace is unlikely to
slow anytime soon. Apartment demand has been—and is expected to be—robust, supercharged by the shock waves of the recession
and by strong demographic trends that are only beginning to manifest. And, as values moved ever higher, cap rates fell back toward
6 percent, close to where they stood in 2005 and 2006. Most deals have been concentrated in larger urban markets, such as New
York, Washington, Los Angeles, and Chicago, with considerable focus on the echo boomers, who are partial to the amenities of an
urban lifestyle, and their parents, who are realigning their housing needs toward walkable surroundings and mass transit.
Ongoing retail bifurcation. A confluence of factors including, especially, the economic recession and the inexorable wave of
e-commerce has redefined the retail market equation. The day of the suburban mall, anchored by a mid-market department store,
has probably passed. There will be no return. And, although the industry’s evolution continues, we are already beginning to see a
deeply bifurcated mix of high-end urban retail destinations at one end of the retail spectrum with discounters at the other, and a
scattering of local grocery-anchored strips in between. It may not be a formulaic trend, after years of consumer caution and
austerity, but an improved housing market should lead to an improved retail environment. With home prices recovering and
financial markets making strong gains, household wealth has risen to more than 5.5 times disposable income, the 20-year average.
In addition, the annual expansion in retail sales, 6 percent per annum, is an indication that retail activity is well on its way to
achieving a rate consistent with job creation and income growth. retail_construction At the upper end, Class A urban space has
garnered the strongest rent growth and the lowest vacancies, as income, employment, and tourist activity are generally concentrated
in the city centers (New York’s Fifth Avenue and Park Avenue; Chicago’s Loop and Magnificent Mile; Los Angeles’s Rodeo Drive; San
Francisco’s Union Square). High-end department stores continue to thrive, and urban vertical mall space still commands a
premium. Regional malls—most of which were developed prior to the downturn—serve as destination shopping venues for the
affluent suburban population, and most of those malls have been holding their own, with vacancies hovering within a few basis
points of 6 percent. Anchor tenants do well. Industrial continues its steady improvement. Industrial real
estate is subject to the whims of the national and global economies, as imports and exports wax and wane
with the crises of the day, week, or month. There have been indications that economic slowing overseas has undermined some
growth at some of the major ports and larger airports. And, as retailers move to be closer to customers, some intermediate
warehouse points have suffered modest retrenchment. That the Amazon distribution model has affected the warehouse market goes
without saying. A number of older warehouse properties have been tagged as obsolete. But, even locally based brick-and-mortar
retailers still need warehouse space in many of the same places they have always been—near population centers where stores are and
where people shop. Demand for industrial space—particularly in gateway markets—has been growing. Economic recovery and an
upward trajectory in consumer spending, on furniture and electronics especially, have led to the absorption in many major markets,
and there has been considerable “trickle-down” into secondary markets, including the Inland Empire of southern California,
Sacramento, and Charlotte. Investors
are increasingly confident about acquiring assets, bolstered by
attractive financing and still-attractive assets in the marketplace. We should expect to see multifamily
continue to lead the Palio for investment activity, particularly in urban and infill locations and especially in transit-oriented
locations, followed (in order) by industrial properties, hotels, office, and retail. While development remains subdued, with the
exception of the apartment sector and in specialized areas of the industrial and hotel sectors, rankings are similar. Investors
are
moving into an array of asset choices in a widening number of markets as they seek ever more attractive
yields. Interest rates do not appear ready to rise substantially in the near to medium term (especially in light of the Fed’s ongoing
accommodative stance and massive deflationary factors gathering momentum), and cap rates—even in many secondary markets—
will continue to compress, creating negative spreads in some larger gateway markets for the first time in many years—a worrisome
sign. While new construction has begun to pick up in a few areas, new product does not appear likely to offset positive absorption
trends. The outlook for 2015 is that commercial real estate fundamentals will continue to improve—but will its popularity, as
evidenced by ever-increasing investment flows, create the conditions for another pricing bubble?
Pot industry doesn’t help the economy
Chandler and Gibbs 13—political scientist at Hunter College in New York City AND DC
journalist
(Jamie and Palmer, “LEGALIZING MARIJUANA FOR PROFIT IS A BAD IDEA”, http://politix.topix.com/story/5760-legalizingmarijuana-for-profit-is-a-bad-idea, dml)
A broader selling point is that legalizing marijuana could help state governments cut their
enforcement budgets and generate tax revenue. Since 1970, state and federal authorities have spent billions
enforcing marijuana laws, but pot continues to be ubiquitous. Police have not reduced production, and laws are applied
inconsistently across the spectrum of socioeconomic and minority populations.
The economic argument carries great weight for proponents. As revelers lit up last weekend to mark 4-20, the annual celebration of
all-things weed, it's tough to argue that consumer demand isn't there. Legalizing an already booming blackmarket industry means the potential for job creation and a fresh source of income for state treasuries scrambling in the age of the
sequesters.
However, once you clean the bong,
this line of thinking goes up in
smoke.
First, just because public opinion and economic arguments indicate otherwise, Congress
must ask some hard
questions before it changes 50-years of national drug policy. Questions like: why has marijuana
enforcement failed? Is the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 fundamentally flawed? And if so, what can be
done to reform it?
Finding the answers to these questions is not at the top of the political agenda. Attorney
General Eric Holder testified recently about federal policies in relation to the newly passed Colorado and Washington initiatives, and
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) promised that the panel would discuss federal policies in light of the
country's patchwork of state marijuana laws. But there has been no concerted push for broad scale reform
similar to the activities associated with the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009
or the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Second, legalizing cannabis for profit is simply a bad idea. It flies in the face of social responsibility.
The acquisition of profit is driven by self-interest, not the common good. Business decisions
are made based on how the outcome will improve the bottom line.
It wouldn't be long before marijuana companies - likely backed by big tobacco, with its in-place
marketing and distribution teams - started aggressive efforts to win consumers. They'll develop attractive
packaging, new and interesting flavors and strains, optimal paper to enhance the smoking effect, and compelling advertising
campaigns all designed to get consumers hooked.
There will be messages appealing to long-time pot smokers and new pot smokers. There will
be
brands for youths, college kids, minorities, the poor, women, and urbanites. Smokers will come to believe they can't live without
their daily "wake & bake" just as they believe they can't live without their smartphones or iPads. The mass-market
consumption of marijuana will bring with it the same negative and ubiquitous effects
we've seen with alcohol and cigarettes: health problems, driving under the influence, and addiction.
Once the industry gets rolling, those celebrated tax revenues will probably
evaporate. Just in the last few days, Colorado State University released a study indicating that
the tax revenues expected from the Centennial State's newly legal industry will not pay for its
regulation. Nor will it bring in a windfall of money proponents promised would pay for
new school construction and other social benefits.
Even if the tax projections do pan out, as the industry grows in size and influence, lobbyists
will exert pressure on politicians to lower taxes and loosen regulations, just as the
tobacco industry has done in the past, to maximize profitability. This is the nature of the interplay of
business and politics; for the most part, business has the upper hand.
Supply glut turns case
Mintz 12—writer for the McKinleyville Press
Daniel, “Pot economy is slouching”, http://mckinleyvillepress.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/pot-economy-is-slouching/, dml)
But the
recent emergence of a “supply glut” has undermined prices. “As I’m sure a lot of you are aware of,
we’ve seen a drop in the price of marijuana which has already depleted dollars out of our economy,”
Budwig said.
Ten years ago, the price of indoor-grown marijuana was $4,500 to $5,000 a pound, she continued, dropping to $4,000 a pound as
of five years ago. She said indoor pot is now valued at $2,500 a pound.
The price of outdoor pot, ranging from $3,500 to $4,000 a pound a decade ago, has also dropped sharply, down to as low as $700 a
pound, Budwig said.
“So as these prices continue to drop, unless people are growing more, what happens is that those
margins are decreasing and ensuring there’s less discretionary income being spent in our
economy,” she continued.
Studies have predicted as much as a 90 percent drop in pot prices if legalization occurs, said
Budwig.
Several statewide marijuana legalization efforts are focusing on the November election and legislative lobbying. Proposition 19 failed
in 2010, with 54 percent of the county’s voters opposing it, apparently due to fear of economic impacts.
Budwig said that if legalization is approved, the impacts would depend on how it’s implemented and the extent of
federal interference. But the county would “see
a dwindling of these monies” and recent trends suggest a
continued decline.
“With pot prices already coming down because of the increase in supply there’s been cushion to
the erosion but many people feel this is only the beginning,” said Budwig. “And there’s going to be a
lot of discretionary income pulled out because of those margins shrinking.”
Long term impacts “have the potential to be devastating,” she continued, and the best hedge against the loss of
marijuana income is a diversified economy.
Saying the county is “at a crossroads,” Budwig said the
marijuana industry “backfilled” losses from the
declines of the timber and fishing industries and “if those dollars continue to leave, the question is,
what’s going to backfill that?”
2NC SQUO SOLVES
They’re beginning to drag on bank coffers now
Heschmeyer 9-3-14 (Mark, "CRE Lending by Banks Surpasses Pre-Recession Levels" CoStar)
www.costar.com/News/Article/CRE-Lending-by-Banks-Surpasses-Pre-RecessionLevels/163695
loans
from those heady days of 2007 are still acting as a drag on bank coffers, though much less of one. The
total volume of CRE loans made by banks as of June 30 is now 2% higher than it was going into the
summer of 2007. Total CRE loans on the books of the nation’s 6,680 FDIC-insured banks stands at $1.63 trillion vs $1.60
trillion as of March 31, 2007, according to the latest FDIC numbers released last week. Those numbers also continue to
show the damage done by the two-year long real estate-fueled recession and the five years of
climbing back. There are 1,982 fewer insured bank and savings institutions today than
there were then, and the ones remaining are saddled with 528% more foreclosed
properties on their books than reported in March 2007. Total ‘other real estate owned’ (i.e. foreclosed upon) properties on
U.S. bank lending on commercial real estate has now rebounded to levels not seen since before the Great Recession, but
bank books stands at a hefty $14.16 billion today vs just $2.26 billion seven years ago. Residential construction and development
properties make up more than half of the foreclosed inventory. In fact, construction and development lending is still the one
segment of banks' CRE lending that has not recovered from the recession. The total amount of such loans is down
62% than it was in March 2007: $223 billion today vs. $582 billion then.
[REST OF THEIR ARTICLE]
Despite the steady increase in commercial property values, U.S. banks are still losing money in
disposing of their foreclosed properties, although their losses are decreasing. Overall this year,
banks have lost $11.83 million on the sale of distressed properties, down significantly from
the $352 million banks lost on the sale of foreclosed properties in all of 2013. Outside of
construction and development lending, every other segment of CRE lending has
surpassed pre-recession levels. Multifamily lending is up 47% to $281 billion; owneroccupied property lending is up 39% to $477 billion; and non-residential investment property
lending is up 35% to $649 billion. The improvement in CRE lending is also reflected in the
declining delinquency level of bank loans. According to the FDIC, noncurrent loan balances
improved for a 17th consecutive quarter, falling by $13.4 billion (6.9%) during the three months
ended June 30. At the end of the quarter, the industry’s noncurrent loan rate was 2.24 percent,
the lowest level since second quarter 2008. Noncurrent real estate loans secured by nonfarm
nonresidential properties fell by $1.9 billion (9.6%), and even noncurrent real estate
construction loans declined by $1.2 billion (15.9%), according to the FDIC. FDIC-insured banks
reported total net income of $40.2 billion in the second quarter of 2014, up $2 billion (5.3%)
from a year earlier. "We saw further improvement in the banking industry during the second
quarter," FDIC chairman Martin J. Gruenberg said. "Net income was up, asset quality improved,
loan balances grew at their fastest pace since 2007, and loan growth was broad-based across
institutions and loan types." "However, challenges remain, Gruenberg added. "Institutions have
been extending asset maturities, which is raising concerns about interest-rate risk. And banks
have been increasing higher-risk loans to leveraged commercial borrowers. These issues are
matters of ongoing supervisory attention. Nonetheless, on balance, results from the second
quarter reflect a stronger banking industry and stronger community banks."
ENVIRONMENT
1NC
Growers can’t meet the zero-carbon standards---causes underground grow-ops
Gina S. Warren 14, Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law, 9/24/14,
“Regulating Pot to Save thee Polar Bear: Energy and Climate Impacts of the Marijuana
Industry,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501126, DOA: 12-30-14, y2k
Developing state and local government licensing schemes to require indoor marijuana cultivators to utilize
non-greenhouse gas producing energy sources will certainly be met with some obstacles. First, it will
be difficult for most utility companies to supply the required zero carbon
electricity. Utilities are generally under state mandates to supply a certain percentage (usually around
20%) of their electricity from qualifying renewable energy sources.197 Most, however, do not
generate all of their electricity from renewable sources. This leads to the second obstacle:
distributed generation. If utilities cannot supply the electricity, marijuana growers would need to install
on-site distributed generation or connect to a community project such as is available in Boulder (to connect
to the community solar farm). 198 While distributed generation has many positive attributes, 199 it can be more
expensive, leaving open the argument that legitimate businesses will go elsewhere or will regress
back into the shadows.200 Third, mandates that ultimately require local energy generation could run afoul of the
Dormant Commerce Clause.201 This particular situation, however, would create a unique and interesting case.
No global modeling
Hale 11 PhD Candidate in the Department of Politics at Princeton University and a Visiting
Fellow at LSE Global Governance, London School of Economics (Thomas, © 2011 Center for
Strategic and International Studies, The Washington Quarterly, 34:1 pp. 89-101, “A Climate
Coalition of the Willing,” http://www.twq.com/11winter/docs/11winter_Hale.pdf)
Intergovernmental efforts to limit the gases that cause climate change have all but failed. After the
unsuccessful 2010 Copenhagen summit, and with little progress at the 2010 Cancun meeting, it
is hard to see how major emitters will agree any time soon on mutual emissions reductions that
are sufficiently ambitious to prevent a substantial (greater than two degree Celsius) increase in average
global temperatures. It is not hard to see why. No deal excluding the United States and China, which together emit more than
40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases (GHGs), is worth the paper it is written on. But domestic politics in both
countries effectively block ‘‘G-2’’ leadership on climate. In the United States, the Obama administration
has basically given up on national cap-and-trade legislation. Even the relatively modest Kerry-Lieberman-Graham
energy bill remains dead in the Senate. The Chinese government, in turn, faces an even harsher constraint.
Although the nation has adopted important energy efficiency goals, the Chinese Communist Party has staked its
legitimacy and political survival on raising the living standard of average Chinese. Accepting
international commitments that stand even a small chance of reducing the country’s GDP
growth rate below a crucial threshold poses an unacceptable risk to the stability of the regime.
Although the G-2 present the largest and most obvious barrier to a global treaty, they also
provide a convenient excuse for other governments to avoid aggressive action. Therefore, the
international community should not expect to negotiate a worthwhile successor to the Kyoto Protocol, at least not in the near future.
Impossible to solve
Pearce, 13 – environmental consultant for New Scientist magazine with over 20 years of
experience reporting on the environment, winner of 2002 CGIAR agricultural research science
journalism award [9/25, Fred, The New Scientist, www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html#.VENB0VevdqO]
Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere's chemistry. This stark warning
comes from the draft summary of the latest climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Delegates from national governments are discussing the draft this week, prior to its release on Friday morning. According to
one of its lead authors, and the latest draft seen by New Scientist, the report will say: "CO2-induced warming is projected to
remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A
large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net
anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period." In other words, even if all the world ran on
carbon-free energy and deforestation ceased, the only way of lowering temperatures
would be to devise a scheme for sucking hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere. Much of this week's report, the fifth assessment of the IPCC working group on the physical science of climate change, will reaffirm
the findings of the previous four assessments, published regularly since 1990. It will point out that to limit global warming to 2 °C
will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all human sources since the start of the industrial
revolution to be kept below about a trillion tonnes of carbon. So far, we have emitted about half this. Current
emissions are around 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon annually, and rising. Since the last assessment, published in 2007Speaker, the IPCC has almost
doubled its estimate of the maximum sea-level rise likely in the coming century to about 1 metre. They also conclude
that it is now
"virtually certain" that sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries, even if warming
ceases, due to the delayed effects of thermal expansion of warming oceans and
melting ice sheets.
Mitch Hagney solves your only internal links, which are about hydroponics and
LEDs—he probably solves industry advantages, too
Stieb 1/21/2015 (Matt, San Antonio Current, “Meet LocalSprout, SA's hydroponic veggie
farm”, http://m.sacurrent.com/sanantonio/meet-localsprout-sas-hydroponic-veggiefarm/Content?oid=2375492)
Inside, fans cut through the humid air where neat rows of basil grow a few feet off the ground.
Stacked on wooden crates borrowed from the food bank, the plants are hooked up through PVC pipes to an in-house rig providing a
lifeline of water and nutrients. LocalSprout operates entirely on hydroponics—no soil allowed. The company hopes
that this
soilless tech popular with NASA scientists and industrious stoners can increase
opportunities for urban farming in SA.
LocalSprout began in 2013, when Hagney found an interested investor in RackSpace co-founder Pat Condon. "I had
just graduated from Trinity and I knew that I wanted to go into hydroponics because I think it's a version
of agriculture that's sustainable," says Hagney. "I had talked about it a lot in San Antonio and Pat found out about me
and had the interest in the industry so he called me and asked if we could partner up."
Their first venture took root on the East Side, where LocalSprout purchased a smart-farm hydroponic shipping
container from Freight Farms out of Boston. "We were the second customer in the country for them," says Hagney. "The equipment
was not streamlined, necessarily." With their Instagram-cute freight tucked in an unused warehouse, the pair began to grow
inside, every day of the year.
Divorced from sunlight in the storage container, the plants get energy from purple-hued LEDs. Not only are
the bulbs energy efficient, grow-light LEDs cater to the wavelengths of light that plants need
most, explaining the violet hue. With such an acute level of control over their plants, Hagney and
Condon's greens are impressive in size, taste and texture. On offer at Barbaro and One Lucky Duck, their kale is
surprisingly tender, a quality atypical of a cranky vegetable notorious for needing massages.
No extinction from ag collapse
Allouche 11, research Fellow – water supply and sanitation @ Institute for Development
Studies, frmr professor – MIT (Jeremy, “The sustainability and resilience of global water and
food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political
systems and global trade,” Food Policy, Vol. 36 Supplement 1, p. S3-S8, January)
The question of resource scarcity has led to many debates
on whether scarcity (whether of food or water) will
lead to conflict and war. The underlining reasoning behind most of these discourses over food and water wars comes from
the Malthusian belief that there is an imbalance between the economic availability of natural resources
and population growth since while food production grows linearly, population increases exponentially. Following this
reasoning, neo-Malthusians claim that finite natural resources place a strict limit on the growth of human population and aggregate
consumption; if these limits are exceeded, social breakdown, conflict and wars result. Nonetheless, it seems that most
empirical studies do not support any of these neo-Malthusian arguments. Technological change and
greater inputs of capital
have dramatically increased labour productivity in agriculture. More generally, the
neo-Malthusian view has suffered because during the last two centuries humankind has breached many
resource barriers that seemed unchallengeable.
Lessons from history: alarmist scenarios, resource wars and international relations
In a so-called age of uncertainty, a number of alarmist scenarios have linked the increasing use
of water
resources and food insecurity with wars. The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a dominant
discourse in the media (see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert, 2007) and within international organizations
(UNEP, 2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that ‘water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is
a potent fuel for wars and conflict’ (Lewis, 2007). Of course, this type of discourse has an instrumental purpose; security and conflict
are here used for raising water/food as key policy priorities at the international level.
In the Middle East, presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers have also used this bellicose
rhetoric. Boutrous Boutros-Gali said; ‘the next war in the Middle East will be over water, not politics’ (Boutros Boutros-Gali in
Butts, 1997, p. 65). The question is not whether the sharing of transboundary water sparks political tension and alarmist declaration,
but rather to what extent water has been a principal factor in international conflicts. The evidence seems quite weak.
Whether by president Sadat in Egypt or King Hussein in Jordan, none
by military action.
of these declarations have been followed up
The governance of transboundary water has gained increased attention these last decades. This has a direct impact on the global
food system as water allocation agreements determine the amount of water that can used for irrigated agriculture. The likelihood of
conflicts over water is an important parameter to consider in assessing the stability, sustainability and resilience of global food
systems.
None of the various and extensive databases on the causes of war show water as a casus belli.
Using the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set and supplementary data from the University of Alabama on water conflicts,
Hewitt, Wolf and Hammer found only seven disputes where water seems to have been at least a
partial cause for conflict (Wolf, 1998, p. 251). In fact, about 80% of the incidents relating to water were
limited purely to governmental rhetoric intended for the electorate (Otchet, 2001, p. 18).
As shown in The Basins At Risk (BAR) water event database, more than two-thirds of over 1800 water-related
‘events’ fall on the ‘cooperative’ scale (Yoffe et al., 2003). Indeed, if one takes into account a much longer period, the
following figures clearly demonstrate this argument. According to studies by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), organized political bodies signed between the year 805 and 1984 more than 3600 water-related
treaties, and approximately 300 treaties dealing with water management or allocations in international basins have been
negotiated since 1945 (FAO, 1978 and FAO, 1984).
The fear around water wars have been driven by a Malthusian outlook which equates scarcity with violence, conflict and war.
There is however no direct correlation between water scarcity and transboundary conflict. Most
specialists now tend to agree that the major issue is not scarcity per se but rather the allocation of water resources between the
different riparian states (see for example Allouche, 2005, Allouche, 2007 and [Rouyer, 2000] ). Water rich countries have
been involved in a number of disputes with other relatively water rich countries (see for example
India/Pakistan or Brazil/Argentina). The perception of each state’s estimated water needs really constitutes the core issue in
transboundary water relations. Indeed, whether this scarcity exists or not in reality, perceptions of the amount of
available water shapes people’s attitude towards the environment (Ohlsson, 1999). In fact, some water experts have argued
that scarcity drives the process of co-operation among riparians (Dinar and Dinar, 2005 and Brochmann and
Gleditsch, 2006).
In terms of international relations, the
threat of water wars due to increasing scarcity does not make much sense
in the light of the recent historical record. Overall, the water war rationale expects conflict to occur over water,
and appears to suggest that violence is a viable means of securing national water supplies, an argument which is highly contestable.
The debates over the likely impacts of climate change have again popularised the idea of water wars. The
argument runs that climate change will precipitate worsening ecological conditions contributing to resource scarcities, social
breakdown, institutional failure, mass migrations and in turn cause greater political instability and conflict (Brauch, 2002 and
Pervis and Busby, 2004). In a report for the US Department of Defense, Schwartz and Randall (2003) speculate about the
consequences of a worst-case climate change scenario arguing that water shortages will lead to aggressive wars (Schwartz and
Randall, 2003, p. 15). Despite growing concern that climate change will lead to instability and violent
conflict, the evidence base to substantiate the connections is thin ( [Barnett and Adger, 2007] and Kevane
and Gray, 2008).
No extinction
Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry
and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic
Growth,” online:
http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf
The heart of the debate about climate change comes from a number of warnings from scientists
and others that give the
impression that human-induced climate change is an immediate threat to society (IPCC 2007a,b; Stern
2006). Millions of people might be vulnerable to health effects (IPCC 2007b), crop production might fall in the low latitudes (IPCC
2007b), water supplies might dwindle (IPCC 2007b), precipitation might fall in arid regions (IPCC 2007b), extreme events will grow
exponentially (Stern 2006), and between 20–30 percent of species will risk extinction (IPCC 2007b). Even worse, there may be
catastrophic events such as the melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets causing severe sea level rise, which would inundate
hundreds of millions of people (Dasgupta et al. 2009). Proponents argue there is no time to waste. Unless greenhouse gases are cut
dramatically today, economic growth and well‐being may be at risk (Stern 2006).
These statements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves
attention, society’s
immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic
consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next
few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a
century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will
be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most
of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these “potential”
impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and
dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks. What is needed are long‐run
balanced responses.
Setting energy mandates risks collapsing pot businesses or forcing them
underground –and other sectors are sufficient to trigger warming
Heath Urie 5-8-2010; Daily Camera staff writer State marijuana rules could force truly 'green' industry in Boulder
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_15046341?IADID
But Councilman George Karakehian said imposing
strict rules for one category of businesses is "setting a
dangerous precedent." Karakehian, a businessman who owns Art Source International on the Pearl Street Mall, warned his
colleagues that forcing any one type of business to use renewable energy isn't fair. "I don't feel like it's good
government to impose rules on one group for just an arbitrary reason," Karakehian said. "There are other big users of
electricity. Why aren't we doing anything about them?" Karakehian suggested that the council singled out marijuana businesses
on the electricity issue "because we could," but he doesn't think he has the votes to change it. Suzy Ageton and Matt Appelbaum were
also among the minority of council members who oppose the move. "I'm uncomfortable with the fact that it's in the ordinance,"
Ageton said. Appelbaum agreed. "You do not single out one particular type of business," he said. Appelbaum said he would likely
support a commercial energy conservation ordinance that would apply to all businesses over time, but starting out
dispensaries at 100 percent renewable energy is "a little too much, a little fast." He said he's hopeful he
can convince his colleagues to reconsider. "Maybe we'll get some more traction on it," he said. "I don't think the debate is necessarily
done on this issue." Despite their opposition, Karakehian, Ageton and Appelbaum voted to approve the new regulations on second
reading last week. Ryan Hartman, a co-owner of the Boulder Wellness Center, 5420 Arapahoe Ave., said the proposed state and local
laws already carry hefty licensing fees that could top tens of thousands of dollars. He's concerned that the added costs of
having to subscribe to Xcel Energy's Windsource program, or purchasing solar equipment, would further
hurt small dispensaries like his. "Everyone has this idea that you open up a dispensary and within a month you're rich,"
he said. "I don't have a car because everything I make goes back into the business." He said he wouldn't mind setting a goal for his
company to use 100 percent renewable energy within a few years, but he doesn't think the city should mandate it. Cost vs. benefit
According to officials at Xcel, the average small business in Colorado uses 1,123 kilowatt hours of electricity a month and has a
monthly bill of about $122. According to The Climate Trust, a national group that provides carbon offsets for governments and
corporations, an average 3,000-square-foot business emits 34 to 46 metric tons of greenhouse gases a year. Windsource -- which,
despite its name, doesn't actually change where a company's electricity comes from but rather provides funding for expanding
renewable energy sources -- is available at a rate of $2.16 per 100 kilowatt hours, in addition to the regular price of electricity.
Buying enough Windsource to offset 100 percent of an average small businesses' electricity would add $26 a month to their utility
bills, an increase of about 21 percent. It's not clear how much more electricity an average marijuana
growing operation requires. Ernie Travis, a co-owner of Boulder Vital Herbs, 2527 Broadway, said his electric bill is about
triple the average small business -- at $600 to $700 a month. His operation grows about 200 plants at a time, using seven 1,000watt bulbs and six 400-watt bulbs. He said he's all for a renewable-energy mandate. "I would do that in a
heartbeat," he said. "I actually think about the amount of coal it takes to run my garden." His only reservation, he said, is the added
cost. "Green usually means expensive," he said. Under the city's proposal, auditors would have the right to inspect
dispensary utility bills to ensure compliance with the law. It would also give the city a good idea of how much energy the businesses
are consuming. Under Boulder's proposal, dispensaries would also be allowed to subscribe to a community solar garden. State
lawmakers earlier this month approved a bill allowing the gardens, which in concept will allow people and businesses to receive a
credit on their utility bill for owning a share of solar power generated at an off-site location. But it's not yet known what
level of investment in a solar garden a business would have to make to cover all of its electricity
use. ‘
Environment resilient
Kareiva et al 12 – Chief Scientist and Vice President, The Nature Conservancy (Peter,
Michelle Marvier --professor and department chair of Environment Studies and Sciences at
Santa Clara University, Robert Lalasz -- director of science communications for The Nature
Conservancy, Winter, “Conservation in the Anthropocene,”
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/conservation-in-theanthropocene/)
2. As
conservation became a global enterprise in the 1970s and 1980s, the movement's
justification for saving nature shifted from spiritual and aesthetic values to focus on biodiversity.
Nature was described as primeval, fragile, and at risk of collapse from too much human use and
abuse. And indeed, there are consequences when humans convert landscapes for mining, logging,
intensive agriculture, and urban development and when key species or ecosystems are lost.¶ But
ecologists and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility of nature, frequently arguing
that once an ecosystem is altered, it is gone forever. Some ecologists suggest that if a single species is lost, a
whole ecosystem will be in danger of collapse, and that if too much biodiversity is lost, spaceship
Earth will start to come apart. Everything, from the expansion of agriculture to rainforest
destruction to changing waterways, has been painted as a threat to the delicate inner-workings
of our planetary ecosystem.¶ The fragility trope dates back, at least, to Rachel Carson, who wrote
plaintively in Silent Spring of the delicate web of life and warned that perturbing the intricate
balance of nature could have disastrous consequences.22 Al Gore made a similar argument in his 1992 book,
Earth in the Balance.23 And the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment warned darkly that, while the expansion of agriculture and
other forms of development have been overwhelmingly positive for the world's poor, ecosystem degradation was simultaneously
putting systems in jeopardy of collapse.24¶ The trouble for conservation is that the data simply do not support the
idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse. Ecologists now know that the disappearance of one species
does not necessarily lead to the extinction of any others, much less all others in the same
ecosystem. In many circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be inconsequential
to ecosystem function. The American chestnut, once a dominant tree in eastern North America,
has been extinguished by a foreign disease, yet the forest ecosystem is surprisingly unaffected.
The passenger pigeon, once so abundant that its flocks darkened the sky, went extinct, along with countless
other species from the Steller's sea cow to the dodo, with no catastrophic or even
measurable effects.¶ These stories of resilience are not isolated examples -- a thorough
review of the scientific literature identified 240 studies of ecosystems following major
disturbances such as deforestation, mining, oil spills, and other types of pollution. The
abundance of plant and animal species as well as other measures of ecosystem function
recovered, at least partially, in 173 (72 percent) of these studies.25¶ While global forest cover is
continuing to decline, it is rising in the Northern Hemisphere, where "nature" is returning to
former agricultural lands.26 Something similar is likely to occur in the Southern Hemisphere, after poor countries achieve
a similar level of economic development. A 2010 report concluded that rainforests that have grown back over
abandoned agricultural land had 40 to 70 percent of the species of the original forests.27 Even
Indonesian orangutans, which were widely thought to be able to survive only in pristine forests, have been found in surprising
numbers in oil palm plantations and degraded lands.28¶ Nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly
from even the most powerful human disturbances. Around the Chernobyl nuclear facility,
which melted down in 1986, wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of radiation.29 In the Bikini Atoll,
the site of multiple nuclear bomb tests, including the 1954 hydrogen bomb test that boiled the water in the area, the
number of coral species has actually increased relative to before the explosions.30 More recently, the
massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was degraded and consumed by bacteria at a
remarkably fast rate.31¶ Today, coyotes roam downtown Chicago, and peregrine falcons astonish San
Franciscans as they sweep down skyscraper canyons to pick off pigeons for their next meal. As
we destroy habitats, we create new ones: in the southwestern United States a rare and federally
listed salamander species seems specialized to live in cattle tanks -- to date, it has been found in no other
habitat.32 Books have been written about the collapse of cod in the Georges Bank, yet recent trawl
data show the biomass of cod has recovered to precollapse levels.33 It's doubtful that books will
be written about this cod recovery since it does not play well to an audience somehow addicted
to stories of collapse and environmental apocalypse.¶ Even that classic symbol of fragility -- the
polar bear, seemingly stranded on a melting ice block -- may have a good chance of surviving global warming
if the changing environment continues to increase the populations and northern ranges of
harbor seals and harp seals. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago during a
cooling period in Earth's history, developing a highly specialized carnivorous diet focused on seals. Thus, the fate of
polar bears depends on two opposing trends -- the decline of sea ice and the potential increase of energy-rich prey. The history
of life on Earth is of species evolving to take advantage of new environments only to be at risk
when the environment changes again.¶ The wilderness ideal presupposes that there are parts of
the world untouched by humankind, but today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is
unmarked by human activity. The truth is humans have been impacting their natural
environment for centuries. The wilderness so beloved by conservationists -- places "untrammeled by man"34 -- never
existed, at least not in the last thousand years, and arguably even longer.
Recent history disproves the impact
Idso, director of envt science – Peabody Energy, PhD Geography – ASU, Idso, professor –
Maricopa County Community College, and Idso, PhD botany – ASU, ‘12
(Craig, Sherwood, and Keith, “Two Centuries of Reef Growth in the Southern South China Sea,”
CO2 Science Vol. 15, No. 20, May)
The authors write that "rising atmospheric CO2 and global warming are regarded as fatal threats to coral reefs," noting that "the
IPCC has reported that by the end of this century, coral reefs will be the first ecological system that will
become extinct," citing Wilkinson (2004). However, they say "others contend that rising seawater
temperature is conducive to enhanced coral calcification, and increased calcification will be
higher than the decline caused by rising CO2," so that "coral calcification will increase by about 35%
beyond pre-industrial levels by 2100, and no extinction of coral reefs will occur in the
future," citing McNeil et al. (2004). So who's right?
What was done
In an attempt to shed some light on this important question, in late May of 2004 and 2007 Shi et al. extracted
core
samples of coral skeletons from several massive live and dead Porites lutea colonies comprising part of the
Meiji Reef in the southern South China Sea, after which they analyzed their skeletal calcification rates by means of X-ray
photography, which enabled them to construct a nearly three-century-long history of coral calcification rate
for the period 1716-2005.
What was learned
The results of the six scientists' efforts are depicted in the figure below.
As best we can determine from the Chinese scientists' graph, over the period of time depicted - when climate
alarmists claim the
world warmed at a rate that was unprecedented over the past millennium or two, and when the
concentration rose to values not seen for millions of years - the two "fatal
threats to coral reefs," even acting together, could not prevent coral calcification rates on Meiji
Reef from actually rising by about 11% over the past three centuries.
atmosphere's CO2
2NC SQUO SOLVES
We are being 100% serious. If you really think that legal pot can spur a generationdefining commercial ag shift, then our squo solves arg is equally valid and Mitch
Hagney is more qualified than their stoner activist authors. Voter for reciprocity if
they read new 1ar answers.
Hagney 2/2/2015 (Mitch, The Rivard Report, San Antonio-based online magazine and news
source, “Texas Organic Farms, Once Torpedoed, Coming Back”,
http://www.therivardreport.com/texas-organic-farms-torpedoed-coming-back/)
Texans buys hundreds of millions of dollars of organic produce annually from grocery stores alone, but almost none of it is grown in Texas.
How did Texas get so far behind? It has
one of the longest growing seasons, some of the cheapest labor,
and more customers than nearly any other state in the union. The state can grow just about every
vegetable and most fruits. Why is so much money going to California and Mexico when Texas farmers could
produce organic fare as well as anyone?
In the late 1980s, Democrat Jim Hightower was the Commissioner of Agriculture and was working to limit excess pesticide use and establish standards
for farm workers. Hightower had just pushed through the Agricultural Hazards Communications Act, nicknamed the “Right to Know,” which
established some of the first pesticide safety standards for farm workers. It required farms to record all pesticides, and to train employees how to
handle dangerous chemicals.
Pesticide companies and the influential state farm bureau pushed back, declaring Hightower’s regulations too costly. They convinced a relatively
unknown Democrat state legislator from Paint Rock who was considering leaving office to run for re-election, and they asked a young Karl
(George W. Bush’s campaign manager) to manage his campaign. Rove helped convince the candidate, Rick
Rove
Perry, to switch
parties. His new GOP status came with huge financial backing. In the final month before the election, his campaign contributions tripled
Hightower’s contributions.
Rove also helped capitalize on a corruption scandal in the Hightower office during the election; there are even allegations that he initiated it. Rove has
acknowledged meeting with the FBI agent probing Hightower while running the campaign to unseat him. Hightower was never charged with any
wrongdoing, but two of his aides went to prison on counts of illegal fundraising. By then, public opinion had turned. Hightower was defeated by 50,000
votes.
Perry, freshly christened as a Republican, became Texas’s new Commissioner of Agriculture.
At the same time, a company called Albert’s Organics located to Texas with the intention of building its headquarters here. One year later, founder
Albert Lusk declared that Texas Department of Agriculture officials were making it impossible to start an organic distribution company in Texas, and
the company soon relocated to California. Today, Albert’s is the largest organic food distributor on the continent.
Who could blame them? When Perry came into office, he fired most of the pesticide enforcement personnel, and within 10 months the Environmental
Protection Agency had to order the state Agriculture Department to reduce its backlog of pesticide enforcement cases.
Perry pushed so much pesticide for programs like the boll weevil eradication program, that all the beneficial insects preying on the beet armyworm
were killed, costing Texas cotton farmers more than $200 million. He invested next to nothing in non-conventional farms. Organics didn’t stand a
chance.
More than two decades later, things are finally changing. The market for organics is simply
too large to ignore. Nationally, annual sales hover around $40 billion. The state, whose support could have expanded the industry early
on, is finally dipping its toes in organics.
This weekend, the Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association held its annual conference in San Antonio for the first time. Held at the Hilton
San Antonio Airport, it drew about half of the organic farmers in the state. The impressive speaker lineup included Jeff Moyer, a leading organic
researcher from the Rodale Institute, and Tom Philpott, a nationally recognized writer from Mother Jones.
More importantly, the brand new Texas Commissioner of Agriculture stopped by. Sid Miller is an even more staunch Republican than Rick Perry was in
the same position, yet he still attended this weekend’s conference devoted to organic growing.
The conference opened on drought, with
dialogue occurring directly between the farmers and the government
agencies devoted to strengthening farm resilience at the Drought Summit.
“There is a history of some tension between these various constituents, and we attempted to address those directly,” said Joel Morton, a coordinator of
the summit. “The tension has to do with who the federal agencies have served, between the large and small sizes.”
Farm Aid is a national nonprofit designed to help family farms, which got its start in 1985 when Willie Nelson, Neil Young, and others organized the
first Farm Aid concert. Today, Farm Aid still celebrates with an annual concert, and from humble roots it has become a national force, empowering it
to catalyze real progress between powerful partners in agriculture. Farm Aid sponsored this weekend’s Drought Summit.
At the summit, government agencies, including the Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service
clarified their drought emergency response programs, which provide loans and financial support to farmers when production becomes impossible.
Some, but not all small organic farmers would go broke without government assistance during extreme drought. Recent studies indicate that organic
producers consume less water than their non-organic cousins. Since the soils on organic farms generally have more organic matter such as fungi and
microorganisms, they act more like a sponge and retain more water than the largely lifeless soils of conventional farms that constantly spray pesticides.
That could give organic crops a better shot at survival.
Robert Maggiani, director of TOFGA, was in the Texas Department of Agriculture for 26 years, working during the Hightower and Perry
administrations.
“Here we are, 25 years after that election, and for the last five years organic farming in Texas has finally been growing well,” he said.
Maggiani is now a sustainable agriculture specialist at the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT). Last year, he told me, the USDA
granted NCAT a rural development grant for a feasibility study for a food hub in Texas.
“A food hub would be a facility that brings together products from multiple farmers and sells them to distributors like Whole Food and H-E-B. This
could solve the complexity of marketing and price-shopping for small producers,” he said.
As a farmer myself, I can say that seeking the best market is at least as challenging as the farming work itself. A
dedicated food hub designed to ease the process would prompt the expansion of successful organic
farms and seed the state with many more small producers. It also would make it easier for big companies to buy
organic.
Even more significant is that the federal and state governments are beginning to invest in Texas
organic farms.
LED innovation—their evidence is old and doesn’t account for recent growth
Wang Sep 10 (Ucilia; How LEDs are going to change the way we look at cities;
www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2014/09/10/bright-lights-big-profits/; kdf)
The technology at the center of the shift is the LED, or light-emitting diode. LEDs are a break from the history of illumination. As
solid-state semiconductors, they’re more akin to the processor in your smartphone than the lamp overhead. Los Angeles, New York,
Chicago, Shanghai, Copenhagen and scores of other cities around the world are deploying LEDs in an attempt to solve most, if not
all, of the problems created by inefficient traditional lamps. LEDs cost three to four times more up front than traditional highpressure streetlamps, but they last three to four times longer and produce two to three times more light per watt, delivering
anywhere from 30% to 70% in annual electricity savings. Because they are digital chips, they will only get cheaper as the efficiencies
of Moore’s Law roll on. And as electronic components they’re also far more programmable and connect more efficiently with radio
and sensor chips to create citywide wireless networks to monitor crime, power outages and water main breaks and coordinate
disaster relief. The business opportunity in the great LED retrofit is enormous. Of the 140 million streetlights
installed worldwide last year, only 19 million were LEDs, according to IHS Technology. By
2020 LEDs are expected to
account for 100 million of the installed base of 155 million streetlights. Annual sales of LED
streetlights will jump from $4.3 billion to $10.2 billion in the same time period. Boston, Seattle and New York
City are all undertaking big retrofits. New York’s $76 million project will be the largest in the country: replacing 250,000 lights by
2017. City officials expect to reap $14 million in energy and maintenance spending per year.
2NC WARMING D
Framing issue—even if warming itself is scientific, their impact is not
Hsu 10 (Jeremy, Live Science Staff, July 19, pg. http://www.livescience.com/culture/canhumans-survive-extinction-doomsday-100719.html)
His views deviate sharply from those of most
experts, who don't view climate change as the end for
humans. Even the worst-case scenarios discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change don't
foresee human extinction. "The scenarios that the mainstream climate community are
advancing are not end-of-humanity, catastrophic scenarios," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate
policy analyst at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Humans have the technological tools to begin tackling climate
change, if not quite enough yet to solve the problem, Pielke said. He added that doom-mongering did little to encourage people to
take action. "My view of politics is that the long-term, high-risk scenarios are really difficult to use to motivate short-term,
incremental action," Pielke explained. "The rhetoric of fear and alarm that some people tend toward is counterproductive."
Searching for solutions One technological solution to climate change already exists through carbon capture and storage, according
to Wallace Broecker, a geochemist and renowned climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-
Doherty Earth Observatory in New York City. But Broecker remained skeptical that governments or industry would commit
the resources needed to slow the rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, and predicted that more drastic geoengineering might become
necessary to stabilize the planet. "The rise in CO2 isn't going to kill many people, and it's not
going to kill humanity," Broecker said. "But it's going to change the entire wild ecology of the planet, melt a lot of ice,
acidify the ocean, change the availability of water and change crop yields, so we're essentially doing an experiment whose result
remains uncertain."
No data supports mass extinction theories---their models are flawed
David Stockwell 11, Researcher at the San Diego Supercomputer Center, Ph.D. in Ecosystem
Dynamics from the Australian National University, developed the Genetic Algorithm for Ruleset Production system making contributions modeling of invasive species, epidemiology of
human diseases, the discovery of new species, and effects on species of climate change, April 21,
2011, “Errors of Global Warming Effects Modeling,” online: http://landshape.org/enm/errorsof-global-warming-effects-modeling/
Predictions of massive species extinctions due to AGW came into prominence with a January 2004 paper in
Nature called Extinction Risk from Climate Change by Chris Thomas et al.. They made the following predictions:
“we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and
taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’.
Subsequently, three communications appeared in Nature in July 2004. Two raised technical problems, including one by
the eminent ecologist Joan Roughgarden. Opinions raged from “Dangers of Crying Wolf over Risk of Extinctions” concerned with
damage to conservationism by alarmism, through poorly written press releases by the scientists themselves, and Extinction risk
[press] coverage is worth the inaccuracies stating “we believe the benefits of the wide release greatly outweighed the negative effects
of errors in reporting”.
Among those believing gross scientific inaccuracies are not justified, and such attitudes diminish the standing of scientists, I was
invited to a meeting of a multidisciplinary group of 19 scientists, including Dan Bodkin from UC Santa Barbara, mathematician Matt
Sobel, Craig Loehle and others at the Copenhagen base of Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. This resulted
in Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity published in 2007 BioScience. We were particularly concerned
by the cavalier attitude to model validations in the Thomas paper, and the field in general:
Of the modeling papers we have reviewed, only a few were validated. Commonly, these papers simply
correlate present distribution of species with climate variables, then replot the climate for the
future from a climate model and, finally, use one-to-one mapping to replot the future distribution
of the species, without any validation using independent data. Although some are clear about some
of their assumptions (mainly equilibrium assumptions), readers who are not experts in modeling can easily
misinterpret the results as valid and validated. For example, Hitz and Smith (2004) discuss many possible effects of
global warming on the basis of a review of modeling papers, and in this kind of analysis the unvalidated assumptions of models
would most likely be ignored.
The paper observed that few mass extinctions have been seen over recent rapid climate changes,
suggesting something
must be wrong with the models to get such high rates of extinctions.
They speculated that species
models.
may survive in refugia, suitable habitats below the spatial scale of the
Another example of an unvalidated assumptions that could bias results in the direction of extinctions, was described in chapter 7 of
my book Niche Modeling.
When climate change shifts a species’ niche over a landscape (dashed to solid circle) the response of that species can be described in
three ways: dispersing to the new range (migration), local extirpation (intersection), or expansion (union). Given the probability of
extinction is correlated with range size, there will either be no change, an increase (intersection), or decrease (union) in extinctions
depending on the dispersal type. Thomas et al. failed to consider range expansion (union), a behavior that predominates in many
groups. Consequently, the methodology was inherently biased towards extinctions.
One of the many errors in this work was a failure to evaluate the impact of such assumptions.
The prevailing view now, according to Stephen Williams, coauthor of the Thomas paper and Director for the Center for Tropical
Biodiversity and Climate Change, and author of such classics as “Climate change in Australian tropical rainforests: an impending
environmental catastrophe”, may be here.
Many unknowns remain in projecting extinctions, and the values provided in Thomas et al. (2004) should not be
taken as precise predictions. … Despite these uncertainties, Thomas et al. (2004) believe that the consistent overall conclusions
across analyses establish that anthropogenic climate warming at least ranks alongside other recognized threats to global
biodiversity.
So how precise are the figures? Williams suggests we should just trust the beliefs of Thomas et al. — an approach referred to
disparagingly in the forecasting literature as a judgmental forecast rather than a scientific forecast (Green & Armstrong 2007). These
simple models gloss over numerous problems in validating extinction models, including
the propensity of so-called extinct species quite often reappear. Usually they are small, hard to
find and no-one is really looking for them
POLITICS
1NC TPA
Aff is political suicide
Nagourney, 14 (4/5/2014, Adam, “Despite Support in Party, Democratic Governors Resist
Legalizing Marijuana,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/us/politics/despite-support-inparty-democratic-governors-resist-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=0, JMP)
Even with Democrats and younger voters leading the wave of the pro-legalization shift, these
governors are standing back, supporting much more limited medical-marijuana proposals or
invoking the kind of law-and-order and public-health arguments more commonly heard from
Republicans. While 17 more states — most of them leaning Democratic — have seen bills introduced this
year to follow Colorado and Washington in approving recreational marijuana, no sitting
governor or member of the Senate has offered a full-out endorsement of legalization.
Only Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat in Vermont, which is struggling with a heroin problem, said he was open to the idea.
“Quite frankly, I don’t think we are ready, or want to go down that road,” Dannel P. Malloy, the Democratic governor of Connecticut,
which has legalized medical marijuana and decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, said in an interview. “Perhaps
the best way to handle this is to watch those experiments that are underway. I don’t think it’s necessary, and I don’t think it’s
appropriate.”
The hesitance expressed by these governors reflects not only governing concerns but also, several analysts said, a
historically rooted political wariness of being portrayed as soft on crime by Republicans. In
particular, Mr. Brown, who is 75, lived through the culture wars of the 1960s, when Democrats suffered from being seen as
permissive on issues like this.
“Either they don’t care about it as passionately or they feel embarrassed or vulnerable. They fear the judgment,” said
Ethan Nadelmann,
the founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization that favors decriminalization of
fear of being soft on drugs, soft on marijuana, soft on crime is woven into the DNA
of American politicians, especially Democrats.”
He described that sentiment as, “Do not let yourself be outflanked by Republicans when it
comes to being tough on crime and tough on drugs. You will lose.”
marijuana. “The
TPA now, but staving off controversy is key – the impact is leadership
Freeman, 2/2/15 --- International Principal at Forbes-Tate, LLC, former USTR official, he
advises companies in support of TPA and TPP (Charles, “Trade -- Can Obama get it done?”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trade-can-obama-get-it-done/article/2559487, JMP)
The day after the 2014 election, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was asked what kind of
proposals his new majority could work on with President Obama. “Trade agreements,” McConnell
said, adding, “The President and I were just talking about that before I came over here."
And when Obama called on Congress during his State of the Union speech this month to pass
legislation supporting new trade agreements, it was one of the few subjects that did not raise Republican ire. It
did not meet with much enthusiasm from Obama's fellow Democrats, however, who lined up to pan the
president's proposal to push the trade agenda forward. No problem, said a White House aide several days
later, the President will “steamroll” them.
The politics of trade have long broken down along fairly strict partisan lines; pro-business Republicans are for trade and pro-labor
Democrats are against it. Freed from narrow constituent politics, however, Democrats in the White House have pushed for greater
openness to trade, largely because expanding trade is a necessarily an important part of the foreign policy
agenda of any president interested in maintaining the United States’ global leadership.
President Clinton famously passed the North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normal trade relations with China. So
it isn’t surprising that Obama views new trade deals as central to his foreign policy legacy.
Still, getting new trade agreements through Congress is tough sledding for presidents of any
party. Populist demagoguing and popular myth still hold that trade kills American jobs. Many voters of all stripes believe this.
Butressing America's international leadership makes for far less compelling images than
those of shuttered factories that have lost their competitive edge to job-stealing firms on the other
side of the planet. The misery of the few who lose out in the shuffle of trade liberalization has huge political resonance, even if the
overall economic benefit to Americans significantly outweighs the detriment.
The policy landscape is littered with competing studies that demonstrate the success or failure of trade agreements. Depending on
who you believe, NAFTA has cost or delivered millions of jobs. Permanently normalized trade relations for China resulted in the
greatest and worst transfer of wealth in human history, unless actually it didn’t. The obvious reality is that trade liberalization
produces some losers, even if the rest of us are winners. But stories about the collapse of American manufacturing and televised
portraits of out-of-work breadwinners make for more sympathetic news stories than the fact that a new trade deal has added a few
hundred dollars to the purchasing power of the average family.
The way policymakers talk about trade is often disingenuous. Trade agreements these days are about reducing barriers to trade in a
supply chain that can wend through many countries. They are about standardizing approaches to information gathering and policy
making. They set rules for economic governance that limit discrimination and encourage greater opportunities for an increased
number and kind of enterprises in the economy. And importantly, they set the rules for trade in services, which is the forgotten giant
in international trade.
This is all wonky stuff, so when forced to talk about trade without putting its audience to sleep, the administration finds itself
reverting to simplification. When in doubt, Obama and the administration, like previous Republican and Democratic
administrations, talk about how trade agreements are about exports, as the president did when he proposed in his 2010 State of the
Union speech to double U.S. exports in five years. We didn’t come close, but it was a worthy aspiration.
The global economy and the role of the United States in that economy has changed dramatically since the 1950s, but the politics of
trade is still very much grounded in that long-ago epoch. Back then, you made a finished product in one country and sold it to
another. The way trade data is gathered still assumes a 1950s approach; the country in which a product’s assembly is finalized gets
full credit for the value of that product. So China gets full credit for the value of an iPhone it assembles from component parts made
in other countries, including the lion’s share of the value that iPhone represents: its design, which really never left Cupertino, Calif.
The enduring, alluring image of the “good (manufacturing) job at good wages” from the days in the 1950s in which manufacturing
employed 60 percent of American workers, is tough to shake in the public and political consciousness. Despite the fact that fewer
than 10 percent of Americans work in manufacturing and that America’s role in international trade is increasingly focused on design
and technological development, and providing services, the iconic assembly line worker is the poster child for U.S. trade policy.
He or she isn’t doing as well these days.
So even pro-trade members of Congress are wary of trade votes. No politician wants to hear the wrath of outof-work constituents on local TV news or splashed across negative campaign advertising come election time. Obama
and his
team have plenty of hard work ahead to convince even Republicans that a vote in
favor of his trade deals won’t be Exhibit Number 1 when a political opponent want to suggest
that he or she has lost touch with voters. One otherwise pro-trade GOP lawmaker
privately said, “Give us an excuse not to vote on trade.” Steamrolling Democrats into a
pro-trade vote may prove even harder.
The common wisdom is that Republicans need a sizable corpus of Democrats to fall on their swords and
vote yes on trade deals. That number could be as few as 20 in the House, but the smaller the
number, the greater the chance recalcitrant Republicans who feel electorally vulnerable will
refuse to go along.
At primary issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement being negotiated with 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific
region. The economic rationale for the TPP is significant. Trade within Asia has been booming, largely in
component parts that have been assembled into finished products in China and exported
primarily to the United States and Europe. The TPP would draw the United States closer to the
boom.
But the economics are changing because Asians are getting richer. This is having two effects. First, Asians are increasingly able to
buy more things from abroad. Second, the United States as a manufacturing center is becoming more viable as production in Asia is
becoming more expensive, although don’t expect many new jobs on the assembly line here, unless you are a robot or a
semiconductor chip. So putting the TPP in place is a way to set the table for American competitiveness
in the broader regional economy as it develops.
Whatever its economic merits, it is the strategic imperative of TPP that may be driving the White House to demand its passage.
Getting an agreement in place would be the signature piece in the president’s platform to “rebalance” or
“pivot” to the world’s fastest growing region. The trade deal would cement the role of the
United States as the prime mover on regional economic and strategic architecture.
If TPP fails, the international power, prestige and economic clout of the United
States will suffer a grave setback. The stakes are large.
The president’s trade team, led by U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman, is composed of the most canny
and skilled negotiators on the planet. Negotiations are largely closed to public scrutiny. A more public process would
gum up the works, although there is genuine and reasonable concern about the lack of transparency among lawmakers, who view the
regulation of commerce as a congressional power. But those who have had access to the current text of the
agreement are encouraged by what they’ve seen. But even Froman’s team cannot overcome what the 11 other
countries in the negotiations know, which is that Congress has final constitutional authority to establish the terms on which the
United States trades. Without some method of preventing Congress from amending TPP, the final deal will look almost nothing like
what Asian nations agree with Obama's negotiators.
This is why other all
America's trade partners are waiting anxiously for Obama to be granted trade
he gets it, they will not give their final, best offers to the his
negotiators. TPA would force an up-or-down vote on the deal the president sends to Congress. But who in Congress,
Republican or Democrat, is eager to give the president a blank legislative check on any issue
these days? Republicans, particularly those on the Right, are loath to provide him with powers the the Constitution otherwise
promotion authority (TPA). Until
reserves to Congress. Democrats, smarting from their election losses of 2014, which many ascribe to Obama’s unpopularity, aren’t
keen on helping him burnish his legacy, particularly with an issue that splits his base. Talk of “steamrolling” probably doesn’t do
much to advance the cause.
Supporters of trade and the TPP are hoping that the president’s alternatively vaunted and
lampooned skills as a community organizer will be brought to bear and knit
together this fractious community. Similar efforts by the Clinton and Bush administrations
involved all hands on deck and late-night phone calls by the president to individual
lawmakers.
The pro-trade community is cheered by recent talk that Obama will create a whip group of
cabinet officers chaired in the White House to rally support for first TPA and then TPP (and then,
possibly, for a trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership with Europe). But if the President is truly going to launch a campaign
with the kind of retail politicking necessary to drive "yes" votes on trade, it would be a solitary outlier in the otherwise-aloof
legislative strategy practiced by this White House. After all, the president’s signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act,
was notoriously passed with a White House legislative strategy that consisted primarily of cheering from the sidelines.
If the legislative activity on trade is as buzzing as some in the administration suggest, it’s a little alarming that few if any of the key
members and staffers on the Hill seem to have heard from anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. purporting to be whipping their votes.
Froman has thus far been the frontman selling the trade agenda, but despite his strengths, he
can’t deliver the votes to pass the agreements he is negotiating with other countries.
What’s in the TPP will affect the politics involved in passing it. There is a delicate balance in the construction
of trade agreements. The administration almost certainly will attempt to inject new provisions into it
that will reduce the ability of other countries to use lax labor and environmental regulations as a
competitive trade advantage. These provisions aim to respond to demands from the Democratic
base that, to paraphrase opponents of the deal, “trade agreements shouldn’t only be about trade.” However, strong labor and
environmental provisions are far from likely to win votes from lawmakers who fundamentally
dislike trade.
The primary beneficiaries of trade liberalization are, after all, private sector companies whose agenda is held in deep suspicion by
the Left. Despite the fact that only around 15 percent of the private sector workforce is organized, the labor movement is deeply
antagonistic to market-opening trade agreements that are perceived to place U.S. workers under new pressures. The environmental
movement views trade agreements as race-to-the-bottom exercises, and will lobby bitterly against a TPP regardless of new
provisions to raise environmental standards.
If the president wants progress on other parts of his policy agenda — the trade agenda only took up 15
sentences of an hour-long State of the Union address — he
will need the support of his base. And traditional
progressive constituencies have warned that spending too much political capital on trade
will imperil their support on other issues.
If the Obama administration will find it difficult to appease the Left, a TPP that seems focused more on left-of-center concerns than
on opening markets will undermine the interest of the business community in rallying support for passage. As a trade association
executive lamented recently, “There’s a big difference between business saying its for trade legislation — and it will be almost as a
knee-jerk reaction — and actually committing resources and CEO time to lobby on behalf of that legislation.” Thus far, not much
time or money have been committed by the business community to get out the vote on either TPA or TPP. Business leaders, and not
just Washington representatives of American businesses, will need to make the trek to Capitol Hill personally for members to be
comfortable voting for trade.
Appeasing all these constituencies is complicated. Further complicating the task is the fact that the political
process in Washington has a global audience, and the messaging behind a pro-TPP narrative is read far beyond the Beltway. Other
TPP members will attempt to read the process with a view to finalizing their offers, which in some cases will be complicated by
domestic political events back home. Some will rush to complete TPP even before TPA is granted to avoid the appearance of being
captive to U.S. politics. Although some analysts believe that TPP could be passed through Congress
even absent TPA, it would make an already fraught process that much riskier. “I hope,” said one
Republican trade staffer, “they’re smarter than that.”
Even beyond the TPP countries, other eyes are watching goings-on in Washington carefully. During the State of the Union speech,
the president raised the specter of competition with China as a reason to pass trade legislation. "China wants to write the rules for
the world's fastest-growing region,” he said. It may have been a message intended only for the Hill — fodder for the China paranoia
that sometimes drives legislation. But the administration has for years been trying to convince China that the TPP and the “pivot to
Asia” were not about containing China’s rise. The State of the Union speech complicated that message, and official and unofficial
Chinese reactions were blistering. The White House will have to smooth over those ruffled feathers to manage that most important
strategic relationship, even if it is very likely that anti-China rhetoric will be an important part of the overall narrative behind the
whip votes on Capitol Hill.
Momentum behind a TPA bill could pick up quickly. Rumors that the Senate Finance
and House Ways & Means Committees are moving to mark up bills in February and March
could begin to crank up the political machinery. And that will start to test the ability of the
White House to cajole individual members into supporting the bill. That will take a
willingness to respond to district-by-district requests for favors in areas other than trade. It will
require the administrative to help develop narratives that provide members with answers to the question: “Why did you vote for this
bill.” Figuring out what members want for their votes and delivering on those asks is new territory for this White House, and will
take an awful lot of support from pro-business lobbyists with which this White House has sought to avoid contact since the start of
the Obama presidency.
Finally, the reality of the political calendar is lost on no one. With the President’s term now ticking
down to 23 months left, and with little love lost between Republican leaders and the White
House, it's possible that the GOP might pass trade promotion authority in hope of handing it off
to the next president, whom they hope will be a member of their party. Trade promotion authority with a
the TPP deal is not a legacy either the president or his fellow Democrats would be proud of.
It would also be playing poker with American power and prestige abroad. The stakes are high. But the politics of trade are low
indeed.
Extinction
Richard N. Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, “The World
Without America,” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-ofamerican-power-by-richard-n--haass
Let me posit a radical idea: The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable
future is not a rising China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate change.
Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its burgeoning debt,
crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and slow
economic growth – in short, the domestic foundations of American power . Readers in other countries may
be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in America’s difficulties.
Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the
indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples of inconsistency between America’s practices
and its principles understandably provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to
others, it breeds resentment. But, like most temptations, the urge to gloat at America’s imperfections and struggles ought to be
resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for. America’s failure to deal with its internal
challenges would come at a steep price. Indeed, the rest of the world’s stake in American success is nearly as large as
that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US
growth accelerates, America’s capacity to consume other countries’ goods and services will
increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when Europe is drifting and Asia is
slowing, only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global economic
recovery . The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the world’s citizens communicate with mobile devices based on
technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in
the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its
way around the globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports
and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class universities educate a significant percentage
of future world leaders. More fundamentally, the US has long been a leading example of what market
economies and democratic politics can accomplish. People and governments around the world are
far more likely to become more open if the American model is perceived to be succeeding. Finally,
the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to halt the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world economic order that promotes
trade and investment to regulating practices in cyberspace, improving global health, and preventing
armed conflicts. These problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out . While
Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the world of
geopolitics . Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global
responses to global challenges. Don’t get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively
with the world’s problems on its own. Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the very nature of
contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But multilateralism
is much easier to advocate than to design and implement. Right now there is only one candidate for
this role: the US. No other country has the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This
brings me back to the argument that the US must put its house in order – economically , physically, socially, and
politically – if it is to have the resources needed to promote order in the world . Everyone should hope that it
does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India,
or any other country, but rather a world that is not led at all. Such a world would almost certainly be
characterized by chronic crisis and conflict. That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast
majority of the planet’s inhabitants.
2NC IMPACT
Our impact outweighs, turns and solves them
Miriam Sapiro 14, Visiting Fellow in the Global Economy and Development program at
Brookings, former Deputy US Trade Representative, former Director of European Affairs at the
National Security Council, “Why Trade Matters,” September 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why%20trade%20matters
/trade%20global%20views_final.pdf
This policy brief explores the economic rationale and strategic imperative of an ambitious domestic and global trade agenda from the perspective of the United States. International trade is often viewed through
the relatively narrow prism of trade-offs that might be made among domestic sectors or between trading partners, but it is important to consider also the impact that increased trade has on global growth,
With that context in mind, this paper assesses the implications of the Asia-Pacific and European trade
negotiations underway, including for countries that are not participating but aspire to join. It outlines some of the challenges that stand in the way of completion and ways in which they
development and security.
can be addressed. It examines whether the focus on “mega-regional” trade agreements comes at the expense of broader liberalization or acts as a catalyst to develop higher standards than might otherwise be
possible. It concludes with policy recommendations for action by governments, legislators and stakeholders to address concerns that have been raised and create greater domestic support.¶ It is fair to ask whether
dire developments are threatening the security interests of the United
In the Middle East, significant areas of Iraq have been overrun by a toxic offshoot of
Al-Qaeda, civil war in Syria rages with no end in sight, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in tatters. Nuclear
negotiations with Iran have run into trouble, while Libya and Egypt face continuing instability and domestic challenges. In Asia, historic rivalries
and disputes over territory have heightened tensions across the region, most acutely by China’s aggressive moves in the
South China Sea towards Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines. Nuclear-armed North Korea remains isolated, reckless and
unpredictable. In Africa, countries are struggling with rising terrorism, violence and corruption. In Europe, Russia continues to foment instability and
destruction in eastern Ukraine. And within the European Union, lagging economic recovery and the surge in support for extremist parties have left people fearful of increasing violence against
we should be concerned about the future of international trade policy when
States and its partners in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe.
immigrants and minority groups and skeptical of further integration.¶ It is tempting to focus solely on these pressing problems and defer less urgent issues—such as forging new disciplines for international
trade—to another day, especially when such issues pose challenges of their own. But that would be a mistake. A key motivation in building greater domestic and international consensus for
advancing trade liberalization now is precisely the role that greater economic integration can play in opening up new avenues of opportunity for promoting
development and increasing economic prosperity. Such initiatives can help stabilize key regions and strengthen the security of the United
States and its partners.¶ The last century provides a powerful example of how expanding trade relations can help reduce global tensions and
raise living standards. Following World War II, building stronger economic cooperation was a centerpiece of allied efforts to erase battle scars and embrace former enemies. In defeat,
the economies of Germany, Italy and Japan faced ruin and people were on the verge of starvation. The United States led efforts to rebuild Europe and to repair Japan’s economy. A key
element of the Marshall Plan, which established the foundation for unprecedented growth and the level of European integration that exists today, was to revive trade by reducing
tariffs.1 Russia, and the eastern part of Europe that it controlled, refused to participate or receive such assistance. Decades later, as the Cold War ended, the United States and Western Europe sought to make up
for lost time by providing significant technical and financial assistance to help integrate central and eastern European countries with the rest of Europe and the global economy. ¶ There have been subsequent calls
for a “Marshall Plan” for other parts of the world,2 although the confluence of dedicated resources, coordinated support and existing capacity has been difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, important lessons have
economic development can
defusing tensions
been learned about the valuable role
play in
, and how opening markets can hasten growth. There is again
a growing recognition that economic security and national security are two sides of the same coin. General Carter Ham, who stepped down as head of U.S. Africa Command last year, observed the close connection
between increasing prosperity and bolstering stability. During his time in Africa he had seen that “security and stability in many ways depends a lot more on economic growth and opportunity than it does on
military strength.”3 Where people have opportunities for themselves and their children, he found, the result was better governance, increased respect for human rights and lower levels of conflict.¶ During his
confirmation hearing last year, Secretary John Kerry stressed the link between economic and national security in the context of the competitiveness of the United States but the point also has broader application.
Our nation cannot be strong abroad, he argued, if it is not strong at home, including by putting its own fiscal house in order. He asserted—rightly so—that “more than ever foreign policy is economic policy,”
Every day, he said, “that goes by where America is uncertain about engaging in that
unwilling to demonstrate our resolve to lead, is a day in which we weaken
our nation itself.”4¶ Strengthening America’s economic security by cementing its economic alliances is not
simply an option, but an imperative. A strong nation needs a strong economy that can generate growth, spur innovation and create jobs. This is true, of course, not only for the United States but
particularly in light of increasing competition for global resources and markets.
arena, or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win,
also for its key partners and the rest of the global trading system. Much as the United States led the way in forging strong military alliances after World War II to discourage a resurgence of militant nationalism in
Europe or Asia, now is the time to place equal emphasis on shoring up our collective economic security. A
place
failure to act now could undermine international security and
stability in key regions in further jeopardy.
Turns warming
Benson 13 - Intern at the Streit Council
[Johann Benson (Master’s degree in public policy at the University of Minnesota’s
Humphrey School of Public Affairs), “Toward a Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement: What Impact on World Trade?,” Streit Talk,
July 26, 2013 pg. http://blog.streitcouncil.org/?tag=ttip
With negotiations now officially underway, the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is
taking its first steps
toward becoming reality. Questions remain, however; not only about what form the final agreement may take, but also
what effect it could have on international trade.
In its initial assessment of the TTIP, the
OECD notes that while multilateral arrangements are preferable, bilateral and
“can be supportive of an effective multilateral
trading system.” One of the primary ways in which these agreements can promote trade at the global
level is by addressing issues that currently lie outside the scope of WTO regulations. Richard
Baldwin, of the Graduate Institute in Geneva and the Centre for Economic Policy Research, has
plurilateral agreements like the proposed TTIP
laid out the shortcomings of current WTO regulations and how post-2000 trade agreements are fundamentally different from those
of the 1990s.
Baldwin argues that the rise of global supply chains has elevated the importance of removing non-
tariff barriers, while tariffs (with some notable exceptions) have largely fallen by the wayside. Current WTO
regulations (as well as agenda items of the stalled Doha Round) are not adequate for addressing the most
pressing issues of international commerce and investment, such as competition (or antitrust) policy, the movement of
capital, intellectual property rights (IPR), and investment assurances. These issues can and often have
been addressed through recent bilateral trade and investment agreements. Critically, Baldwin also notes that
there is a feedback effect from increased trade liberalization that makes future liberalization
even more likely. It is for this reason, if no other, that an EU-U.S. free trade agreement is a step in
the right direction.
Economic gains from the TTIP would mainly come from the harmonization of regulations and the removal of other non-tariff
barriers. While the agreement is expected to lead to trade diversion among EU members (in the case of an ambitious agreement, for
example, total trade between the UK and Spain would decrease by about 45%), it is projected that the TTIP would benefit
the struggling economies of southern Europe even more than the EU as a whole. It would also drive trade
creation between the EU and the U.S., and between the transatlantic area and third parties . For
example, if car safety standards are harmonized in the European and American markets, it lowers costs not only for U.S. and EU
automakers, but also for any other company that exports to both markets. In fact, the third parties with the largest
expected gains from the TTIP are ASEAN countries, due to their very high trade to GDP
ratios. Unfortunately, the fact that third parties often benefit from the removal of non-tariff barriers can also act as an obstacle to
bilateral agreements. For instance, Jagdish Bhagwati has noted that getting rid of production subsidies requires a multilateral
agreement because “you cannot – bilaterally – say that if the U.S. reduces or relaxes production subsidies, it will be only for New
Zealand. Or only for Brazil.” This may, in some respects, limit the breadth and depth of the TTIP.
One of Bhagwati’s other worries about preferential trade agreements is that they create dispute settlement mechanisms that favor
the stronger trading partner and undermine the WTO’s own dispute settlement mechanism. If the TTIP is eventually opened to
newcomers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, any country wishing to join the agreement – for which there would be strong incentives –
would be strictly a rule-taker, with absolutely no say in the drafting of existing regulations. While numerous commentators argue
that the primary objective of the TTIP is to ensure that “the United States and Europe remain standard makers, rather than standard
takers, in the global economy,” there is a risk that China and other emerging economies will attempt to erect trading blocs amongst
themselves and create their own rules.
Completing the Doha Round may still be an uphill battle after the TTIP is concluded. The agreement is not likely to
seriously threaten the multilateral trading system for the simple fact that bilateral deals – no matter
how large – are themselves unable to address a longer list of the world’s most pressing trade issues.
Resource and food security, exchange rate policy, and efforts to limit carbon
emissions all demand multilateral solutions. But the TTIP could provide a launching pad to
address these and other issues.
Protectionism increasing now---TPA key
Alex Lennane 14, staff writer for the Load Star, LA-based journal that covers trade and
shipping issues, “FedEx chief slams protectionist policies that hamper the growth of world
trade”, 3/14/14, http://theloadstar.co.uk/symposium5/
But, he warned: “One big reason trade is no longer growing rapidly is the rise of
protectionism…Over the last few years almost every trading nation has instituted policies
that permit greater regulatory intervention in the trade processes—often justified by overzealous security
considerations. Unfortunately, in many other cases, the protectionism is overt and politically driven.¶ The result of all these factors is
that exports have been declining with most major trading partners since 2010.Ӧ His comments were
backed by Brian Pearce, chief economist for IATA, who noted that nearly
500 protectionist measures were
taken in 2012, “lowering international trade growth”.¶ “Beggar-my-neighbour policies don’t work as everyone does
it,” he said. “Governments need to implement the Bali agreement and as a policy issue, we need to lobby governments.¶ “World trade
is much weaker than it should have been. Growth has flatlined since the recovery and has only moved as fast as domestic
consumption.Ӧ Claiming that innovation, investment and larger markets had been the main drivers to reducing poverty, Mr Smith
noted that last year the top 20 world economies passed 23% more protectionist measures than in
2009.¶ The US was next on his list. Despite recent efforts on trade initiatives such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) “prospects for more robust trade liberalization
are not good in 2014 in part because of the US election cycle.¶ “Both Democrats and Republicans are even resisting
the re-institution of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which gives the US president the ability to negotiate
trade deals with only an up or down vote by Congress. And in the absence of TPA, there is no
possibility of America again leading the way – as it did for over 50 years – towards more open markets.¶
“This is indeed unfortunate as history shows innovation, investment, and larger markets have been the main drivers in improving
living standards and reducing poverty around the world.”
AT: THUMPERS – TOP LEVEL
TPA is Obama’s top priority --- other issues might be on the radar but this what the
administration is prioritizing.
Rogers, 1/21/15 (Alex, “Here’s the One State of the Union Talking Point Republicans Liked,”
http://time.com/3676347/state-of-the-union-2015-trade/, JMP)
A debate over the next round of global trade deals is heating up in Congress this year
About a half-hour into President Obama’s State of the Union a strange thing happened: most of
the Republicans jumped up and cheered while most Democrats stayed seated and silent. It was
the only time it happened Tuesday night, and the topic was trade.
“China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region,” said Obama. “That would
put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. Why should we let that happen? We should
write those rules. We should level the playing field.”
“I’m the first one to admit that past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype, and that’s
why we’ve gone after countries that break the rules at our expense,” added Obama, who earned a
brief cheer from democratic socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders before continuing. “But 95%
of the world’s customers live outside our borders, and we can’t close ourselves off from those
opportunities. More than half of manufacturing executives have said they’re actively looking at
bringing jobs back from China. Let’s give them one more reason to get it done.”
There are few areas of agreement between Obama and the new Republican Congress, but trade
promotion authority, or TPA, which would ease the passage of the 12-country Trans Pacific
Partnership, or TPP, potentially the largest free trade agreement ever, is one of them. For years
the Administration has been negotiating TPP—affecting about 40% of the world’s GDP and
about a third of the world’s trade—but so far Obama has yet to prove to Republicans that he is
willing to spend the time, effort and political capital to get it done. But on Tuesday night, the
Republicans’ response to his message was ecstatic.
The Republican Senate and House whips, Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Louisiana Rep. Steve
Scalise, said that the trade talk was “probably one of the brightest spots” and “the most
promising part” of the speech. Other top Republicans who criticize Obama around the clock, like
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said they hoped the President would now push the
issue. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, the most senior member, said
Obama’s remarks were “welcome but long overdue.”
In 1993, President Bill Clinton led an all-out push to get the massive North America trade deal
through Congress. There were face-to-face White House meetings with Congressmen, White
House envoys roaming the Hill, and 37 Commerce Department reports targeting industries
“from computers to autos,” according to a Christian Science Monitor report, that helped show
Congressmen how NAFTA would help their constituents. In October of that year, former CEO of
the Chrysler Corporation, Lee Iacocca, stood on the White House South Lawn with hundreds of
products (and businessmen) touting what the Administration believed would thrive under
NAFTA. Under the white tents, Clinton joked to a pro-trade union man that he would wear the
man’s company hat if he gave a speech. A month later, the House passed the bill in a squeaker
and the Senate did shortly thereafter.
This time around, Republicans are hoping for another all-out Administration effort on TPP and
the “fast-track” bill, which would allow limited congressional debate, no amendments, and an
up-or-down vote. The Administration says such a bill is vital to pass TPP, as countries would
be less willing to negotiate if they knew Congress could make large changes to the deal. But
liberals are livid with Obama’s trade talk; they set up a press conference Wednesday to air out
their concerns.
“The typical business plan in this country because of trade and tax policies: You shut down
production in Cleveland and you move it to Beijing and sell the products back to the United
States,” said Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown after the State of the Union. “That makes no sense. And
he’s wrong on that as his predecessors were.”
“If you think that previous trade agreements. . . have done well, you should support the TPP,”
said Sanders. “But if you believe, as I do, that they have been disastrous, that they have cost us
millions of decent paying jobs, then it make no sense to go forward in a failed policy and it
should be defeated. . . . At the end of the day, among many other concerns, American workers
are going to be forced to compete against people in Vietnam who make a minimum wage of 56
cents an hour.”
Still pro-trade lawmakers like Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill believe that
Obama can bring “enough” Democrats to pass a “fast-track” trade bill. Democratic
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, who supported the North American Free Trade Agreement in
1993 but opposed the more recent trade agreement bills with South Korea, Panama and
Columbia, said Obama “probably” has the votes now to pass a TPA bill through Congress,
although it’s easier in the Senate than House, where some conservatives have also raised an
uproar about giving more power to the President.
The White House has recently increased its outreach efforts, tasking every Cabinet
member to divvy up and target 80 House Democrats, according to the Hill newspaper. In an
email Wednesday, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker told TIME that the trade agenda is a
“top priority” for the Administration. “We are taking an ‘all-hands-on-deck’
approach to getting this done,” she said. “We are all out talking not only to members of
Congress but to business leaders and workers around the country, telling the story of why trade
and exports matter.”
The United State Trade Representative office touts that over nearly five years it has held over
1,600 congressional briefings on TPP. United States Trade Ambassador Michael Froman
rebutted liberals’ concerns in a press conference on Wednesday, saying that manufacturing jobs
are coming back from overseas and that export-related jobs pay 13 to 18 percent more than
other jobs. “It gives us the opportunity to protect workers, protect the environment and level the
playing field,” said Froman of TPP.
Still, Obama has a ways to go in getting broad support for both TPA and TPP. New
York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of the Democratic leadership and Finance Committee,
says “many of us wouldn’t support” TPA unless it addressed some China-related concerns. And
the top Democrat on the influential Ways and Means Committee, Michigan Rep. Sandy Levin,
says the Administration, Congress and outside groups need to immediately “tear apart” other
outstanding issues, including those related to the environment and currency manipulation.
“I think it’s a mistake essentially to say let’s fast-track a package when there isn’t a real
understanding of the issues and their resolution,” he said. “So that should be the focus right now
and that will be the strong basis for getting bipartisan support. If we don’t do that, I don’t think
there’s a chance that there will be bipartisan support.”
AT: MARIJUANA BUDGET THUMPER
Marijuana reference in budget doesn’t thump
 No federal legalization
 Long term at best
 GOP won’t cause a fight over it
Krieg, 2/2/15 (Gregory, “President Obama Just Took a Stand for Legal Weed in the Nation's
Capital,” http://mic.com/articles/109704/president-obama-just-took-a-stand-for-legal-weedin-the-nation-s-capital, JMP)
By inserting one simple word into his 2016 federal budget proposal, President Barack Obama
has revived the long fight to end marijuana prohibition in Washington, D.C.
On Election Day, voters in the nation's capital overwhelmingly approved a measure to legalize
the possession and use of marijuana inside its borders. But Congress undermined the results of
the referendum just a month later, writing language into the 2015 federal spending bill that
would block the local government from enacting the new law.
President Obama's $4 trillion budget request for 2016 was released early Monday morning. It
took a few hours, but by early afternoon Tom Angell from the Marijuana Majority had eyed the
clever new wording. Obama's budget proposal bans only "federal" funds from being used to
enact a law to legalize marijuana. By not qualifying "funds," the Congressional language
prohibited all money, even from the district's own tax base.
[image of tweet omitted]
Like the congressional bill from December, the new budget will be subject to revisions from
Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate. As the Washington Post reports, it is likely that
Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, will try to edit out the White House's new language.
But this time, the debate will occur over the course of months and not, like in December 2014,
with a government shutdown looming. With more important legislation in the works,
Republicans might not want to expend precious political capital on an issue with such
overwhelming support in Washington, D.C., where a number of lawsuits are pending and Mayor
Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, has already vowed to go forward in spite of Congress' efforts.
Initiative 71, which passed by a 69.4% to 30.4% margin in November, would make it legal for
anyone 21 and older to possess up to two ounces of marijuana and grow no more than six plants.
Sales are forbidden, but growers would be allowed to share their bud.
The White House has sent mixed messages to the millions of Americans fighting to end
marijuana prohibition. It has directed the Department of Justice not to enforce federal bans in
states like Colorado and Washington that have legalized weed through popular votes. But federal
prosecutors are still trying to get tough sentences for people allegedly caught growing marijuana
in defiance of state law. Just last week, new attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch told
senators she did "not support the legalization of marijuana" and believed it to be more
dangerous than alcohol.
Common sense and the public disagree with her on the latter point. But for today at least, the
White House is doing its best to keep Republicans in Congress from blocking the will of the
people.
It won’t be a real fight – it’s just posturing
Waldman, 1/27/15 - Paul Waldman is a contributor to The Plum Line blog, and a senior
writer at The American Prospect. (Paul, The Plum Line blog for the Washington Post, “Don’t
believe the hype: Obama and Republicans will reach a budget deal. Here’s why.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/01/29/dont-believe-the-hypeobama-and-republicans-will-reach-a-budget-deal-heres-why/
The language here is a little overwrought (“hurtling toward a clash…blowing through statutory
spending caps”), and it comes from a common journalistic impulse to treat every policy
disagreement like it’s the Thrilla in Manila. So let’s all take a breath. Of course Republicans
weren’t going to like whatever budget President Obama proposed. The opposition party always
objects to the president’s budget.
But I’m ready to make a prediction: they’re going to work all this out and come to an agreement.
Nobody will be completely happy with it, and as usual the tea partiers will call it a betrayal, but
even in this age of bitter partisanship, the Republican Congress and the Democratic president
will find their way to a budget deal. Here’s why:
Nobody likes sequestration. The original idea behind the sequester was that it was such an
undesirable prospect that in order to avoid it, the “super-committee” created in 2011 would
agree on a budget-cutting plan that would be passed by Congress and signed by the president.
That didn’t happen, so the sequester’s indiscriminate cuts took effect. Both sides want to get rid
of it — Republicans don’t like the defense cuts, and Democrats don’t like the domestic cuts. That
desire isn’t enough in and of itself to force an agreement, but it offers a strong incentive,
especially when combined with other factors.
The spending increase Obama is seeking is very small. While we don’t yet have details on the
president’s proposal, early reports are that he’ll be asking for $70 billion in spending over the
caps in the 2011 budget deal. In the scope of a budget that will be approaching $4 trillion, that’s
nothing. Yes, the fact that Obama is proposing any increase in government spending will be
decried by Republicans, but here’s the reality: in a country that’s always growing, in a world that
gets more complicated, government spending goes up. That’s just what it does.
Because of that 2011 agreement, we spent less in 2012 than we had in 2011, and less in 2013
than we did in 2012. That was unprecedented — only once since 1948 did the government spend
less than it had the year before (in 1965, and only by a hair). If we’re talking about an increase
over the 2014 budget of just a bit, it’s not only a return to normal (admittedly, a normal
conservatives don’t like), but it’s small enough that it won’t require enormous concessions to
work out a compromise.
Another government shutdown fight is the last thing Republicans want. The single most
important priority for congressional Republicans right now is to get a Republican president
elected in 2016. If they can do that, it’ll be like walking into the public policy version of Willy
Wonka’s chocolate factory, where rivers of delicious tax cuts flow and everlasting gobstoppers of
environmental deregulation are waiting to be sucked on until everyone passes out on a cottoncandy bed of abortion restrictions. So they don’t want to do anything to screw that up, and a
government shutdown fight late this year would demonstrate once again that Republicans can’t
be trusted to govern.
That’s the most important reason why they’re going to work out a deal: because for Republicans,
the alternative is to make it more likely that Hillary Clinton becomes president. There will most
certainly be a lot of posturing and breast-beating along the way. But they’ll get it done.
AT: CYBER
No bill
Liptak, 1/20/15 (Kevin, “Reality Check: Are Obama's State of the Union proposals realistic?,”
CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/politics/obama-sotu-proposals/ //Red)
The other major push this week -- made at the Federal Trade Commission and at the law
enforcement agency responsible for investigating hacks -- was toward bolstering the country's
cyber protections. It's a goal Republicans and Obama both say they aiming for.
When GOP leaders met Obama at the White House Tuesday it was one of the areas where both
sides said they agreed, though formal legislation -- where hang-ups usually arise -hasn't yet been introduced.
There's disagreement on which U.S. agency should gather information about cyber
threats, and just how much information about Americans should be shared with the
government. But lawmakers on both sides say they think something can pass.
Doesn’t cost PC
Benner, 1/21/15 (Katie, “Is Corporate America ready for real cyber-security?,” Chicago
Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-union-cyber-comment2120150121-story.html //Red)
Barack Obama wants to prod corporations into addressing their cybersecurity weaknesses and
he used his State of the Union speech Tuesday night to do just that.
Obama also placed responsibility for inaction and any damage from future attacks on the
shoulders of a deeply divided, partisan Congress. His proposals are still largely shapeless.
But if Congress doesn't help develop an aggressive plan and if companies are then hit by waves
of serious cyberattacks - as the most pessimistic security professionals believe will happen this
year - Republicans and Democrats alike may come under fire.
AT: TPA WON’T PASS
Obama is spending PC now to secure eventual passage --- the administration is all
in on trade
Inside U.S. Trade, 1/27/15 (“Hatc h Sets February Target For New TPA Bill, Says Currency
To Be Addressed,” http://insidetrade.com/201501272487123/WTO-Daily-News/DailyNews/hatch-sets-february-target-for-new-tpa-bill-says-currency-to-be-addressed/menu-id948.html, JMP)
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on Tuesday (Jan. 27) said he plans to introduce
a bill to renew Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) in February, laying out a timeline that informed sources had predicted
last week even as Hatch said publicly he planned to release the bill as early as this month.
"I'm hoping to move [a new TPA bill] along," he told reporters when asked about TPA timing after a Finance Committee hearing on
the president's trade policy agenda. "It will happen in February."
Hatch reiterated his call for the administration to make the case for TPA, a point also made by
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). He said it is necessary for President Obama to reach out to individual senators to ensure support
sufficient to prevent a filibuster.
"I know that the president is very much a believer in trade and Trade Promotion Authority," Grassley said to
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, who was the sole witness at the hearing. "But I hope you'll tell him that if
we're going to get TPA passed, he's going to have to work the phones one-on-one
with some senators [to] get us to the 60 vote threshold."
Froman was pressed whether the administration is committed to obtaining fast track, which he
affirmed. He said the president has been meeting privately with members of
Congress, a point also made by lobbyists who said Obama has spoken about the need for fast
track with members he has met when traveling outside Washington, DC.
Froman also said that the White House has organized a "whole-of-administration effort"
involving virtually the entire cabinet to talk about the importance of renewing TPA and
addressing members' questions about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Passage is likely but it requires Obama to convince Democrats
Needham, 2/4/15 (Vicki, “Ryan predicts passage of bipartisan trade promotion authority bill,”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/231809-ryan-predicts-passage-of-bipartisan-tradepromotion-authority-bill, JMP)
A top Republican said Wednesday that he expects Congress to pass trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation
this spring.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul
Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters that, with President Obama’s
help, the House and the Senate can pass a TPA measure with bipartisan support.
To that end, Ryan and Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio), chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, praised the
White House’s ramped up efforts to generate more support among Democrats.
"These are enormous issues that speak to the future of our country and I do believe it's good for the political system that we deliver
some common ground and we get some things done," he said.
Ryan said he "wouldn’t begin to try" to pass TPA with just Republicans votes because "I want it to be bipartisan."
For their part, the two lawmakers plan to build up support within the Republican caucus for
TPA.
They will hold what Ryan called "listening sessions" — similar to the dozens he held while chairman of the Budget committee — to
educate their caucus and clear out any misconceptions about trade.
Tiberi said that he wants to squash the idea that with fast-track Congress would be giving the president the authority to do
something that he doesn’t already have the power to do.
"What we are doing is putting the congressional stamp on what the White House already has the ability to do, negotiate trade deals,"
he said.
As far as timing, Ryan wouldn't provide specifics of when a fast-track bill would be ready to debut.
But said he is
well aware of the constraints of the calendar with TPA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) now moving along similar timing tracks.
"It going to happen soon, and we’ve got to get moving,” Ryan said.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has expressed a similar eagerness to get
a TPA bill introduced soon, and he has said legislation could be ready sometime after the
Presidents Day recess later this month.
The next round of TPP talks are set for mid-March with the expectations that a deal could be struck at that time.
Ryan and Hatch are among those lawmakers crafting the latest fast-track measure with the guts of the bill introduced more than a
year ago by former Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and former Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the top Democrat on Senate Finance, is seeking some changes and Ryan said he is working with him on
those issues but wouldn't provide specifics.
“We’re in active discussions with our counterparts over in the Senate and I’m optimistic about
those,” Ryan said.
“We’ve got to get going pretty fast here,” he said.
Number of groups, including administration, are confident it will pass
Donnan, 2/2/15 --- World Trade Editor (Shawn, “US trade chief Mike Froman sees prize
within reach,” http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cb067d52-a893-11e4-ad0100144feab7de.html#axzz3QepeNdPK, JMP)
If all goes to plan in the coming months, Mike Froman, US trade representative, is set to land
arguably the biggest prize in the country’s recent economic history.
The 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership, now nearing conclusion almost seven years after the US joined
negotiations, is daunting in size and scope and dwarfs the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico that went
into effect two decades ago.
Some 40 per cent of global output will be covered by the TPP, including two of the top three economies in the world (the US and
Japan). It will significantly lower tariffs and other trade barriers around the Pacific Rim on everything from rice and steaks to cars
and chemicals. It will contain enforceable standards on labour and the environment. It will set new benchmarks by delineating rules
for state-owned enterprises in the developing world and the digital economy. It will leave rivals in Beijing and Brussels salivating.
Yet the TPP is also already being derided by many inside President Barack Obama’s Democratic party and by the unions it has long
relied on for its base. At a time when Mr Obama is putting a new “middle class economics” and the fight against inequality at the
centre of his agenda, his push for new trade agreements causes many on his side of politics to squirm.
Such are the politics of trade in the US.
The consensus among many Democrats with regard to trade agreements and globalisation is that they have not been kind to the
middle class, having contributed to high-paying manufacturing jobs being shipped offshore and wages stagnating.
Economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have raised doubts about the TPP. Even as she has made friendly noises on
trade, Nancy Pelosi, the powerful Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, has been blunt about the administration’s
challenge.
“The burden is on [the White House] to demonstrate that this is good for American pay cheques,” she said last week.
But, sitting before the brick hearth in his office, spitting distance from the White House, Mr Froman is resolute.
“We’re doing this to protect American jobs and American workers,” he tells the Financial Times in an interview.
The TPP is, he argues, a way to open up more markets for US goods and services in fast-growing Asia and to create high-paying jobs
at home. It is also a way to level the playing field for American workers by including stronger labour and environmental standards
that will be enforceable via trade sanctions. And, with both Canada and Mexico included, to deliver on President Obama’s long-ago
campaign promise to renegotiate Nafta, something the progressive wing of the Democratic party has long sought.
“There are a lot of people who raise very legitimate concerns about the impact of globalisation on patterns of production, on jobs, on
wages. But I think it’s also important not to conflate globalisation with trade agreements,” Mr Froman says.
“Globalisation is a force. It exists. The question is whether we can use trade agreements to shape it, or whether we want to just sit
and be shaped by it.”
The US, he argues, needs to be at the forefront of setting the global rules of commerce. Countries like China are engaged in their own
rival bids to create regional blocs that exclude the US and do not include the sort of rules the US is pursuing on labour, intellectual
property or the internet. Ceding ground to such rivals “has got to be worse for American workers and the American middle class than
even the status quo”.
Negotiators from the US, Japan and the 10 other countries in the TPP are now involved in almost constant discussions. Chief
negotiators meeting in New York last week continued to make progress on important issues. Teams from the US and Japan will be in
Washington again this week working on their own bilateral deal focused on agricultural and auto products.
Obstacles clearly remain and negotiations remain tough. But a TPP deal is “a small number of
months” away, Mr Froman forecast during a Senate hearing last week.
The US has told its partners within the TPP that it wants to complete negotiations before the summer so that an agreement can be
put to Congress by the end of 2015 and before the 2016 presidential campaign heats up.
Amid pitched partisan battles on other issues, importantly the new Republican leadership in Congress says it
wants to give Mr Obama the “fast-track” authority he needs to close the TPP and, eventually, a parallel
negotiation with the EU.
Business groups, Republicans and the administration all believe a healthy majority
in Congress will back a vote on what is formally called Trade Promotion Authority. Asked whether he
expects such a vote to succeed, Mr Froman answers simply with a confident “Yes”.
The consensus in Washington is that Congress is likely to vote on fast-track authority within
two-three months and that a TPP deal will be closed shortly thereafter.
Mike Froman’s big moment — the US’s big trade moment — may well be not very far away.
Our evidence is assumptive of theirs which reflects just a few vocal opponents
Behsudi, 1/20/15 (Adam, “Left, right mobilize against Obama's trade push,”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-trade-push-criticism-114346.html, JMP)
Still, most of the rhetoric against Obama’s trade agenda has come largely from the most liberal
members of the Democratic Caucus.
On Jan. 8, DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Ellison (D-Minn.) led a group of liberal Democrats in launching what they claim is the largest
coalition of labor, environmental and other left-leaning groups ever to mobilize against a trade bill. Stopping the fast-track measure
would derail the TPP agreement, which they say would cause jobs to hemorrhage and the trade deficit to balloon as manufacturers
shift to cheaper production in developing nations, they say.
“There is no way in the world I can support fast track abdicating my responsibility, my authority as a member of Congress without
being very clear on every single comma in the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Ellison, who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive
Caucus, said at the rally.
Meanwhile, 19 conservative Republicans warned their party leadership in a letter last month against trying to pass the legislation in
the lame-duck session, saying at least 60 lawmakers wouldn’t be returning to Congress and therefore wouldn’t be accountable to the
public for their votes. The group, which now numbers 16 following three retirements at the end of the last Congress, signaled their
permanent ideological opposition to the bill and “habitual abuses of power of this President.”
“It is evident from the outcome of this month’s elections that any efforts to grant TPA to the President during a Lame Duck session
would be harmful to the trust that the American people just put in us at the ballot box,” the letter said.
Despite their vocal opposition, it’s unclear whether the liberals and tea party conservatives will
be able to squeak by with a defeat of the legislation.
“When you take an honest, sober look at the numbers, there really isn’t a credible way to argue
that TPA opponents will have much success in blocking this effort,” one U.S. official told POLITICO.
“That said, trade supporters are taking nothing for granted.”
Influential conservative groups like the Club for Growth and Heritage Action back most of the White House’s trade plans, and some
tea party darlings have already voiced support for the trade agenda.
“I am a full-throated advocate of free trade,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told reporters this month. “Free trade benefits America,
produces jobs, produces economic growth and it is good for our country.”
Trade proponents across the aisle say they’re are counting on support from 25 to 40 of the 188
House Democrats, mostly from the moderate, 46-member New Democrat Coalition.
Said one Democratic aide: “The important thing is, this is a fringe group of legislators coming out and
saying this right now. The bigger question is, what is the impact this is all having?”
The answer so far seems to be not much. The same day that DeLauro and her 16 fellow
Democrats announced their efforts to kill the trade legislation, House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi said her party’s stance on trade is not a foregone conclusion.
“I don’t know that most people in our caucus have made up their minds,” the California Democrat said
when asked about the legislation at a press conference. “Many have, yeah, but what they have made up their minds to
is that they want to see transparency. They want to see consultation. They want to see fairness.
They want to see what this means to the American paycheck.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told New
Democrats in a closed-door meeting earlier
this month that Pelosi has occasionally backed trade, and that her support shouldn’t be out of
the question this time around, a Democratic aide said.
To that end, the administration is giving members its best environmental and labor
pitch, saying new standards under the deal will be fully enforceable — something that Pelosi has fought for
in past agreements.
“TPP will be the most progressive trade agreement in history, breaking new ground on labor and environmental protections,” a
USTR spokesman said. “We are going to be making that case to Congress and the American people.”
Obama’s continued outreach is critical
Guida, 2/5/15 (Victoria, “President Barack Obama amps up personal trade pitch,”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obama-trade-democrats-congress114933.html?hp=b1_r2, JMP)
President Barack Obama
is stepping up his effort to push his trade agenda within his party,
reaching out personally to House freshmen who have expressed opposition and calling
the chamber’s Democratic trade leaders to the White House for some face time.
The president invited Democrats from the powerful House Ways and Means Committee to the White House on Wednesday so they
could air their trade-related worries just days after he made the case for new trade deals in a letter to freshman Democratic Rep.
Ruben Gallego of Arizona.
“I think you’re going to see a lot more” of that kind of advocacy from the president and his
Cabinet, said Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, one of the few House Democrats leading the charge in favor of free trade.
But trade is not an easy sell among Democrats, particularly in the House. Already, two freshmen, including
Gallego, have indicated they’re still not buying Obama’s trade pitch.
“At times friends have to agree to disagree, and this is one of those times,” Gallego’s representative said in a statement to POLITICO.
“While Congressman Gallego appreciates the president reaching out to him on this issue, the congressman believes it is critical that
Congress maintains its authority to ensure American trade agreements are a good deal for the American people.”
Gallego sent a letter to Obama last week indicating his opposition to trade promotion authority, which would allow the president to
submit trade deals to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without amendments. It was also signed by fellow freshmen
Democratic Reps. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mark DeSaulnier and Ted Lieu of California, Debbie Dingell and Brenda
Lawrence of Michigan, Kathleen Rice of New YOrk, Mark Takai of Hawaii and Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey.
The president urged them to reconsider. “If they succeed, our competitors would be free to ignore basic environmental and labor
standards, giving them an unfair advantage against American workers,” Obama wrote Gallego in a letter obtained by POLITICO.
“We can’t let that happen. We should write the rules, and level the playing field for the middle class.”
Copies of the president’s letter were also sent to the other Democrats who signed Gallego’s letter, but there’s no sign yet whether
their reaction is any more positive.
“Congress has a responsibility to the people it represents to fight for policies that protect manufacturing jobs,” Dingell said in a
statement to POLITICO. “I continue to be strongly opposed to fast track.” Trade promotion authority has historically been known as
fast-track negotiating authority.
The congresswoman went on to highlight one issue that’s not doing the president any favors in winning votes on trade: currency
manipulation.
It’s a hot-button issue within both parties because countries like China that purposely devalue their currency gain a trade advantage
over the U.S. by making their exports cheaper.
China’s not currently a member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a free trade deal the United States is negotiating with 11 AsiaPacific countries. But the Asian powerhouse could be someday, and it’s not the only country that lawmakers have raised currency
worries about. Japan is another one, and it is in the deal. Obama told House Democrats at their retreat last week, however, that
currency provisions won’t be in the Asia-Pacific agreement, according to two sources familiar with the discussion.
“My focus will be to continue to fight for currency provisions in the TPA and TPP,” Dingell said.
For now, negotiations on the Asia trade deal are continuing, and a fast-track bill has yet to be introduced. But that all could change
in a matter of months. Lawmakers are planning to begin marking up the legislation later this month or
early next, and once that happens, the trade talks are expected to speed to a conclusion, spurred
on by the existence of legislation that gives participating nations some assurance that their
victories on the negotiating table won’t be undone by Congress.
With 246 Republicans in the House and only 218 votes needed to pass the chamber, it’s unclear how many House Democrats will
even be needed to pass the fast-track bill. But just in case, Senate Finance Committee ranking Democrat Ron
Wyden of Oregon has sought input on the forthcoming legislation, which he’s negotiating with panel
Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), from the pro-trade House
New Democrat Coalition, chaired by Kind, congressional sources said.
One House Democratic aide said there’s a lot of skepticism among Democrats, who say they haven’t heard the administration
say loudly enough why the fast-track bill and trade in general would be good for workers. But now they are beginning to see
more signs of the White House publicly making the case — such as an op-ed that Labor Secretary Tom Perez
recently penned for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Washington.
Republicans, who largely support the president’s trade agenda, also worry about defections within their caucus by tea party
members and other conservatives who balk at the idea of giving this president more authority. For months, the GOP
leadership has been calling on Obama to get personally engaged to bring his own party on board
— something he now appears to be doing.
Ryan acknowledged that the administration has “stepped up their game quite a bit on
this.”
National Economic Council Director Jeffrey Zients “is getting Cabinet members engaged,” the Wisconsin Republican told reporters
at a briefing Wednesday. “The president had four or five Democrats down at the White House today. He and the vice president I
thought gave good remarks at the Democrats’ retreat. And we have lots of bipartisan committee meetings with [U.S. Trade
Representative Michael] Froman and Zients.”
“They need to keep it up,” he said.
Bill Clinton
perhaps set the standard for presidential efforts to round up trade votes during the
tempestuous debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement, said Greg Mastel, a former
Democratic aide on the Senate Finance Committee.
“I honestly don’t think it could have passed without his concerted effort,” said Mastel, who’s now a senior
adviser for international trade and tax policy at the Kelley Drye & Warren law firm. “By that I mean he called members
personally, talked to them one-on-one and in groups. He must have spent a couple hundred
hours personally rounding up votes, which is a whole lot of time for a president.”
But Mastel said he was skeptical an all-out push by Obama would have the same impact because 20 years after the vote on NAFTA,
trade is a “very mature” issue, and most lawmakers, even new ones, have already made up their minds on it.
“The number I’ve heard is [Obama] needs to get 40 Democrats in the House. That’s a piece of work. Not
impossible, but far from easy,” Mastel said.
AT: NO LINK
Obama gets the blame—derails the agenda
Raffin, 9 --- Editor in Chief at The Stanford Progressive (May 2009, Ross, “Legalizing
Marijuana the Federalist Way,” http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgibin/article.php?article_id=339)
Optimism for drug reform began when Obama ended federal raids on cannabis dispensaries in
states which allow medical marijuana. What marijuana advocates fail to realize is that with this the Obama
administration initiated a small but extremely important step towards legalization. More importantly,
it has done so in a way to insulate itself from Republican attacks and attempts to distract
the public.
At the heart of the marijuana debate is federalism, the separation of state and national governmental power. For most of America's
history, marijuana was treated as a crop subject to state regulation. However, the national government justified regulating marijuana
through a variety of means, mainly the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress power to regulate inter-state
trade. This line of reasoning was forcefully used by the John Ashcroft in 2001 to enforce federal raids on medical marijuana
dispensaries.
When a state legalizes marijuana, medical or otherwise, state law is in contradiction with federal law. This grey area leads to very
confusing legal proceedings. For instance, if a state patrolman finds a medical marijuana patient in possession of marijuana, nothing
happens. However, if a federal officer found a medical marijuana patient in possession of the same amount of marijuana, the federal
officer can and usually will arrest the patient and prosecute under federal law. This hypocrisy is at the base of the current trials going
on against elderly medical marijuana patients.
The Obama administration drastically changed this dynamic with just a slight alteration of criteria for federal intervention with
marijuana dispensaries. Eric Holder announced that the federal government will no longer pursue medical marijuana dispensaries
or patients unless they violate both federal and state laws. In the case of California, because medical marijuana is legal, federal
intervention is no longer allowed in cases where California's medical marijuana laws are not broken. Thus, if California were to fully
legalize marijuana, under current policy the federal government would not intervene.
This leaves Republicans in a very tough spot. Small government is the bedrock foundation of the party. However, if a “liberal” state
legalizes marijuana, the only tool left to combat the legalization of marijuana is for the federal government to extend power over
state government. Obama's actions cannot be criticized as an attempt to “deregulate” marijuana.
Instead, it is a triumph of state rights over federal intervention.
More importantly, any attempt to fight state legalization of marijuana through suit automatically goes to the Supreme Court. This
creates an opportunity to strike down previous legislation criminalizing marijuana as opposed to having the Democrats introduce a
bill on the Senate floor to legalize pot
Consider the alternative strategy of legalizing marijuana on a national level first through
Obama. In the current political environment, the leading accusations against the president range from terrorist to Marxist to
illegal alien. Imagine the campaigns that could be waged if Obama so much as hinted
that he wants to legalize marijuana. Not only would there be insinuations that Obama
wants drugs for personal use, but inevitably racial dynamics and stereotypes would enter
discourse. It would be the ultimate redirect from the economy. Instead of focusing on
regulations and expenditures, emphasis would be on the president who is destroying traditional
American values with reefer.
They’ll torch Obama
Daw, 12 --- J.D. from Harvard Law (12/15/2012, Jeremy, “Marijuana Not A Priority For
Obama,” http://cannabisnowmagazine.com/current-events/politics/marijuana-not-a-priorityfor-obama)
With the most recent polls suggesting that a majority of
Americans favor reform of pot laws, why not seize the moment and end federal prohibition
entirely? Obama could order the DEA to reschedule cannabis out of Schedule I to a less restrictive classification, which would
Some hope for even more radical change.
effectively end the conflict with the federal government in medical marijuana states. Such a move could harness political will for
change and put the president on the winning side of public opinion.
But such moves would have serious downsides. The politics of pot, rife with cultural and political divisions
since the tumultuous 1960s, remain
bitterly divisive; any politician who proposes liberalization of
cannabis laws risks becoming saddled with labels borne out of a long history of
ingroup/outgroup dynamics and which can rapidly drain a leader’s store of political
capital. Given Obama’s susceptibility to an even older tradition of racial stereotyping which associates
cannabis use with African Americans, any kind of green light to relaxed marijuana laws
will cost the president dearly.
No turns
Flatow, 14 (4/22/2014, Nicole, “How Medical Marijuana Went From Political Poison To
Popular Policy,” http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/22/3423731/the-mainstreaming-ofmedical-marijuana/, JMP)
While several members of Congress have sponsored bills in the House to reform marijuana law,
most of the newly converted politicians are not yet advocating a change in federal law. But this
year in Florida, election-watchers are getting a sense of just how politically potent medical
marijuana can be, as pollsters predict a medical marijuana ballot initiative could tip the
gubernatorial race.
AT: WINNERS WIN
Winners-win empirically false for Obama
Klein, 10/10/14 (Ezra, “Obama ditched a key campaign promise. And it saved his presidency,”
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6953889/paul-krugman-obama-historic-success, JMP)
Hate Obama or love him, on this, Krugman is clearly correct. Obama has passed more major
legislation than perhaps any president since Lyndon Johnson — and, at least as of yet, there's no
Vietnam War to mar his legacy. The history of the Obama administration will be hard to write,
as so many of its chapters will demand their own books (indeed, some, like the stimulus, have
already gotten them). Most crucially, Obamacare itself looks headed for success — and that, plus
preventing the financial crisis from turning into another Great Depression, is a legacy in itself.
That said, Obama's greatest successes — and his most serious failures — lie in the dense mass of
his first two years. This is the time, in Krugman's telling, before Obama grokked the nature of
the Republican opposition and "began dealing with it realistically." I think the story there is
more complicated — and more interesting.
From 2009 to 2010, Obama, while seeking the post-partisan presidency he wanted, established
the brutally partisan presidency he got. Virtually every achievement Krugman recounts — the
health-care law, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, the financial rescue, the stimulus bill —
passed in these first two years when Democrats held huge majorities in congress. And every item
on the list passed over screaming Republican opposition. The first two years of the Obama
administration are the story of Obama being haunted by his promises of a postpartisan
presidency, and choosing, again and again, to pass bills at the cost of worsening partisanship.
The irony of Obama's presidency
As Reid Cherlin, a former Obama administration staffer, put it, "[T]hey have managed over six
years to accomplish much of what Obama promised to do, even if accomplishing it helped speed
the process of partisan breakdown." The engine of Obama's political rise, going all the way back
to his 2004 keynote at the Democratic National Convention, was that the conflictual nature of
politics was the product of the people who knew no politics other than conflict. The central irony
of Obama's presidency is he proved himself wrong.
Obama promised to reform the health-care system and regulate the financial sector by fixing
American politics. Instead, he did it by breaking American politics further. The candidate who
ran for office promising to heal Washington's divisions became the most divisive president since
the advent of polling:
[graph omitted]
It's not just partisanship. Obama ran as the scourge of special interests. "We can't keep playing
the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result," he
said. "Because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing. It's a game where lobbyists write
check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our
planet is put at risk."
Lobbyists still write their checks in Obama's Washington. The health-reform bill got done by
cutting side deals with pharmaceutical companies and insurers. Dodd-Frank got done by cutting
side deals with auto dealers and mutual funds. The Obama administration has put no political
capital behind major campaign-finance reforms or, really, any other ideas that would
fundamentally change how Washington works. It's the same old Washington game with the
same old Washington players — but Obama, when he had his big congressional majorities,
managed to secure a different result.
Obama spent his first two years keeping many of his policy promises by sacrificing his central
political promise. That wasn't how it felt to the administration at the time. They thought that
success would build momentum; that change would beget change. Obama talked of the "muscle
memory" Congress would rediscover as it passed big bills; he hoped that achievements
would replenish his political capital rather than drain it.
In this, the Obama administration was wrong, and perhaps naive. They overestimated their
ability to convert the raw exercise of political power into more political power. It was a mistake,
but not a very postpartisan one. And, as a theory, it was the one they needed to build their legacy
— a legacy, at this point, that even their early critics admire.
Winners-win theory is wrong --Obama’s first term proves
Calmes, 12 (Jackie, 11/13/2012, International Herald Tribune, “Obama looks to budget talks as an opportunity to take control of agenda; News
Analysis,” Factiva, JMP)
Whether Mr. Obama succeeds will reveal much about what kind of president he intends to be in his second term. Beyond the specifics of any accord,
perhaps the
bigger question hanging over the negotiations is whether Mr. Obama will go to his
second inaugural in January with an achievement that starts to rewrite the unflattering
leadership narrative that, fairly or not, came to define his first term for many people.
That story line, stoked by Republicans but shared by some Democrats, holds that Mr. Obama is
too passive and deferential to Congress, a legislative naïf who does little to nurture personal relationships with potential allies —
in short, not a particularly strong leader. Even as voters re-elected Mr. Obama, those who said in surveys afterward that strong leadership was the most
important quality for a president overwhelmingly chose Mr. Romney.
George C. Edwards
III, a leading scholar of the presidency at Texas A&M University who is currently
teaching at Oxford University, dismissed such criticisms as shallow and generally wrong. Yet Mr. Edwards, whose
book on Mr. Obama’s presidency is titled ‘‘Overreach,’’ said, ‘‘He didn’t understand the limits of what he could do.’’
‘‘They thought they could continuously create opportunities and they would succeed, and then
there would be more success and more success, and we’d build this advancing-tide theory
of legislation,’’ Mr. Edwards said. ‘‘And that was very naïve, very silly. Well, they’ve learned a lot, I
think.’’
‘‘Effective leaders,’’ he added, ‘‘exploit opportunities rather than create them.’’
REST OF 1NC
1NC TREATY DA
Obama’s “wait and see” approach lays groundwork for treaty reform, but
legalizing now wrecks the system
Bennett and Walsh, 10/14 - *Wells C. Bennett is a Fellow in National Security Law at the
Brookings Institution and Managing Editor of Lawfare AND **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. His work has contributed to the recent opening of
the hemispheric debate on drug policy (“Marijuana Legalization is an Opportunity to Modernize
International Drug Treaties” October,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2014/10/15-marijuanalegalization-modernize-drug-treaties-bennett-walsh/cepmmjlegalizationv4.pdf)
United States’ enforcement discretion under the drug treaties might be drawn precisely, we
cannot be an across-the-board, categorical affair, when the issue is federal tolerance of
regulated, comprehensive marijuana markets established by state law. And that’s just it: if more states
take a legalize-and-regulate approach, a federal-level decision not to prosecute similarly situated persons
could start to look like blanket non-enforcement of implementing legislation—something
that, in our view, the drug treaties do not contemplate.
Wherever the limits of the
know that such discretion by definition
The prospect of future marijuana regulation raises a second, more fundamental reason to rethink things: the nation’s experiment with legalizing and
regulating marijuana might actually go well. Suppose Colorado and Washington both operate their regulated marijuana markets smartly, without
offending federal enforcement prerogatives, and—most importantly— without compromising public health and safety. We don’t think this is a fanciful
or improbable scenario. Our Brookings colleague John Hudak was the first to examine Colorado’s implementation effort up close. And he tentatively
concluded that so far, the state’s initial rollout has been imperfect but quite effective.39 If this path continues or even bends towards improvement,
then other states may soon elect to follow Washington and Colorado’s lead. And that, in turn, stands to exacerbate an already visible tension between
obligations imposed by the drug treaties, and the federal government’s enforcement posture towards legalizing states.
To put the point another way, if
Colorado and Washington augur a real trend, then the costs to the United
States of treaty breach could be swiftly ratcheted upwards. The INCB could raise the volume
and severity of its criticisms; we wouldn’t be surprised to hear protests from more prohibitionist
countries about the United States’ treaty compliance, or to see other nations start pushing the limits of other
no less important treaties to which the United States is party. When some or all of this happens, the United States
won’t get very far in emphasizing the CSA’s theoretical application nationwide, subject to enforcement priorities enunciated in the Cole Memo; or in
appealing to larger objectives woven throughout the drug treaties, and their conferral of policy flexibility. What if twenty or thirty states successfully
establish, and police, regulated markets for marijuana production and sale?
Having that scenario in mind, we lastly emphasize the United States’ unique relationship both to the drug treaties and to the wider international
community. The
United States was a—if not the—key protagonist in developing the 1961, 1971, and 1988
Conventions, as well as the 1972 protocol amending the 1961 Convention; the United States has for decades been widely
and correctly viewed as the treaties’ chief champion and defender.40 That fact feeds back onto this one: The
United States also occupies a singular place in international relations. It can summon powers no other
nation can summon, but it also confronts risks no other nation confronts.41 For that oft-cited reason, the
United States has a profound interest in ensuring that counterparties perform their treaty
obligations. Reciprocity is always a big deal for any nation that trades promises with other
ones—but it is perhaps uniquely so for ours.
These factors mean that caution is in order regarding international law and the viability of the Cole Memo in the longer run. If the United States can
“flexibly interpret” the drug treaties with regard to marijuana, then Mexico is entitled to no less—though it might view the limits of its flexibility
differently, or apply it to another controlled substance within the treaties’ purview. Or imagine that a foreign nation’s controversial policy butts up
against seemingly contrary language, in a treaty covering an extremely important global issue other than drug control. Likely the United States will
have a tougher time objecting when, rather than conceding the problem or changing course, that nation’s foreign ministry invokes the need to
“tolera[te] different national approaches;” or recasts the relevant treaty as a “living document” subject to periodic, unilateral reinterpretation.
This is not to suggest that compliance challenges or complexity should always trigger a call to reshape the United States’ treaty commitments. Practice
and prudence both support a more nuanced, case-specific approach than that. Sometimes the United States has sought to make significant adjustments
to multilateral frameworks or even quit them; other times, the United States has weighed costs and benefits, and pressed on within the treaty despite
consequential breaches—in situations much more obvious (and less open to reasonable contention) than that regarding marijuana.
But in those instances, the United States’ compliance failures often have come despite some hard striving by the federal government. The State
Department, to name one well known example, tries mightily to make state law enforcement officers aware of the United States’ obligations under the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations—notwithstanding some repeated and well-known violations of that treaty by the likes of Texas, Virginia, and
Arizona.42 In this case, though, no external factors—federalism, say, or a contrary ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court—have frustrated a strong push
by the executive branch to vindicate the drug treaties; the decision not to assert federal supremacy was in fact taken unilaterally by the Obama
administration. Given the circumstances, we believe it was the correct decision. The
Cole Memo nevertheless establishes at least
some friction with a treaty obligation, by holding back on CSA enforcement, so as to
accommodate state-level regulation of marijuana. Again, the reasons why are entirely understandable: given the incipient
nature of the changes to which the Cole Memo was reacting, the United States essentially opted to take a wait-and-see
approach as to how problematic the treaty questions might become.
So far as we are aware, this strategy is without precedent in U.S. treaty practice. The United States
should approach it carefully and deliberatively, given the country’s outsized interest in reciprocal
performance of treaty obligations. That depends in part on being able to credibly call out other
nations for treaty failings—something which in turn depends on strictly performing our
own obligations, or at least making a good show of trying hard to do so before coming up short.
Again, we think the United States can sustain the status quo in the short term. But today’s
model likely won’t hold up year in and year out, for the reasons we describe above. The government therefore ought
to start thinking about some of the fundamental treaty reforms that its public statements seemingly have
downplayed. Better to have weighed such options early on, should existing policy’s downsides start to overtake its upsides—as we predict they could.
Sequencing key—legalizing before gradual amendment cracks the global treaty
regime
Bennett and Walsh, 10/14 - *Wells C. Bennett is a Fellow in National Security Law at the
Brookings Institution and Managing Editor of Lawfare AND **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. His work has contributed to the recent opening of
the hemispheric debate on drug policy (“Marijuana Legalization is an Opportunity to Modernize
International Drug Treaties” October,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2014/10/15-marijuanalegalization-modernize-drug-treaties-bennett-walsh/cepmmjlegalizationv4.pdf)
VI. A Stress Test We Can Pass
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 an equally important positive note. 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, 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 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 an existing treaty is a lighter lift than persuading it to undertake entirely new treaty obligations. And, 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 non-starter—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 wellestablished 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 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.
Key to i-law, multilat, and preventing major war
Harald Müller 2K, Director of the Peace Research Institute-Frankfurt and Professor of
International Relations at Goethe University, Summer 2000, “Compliance Politics: A Critical
Analysis of Multilateral Arms Control Treaty Enforcement,” The Nonproliferation Review,
http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/72muell.pdf
A third very crucial condition is a sufficient commonality of interest and commitment among the
major powers with regard to both the treaty in general and the compliance issue in question in particular. The
great powers act on the basis of a multiplicity of interests, commitments, and orientations. If the major powers' broader political,
economic, and security concerns turn out to be contradictory or even antagonistic, a non-multilateral compliance action by one or
more of them becomes more likely. Such action outside the multilateral context will affect the great power
relationship and, in turn, the prospects for continued institutionalized cooperation.
In short, power relations do not develop in an ahistorical and context-free way, following quasi-natural laws. They depend
rather on habits, conventions, and perceptions that are shaped by experience. The constraints and
relations in the international system are thus not immutable, but rather malleable.12 When a treaty regime creates
expectations of multilateral compliance policies, unilateralist behavior can thus cause one of two
difficulties:
• It may push other powers (and possibly their followers, proxies, allies, and partners) to rally around the accused party. This may
occur either because the accused party is a close ally, or to deter the power(s) acting unilaterally from further unilateral actions out
of fear that such actions may lead to an adverse change in the balance of power. Such a course of events would seriously diminish
the chances for pursuing further the road towards a world order based on cooperative security,13
rather than balance of power principles. Moreover, such confrontations include a risk of
escalation, which could lead to another confrontation like the Cuban missile crisis, by far the
most dangerous event so far in the nuclear age.
• Alternatively, the aggrieved powers may abstain from a direct confrontation out of concern for these risks, but freeze their
cooperation in the arms control field as a sort of reprisal. Such a development, while less dangerous on the surface, would risk the
erosion of multilateral arms control and nonproliferation in the long run. Would-be rule-breakers could be tempted to play off great
powers against each other, making it possible for them to pursue their rule-breaking activities with less risk and a greater likelihood
of getting away unscathed with their deviant course of action.
In either mode, arms agreements suffer, the prospects of cooperative security policy as an ordering
principle of world politics decline, and the risk of a major confrontation among great powers
increases. This trajectory is a reflection of the pivotal role of treaty community cohesion. Because
of the particular importance of major powers within that community—the presumption of legal equality
notwithstanding—antagonisms among them are particularly likely to sunder that community and
prevent it from maintaining and strengthening the treaty when it is challenged by deviant behavior.
Extinction
Sachs 14—Jeffrey, D. is a Professor of Sustainable Development, Professor of Health Policy and
Management, and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is also Special Adviser
to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals “Ukraine and
the Crisis of International Law,” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/jeffrey-d-sachs-sees-in-russia-s-annexation-of-crimea-the-return--with-us-complicity--of-great-powerpolitics
International law itself is at a crossroads. The US, Russia, the EU, and NATO cite it when it
is to their advantage and disregard it when they deem it a nuisance. Again, this is not to justify Russia’s
unacceptable actions; rather, it is to add them to the sequence of actions contrary to international law.
The same problems may soon spill over into Asia. Until recently, China, Japan, and
others in Asia
have staunchly defended the requirement that the Security Council approve any outside military
intervention in sovereign states. Recently, however, several countries in East Asia have become locked in
a spiral of claims and counterclaims regarding borders, shipping lanes, and territorial rights. So far, these
disputes have remained basically peaceful, but tensions are rising. We must hope that the countries of the
region continue to see the great value of international law as a bulwark of sovereignty, and act
accordingly.
There have long been skeptics of international law – those who believe that it can never prevail
over the national interests of major powers, and that maintaining a balance of power among
competitors is all that really can be done to keep the peace. From this perspective, Russia’s actions in the
Crimea are simply the actions of a great power asserting its prerogatives.
Yet such a world is profoundly and unnecessarily dangerous. We have learned time and again
that there is no such thing as a true “balance of power.” There are always imbalances and
destabilizing power shifts. Without some scaffolding of law, open conflict is all too likely.
This is especially true today, as countries jostle for oil and other vital resources. It is no coincidence
that most of the deadly wars of recent years have taken place in regions rich in valuable and
contested natural resources.
As we look back in this centennial year toward the outbreak of WWI, we see again and again that the only possible
route to safety is international law, upheld by the United Nations and respected on all sides. Yes, it sounds
naive, but no one has to look back to see the naiveté of the belief that great-power politics will
preserve peace and ensure humanity’s survival.
1NC TREATY U CP
The United States should
--advocate amendments to the international drug control treaties to authorize
signatories to legalize marijuana, to be made binding on the United States in the
event of acceptance, but not legalize marijuana in Washington, D.C. and freeze any
additional moves towards legalization in the United States, pending the outcome
of treaty reform.
--initiate prosecution against United States government officials responsible for
torture to the extent required for treaty adherence
Wait and see approach to legalization while pursuing amendments is best for i-law
Counts, 14 - J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, 2014 (Nathan, “INITIATIVE 502 AND
CONFLICTING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW” 49 Gonz. L. Rev. 187,
http://www.law.gonzaga.edu/law-review/files/2014/04/1-Counts-Pgs-187-212.pdf)
In dealing with the conflicting state and federal law, enforcement
decisions will affect the United States’ role as an
actor in international law and the direction of international cooperation in combatting illegal
drug trade. First, if the United States breaches its treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs and the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, it would undermine the
international rule of law. A strong international rule of law is desirable “to establish and
maintain order and enhance reliable expectations” in international affairs.142 As there are no
enforcement mechanisms for international legal obligations equivalent to that which exists with domestic law, the weight of
obligations relies to some extent on comity among the states involved.143 As long as states agree to limit their
sovereignty and comply with international law, states will be more likely to respect one another’s reasonable expectations and fulfill
their obligations.144
Both conventions have provisions that read, “If there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute relating to the
interpretation or application of this Convention, the Parties shall consult together with a view to the settlement of the dispute by . . .
peaceful means of their own choice,” and should this fail, they agree to jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice
(ICJ).145 Despite this possibility of justiciability of breach, it is highly unlikely that any state party would bring a case before the ICJ
over domestic non-enforcement of the treaty obligations, as diplomatic channels are more predictable and possible noncompliance
with ICJ judgments weakens the international rule of law.146
If the United States fails to enforce the CSA and allows the Washington legalization system to
succeed, it may signal to other states that the United States is willing to allow its domestic law
overcome its international law obligations and may not be reliable in international
transnational enforcement efforts in the future. It also signals to other states that they may allow
their domestic law to inhibit effective enforcement of international treaty obligations,
which may undermine the United States’ goals in the future.
Aside from rule of law concerns, breach of treaty obligations may undermine the international cooperation required to combat
international drug trafficking. The United States has historically been a strong proponent of drug prohibition and prioritization of
enforcement efforts against trafficking, so legalization and non-enforcement of a Schedule I drug within our borders would send a
conflicting message.147 The former Administrator of the DEA, John C. Lawn, commented, “A violation of these treaties by the
United States would destroy our credibility with drug source and drug transit countries that are now working with the United States
in the global war on drugs.”148 Some parties have already softened their domestic enforcement policies and similar action by the
United States would make this course more acceptable.149 If other governments follow suit and legalize drugs in some capacity, this
may decrease the focus on enforcement against drugs generally, which may negatively impact coordinated efforts against illicit drug
trafficking. Thus, if the United States allows legalization of marijuana in its borders, it should be ready
to support the change in policy that this represents and address it at the international level. The United
States would need to restate the importance of cooperation against international drug trafficking, even though some amount of
domestic social experimentation may be permissible.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Domestically
The possible federal response depends on whether the government wishes to continue to pursue the policy underlying the CSA or
defers to the states in managing local marijuana regulation. If the policy goals of the CSA are to be continued, the government should
take steps to disrupt the Washington legalization scheme and deter use, which may take three forms.
First, the government could encourage re-criminalization by conditioning state funding on penal statutes for marijuana use, similar
to that used for enforcing a drinking age of twenty-one throughout the United States.150 “Congress has immense fiscal resources
relative to the states, and the Court has imposed few meaningful restrictions on how Congress may employ those resources to extract
conditions from the states.”151 This option could make up for the difficulties in enforcing the CSA by causing state actors to resume
enforcement. State law enforcement of marijuana crimes may continue but at a much lower level, because it is likely that
Washington would still have a policy of deprioritizing marijuana-related crimes. This strategy also undermines federalism and state
experimentalism to some extent and should be used sparingly.152
Second, the government could enforce the CSA against distributors of recreational marijuana in Washington. If even one marijuana
retailer were charged under the CSA, it is likely that the entire marijuana legalization of system of Washington would cease to
function. As the businesses are licensed by Liquor Control Board, they will be easily investigated by federal agents and subject to
possible felony prosecution, so marijuana distribution will likely return to black markets. This may make the situation worse if
Washington does not enforce against illicit sellers even when the activity is still illegal under state law, as a result of marijuana crime
de-prioritization. Federal enforcement would be insufficient and illegal markets may actually grow in Washington. Arrests of
licensed business owners could lead to a sense of injustice as explained above as the retailers would view themselves as law-abiding
citizens, not the drug traffickers that the CSA was designed to combat.
Third, federal enforcement could pursue civil injunctions or raids focused on forfeiture of marijuana, which the DEA currently uses
against medical marijuana suppliers.153 This strategy would have similar effects as the second option, but without the perception of
injustice, as these actions only assert the illegality of the activity and force the business to close without employing the full penal
power of the law. Note though that U.S. Attorneys may still pursue felony charges under the CSA, the directive to use civil remedies
will only be departmental guidelines.
With any of these three approaches, the federal government should take an aggressive stance against marijuana. Advertising in
public media by marijuana-related businesses will go a long way toward shaping attitudes and giving recreational marijuana
legitimacy. Injunctions should be brought to remove any instances of advertising. This should be paired with anti-marijuana
advertising. Conditional funding could be used to ensure that Washington spends some of the marijuana excise tax on antimarijuana advertising campaigns. In addition, proceeds from fines against marijuana producers and distributors, as well as from
forfeitures, could be used to fund a federal anti-marijuana advertising effort targeted to Washington. The advertising will
demonstrate the government’s continued assertion that marijuana’s negative health conse-quences are too severe for it to be suitable
for any use, and combat the change in social beliefs that coincide with the state legalization of marijuana.
If the policies behind the CSA are to be reconsidered in light of changing public opinion on marijuana, there are
several options for supporting Washington in implementing Initiative 502. The first would be a
wait-and-see approach
of non-enforcement. This would be best paired with an official statement interpreting the CSA as
being inapplicable to actors that follow relevant state law for a certain time period, so that the
actor may raise a defense of entrapment by estoppel. Otherwise U.S. Attorneys may still bring criminal charges against violators of
the CSA who comply with state law and the actor would have no cognizable defense. At the end of the time period of
non-enforcement, the federal government could examine the success of Washington’s
legalization regime and determine appropriate next steps, possibly reverting to
enforcement or going toward rescheduling.
Finally, Congress could remove marijuana from CSA scheduling and allow states to decide how to penalize or regulate marijuana
production, distribution, and consumption. It could remain a felony to transport marijuana into or out of the United States, which is
a level of enforcement that is likely commensurate with federal law enforcement capacities. This also ensures that the United States
maintains its commitment to international cooperation in the prevention of drug trafficking and also ensures that state social
experimentalism does not negatively impact the international community.
B. Internationally
On the international level, it is important that the United States respect international obligations to
maintain the integrity of the rule of law and support coordination in combatting international drug
trafficking. First, the federal government could pursue one of the approaches above in ensuring
enforcement of the CSA in Washington. This would demonstrate the United States’ ongoing
dedication to the goals of both conventions despite conflicting state laws, reinforcing for other
countries that they should pursue this policy even as public opinion shifts in some areas.
Second, the United States could submit an amendment for the Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs and the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances that would allow for
possible recreational use of marijuana within the territory of state parties, but still require
criminal enforcement against international trafficking. Each convention has a provision for
amendments, which would allow the United States to alter the treaty obligations of all parties such
that non-enforcement against Washington recreational marijuana, and similar actions by other parties, is
no longer a breach.154 As other countries have begun to liberalize their drug laws, there may be
support for such an amendment.155 This must be paired with vigorous enforcement against international traffickers
though, so the policy does not negatively affect supply or transit countries.
VI. CONCLUSION
Initiative 502 gives the federal government the opportunity to reevaluate the policies of the CSA and either renew efforts against
recreational marijuana or allow state governments to control domestic regulation of marijuana. It is important, however, that
in selecting an approach, the impact of the inconsistency between state and federal law be
minimized to avoid a culture of rule-breaking, and that the United States work to bring itself
into compliance with international law, either through enforcement or by
amending existing treaties.
Solves treaty reform and flexibility
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