Harvard Rd 3—Aff vs. Kansas CK—Starr
1AC
1AC1
Legalizing marijuana is modeled globally and breaks Cartels – decrim fails
Carpenter, CATO senior fellow, 2011 (Ted, “Undermining Mexico’s Dangerous Drug Cartels”, 11-15,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2033357, ldg)
Yet unless
the production and sale of drugs is also legalized, the black-market premium will still exist and lawabiding businesses will still stay away from the trade. In other words, drug commerce will remain in the hands of criminal elements that do
not shrink from engaging in bribery, intimidation, and murder. Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady aptly makes that distinction with respect to
the drug-law reform that Mexico enacted in 2009: Mexican consumers
marijuana, that’s true in the United States as well. But
will now have less fear of penalties and, increasingly in the case of
trafficking will remain illegal, and to get their product past law enforcement
the criminals will still have an enormous incentive to bribe or to kill. Decriminalization will not take the
money out of the business, and therefore will not reduce corruption , cartel intimidation
government authority
or the terror
heaped
on local populations
aimed at democratic-
by drug lords.58 Because of its proximity to the huge U.S. market, Mexico
will continue to be a cockpit for that drug-related violence. By
its domestic commitment to prohibition, the United States is creating
the risk that the drug cartels may become powerful enough to destabilize its southern neighbor. Their impact on Mexico’s
government and society has already reached worrisome levels. Worst of all, the carnage associated with the black-market trade in drugs does not respect national
boundaries. The
frightening violence now convulsing Mexico could become a feature of life in American communities,
as the cartels begin to flex their muscles north of the border. When the United States and other countries ponder whether to persist in a
strategy of drug prohibition, they need to consider all of the potential societal costs, both domestic and international. On the domestic front, American’s prisons are
bulging with people who have run afoul of the drug laws. Approximately one-third of inmates in state prisons and nearly 60 percent of those in federal prisons are
incarcerated for drug trafficking offenses. Most of those inmates are small-time dealers. Prohibition has created or exacerbated a variety of social pathologies,
especially in minority communities where drug use rates are higher than the national average and rates of arrests and imprisonment are dramatically higher. Those
are all serious societal costs of prohibition. Conclusion The
most feasible and effective strategy to counter the mounting turmoil in
Mexico is to drastically reduce the potential revenue flows to the trafficking organizations. In other words, the United States
could substantially defund the cartels through the full legalization
drugs.
(including manufacture and sale) of currently illegal
If Washington abandoned the prohibition model, it is very likely that other countries in the
international community would do the same . The United States exercises disproportionate influence
on the issue of drug policy, as it does on so many other international issues. If prohibition were
rescinded, the profit margins for the drug trade would be similar to the margins for other legal commodities, and legitimate
businesses would become the principal players. That is precisely what happened when the United States ended its
quixotic crusade against alcohol in 1933. To help reverse the burgeoning tragedy of drug-related violence in Mexico, Washington must seriously consider
adopting a similar course today with respect to currently illegal drugs. Even taking the first step away from prohibition by legalizing
marijuana, indisputably the mildest and least harmful of the illegal drugs, could cause problems for the Mexican cartels. Experts provide a
wide range of estimates about how important the marijuana trade is to those organizations. The high-end estimate, from a former DEA official,
is that marijuana accounts for approximately 55 percent of total revenues. O ther experts dispute that figure. Edgardo Buscaglia,
who was a research scholar at the conservative Hoover Institution until 2008, provides the low-end estimate, contending that the drug amounts to “less than 10
percent” of total revenues. Officials in both the U.S. and Mexican governments contend that it’s more like 20 to 30 percent.59 Whatever
the actual
percentage, the marijuana business is financially important to the cartels. The Mexican marijuana trade is already under pressure
from competitors in the United States. One study concluded that the annual harvest in California alone equaled or exceeded
the entire national production in Mexico, and that output for the United States was more than twice that of
Mexico.60 As sentiment for hard-line prohibition policies fades in the United States, and the likelihood of prosecution diminishes, one could expect domestic
growers, both large and small, to become bolder about starting or expanding their businesses. Legalizing pot would strike a blow against
Mexican traffickers. It would be difficult for them to compete with American producers in the American
market, given the difference in transportation distances and other factors. There would be little
incentive for consumers to buy their product from unsavory Mexican criminal syndicates when legitimate domestic
firms could offer the drug at a competitive price—and advertise how they are honest enterprises. Indeed, for many Americans, they could just
grow their own supply—a cost advantage that the cartels could not hope to match. It is increasingly apparent, in any case, that both the U.S. and Mexican
governments need to make drastic changes in their efforts to combat Mexico’s drug cartels. George Grayson aptly summarizes the fatal flaw in the existing strategy.
“It is extremely difficult—probably impossible—to eradicate the cartels. They or their offshoots will fight to hold on to an enterprise that yields Croesus-like fortunes
from illegal substances craved by millions of consumers.”61 Felipe Calderón’s military-led offensive is not just a futile, utopian crusade. That would be bad enough,
but the reality is much worse. It is a futile, utopian crusade that has produced an array of ugly, bloody side effects. A different approach is needed. The most
effective way is to greatly reduce the “Croesus-like” fortunes available to the cartels. And
the only realistic way to do that is to bite the
bullet and end the policy of drug prohibition, preferably in whole, but at least in part, starting with the legalization
of marijuana. A failure to move away from prohibition in the United States creates the risk that the already nasty corruption and violence next door in Mexico
may get even worse.
The danger grows that our southern neighbor could become, if not a full-blown failed
state, at least a de-facto narco-state in which the leading drug cartels exercise parallel or dual
political sovereignty with the government of Mexico . We may eventually encounter a situation—if we haven’t already—where the
cartels are the real power in significant portions of the country. And
we must worry that the disorder inside Mexico will spill over the
border into the United States to a much greater extent than it has to this point. The fire of drug-related violence is flaring to an
alarming extent in Mexico. U.S. leaders need to take constructive action now, before that fire consumes our neighbor’s home and threatens our own. That means
recognizing reality and ending the second failed prohibition crusade.
The plan frees up resources and allows for institutional reform that resolves alternate
causes to organized crime
Jones, Baker Institute drug policy postdoctoral fellow, 2014
(Nathan, “Will recreational marijuana sales in Colorado hurt Mexican cartels?”, 1-2,
http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2014/01/will-recreational-marijuana-sales-in-colorado-hurt-mexicancartels/, ldg)
I would argue that in the short term, Colorado’s
legalization will probably have a negligible impact on drug-related
violence in Mexico, given the size of the market and Colorado’s carefully written marijuana legislation and regulations. But it
represents a model for other states that could have a massive impact on cartel profits and thereby
reduce drug violence in Mexico. The Colorado and Washington state legalization efforts represent carefully tailored first steps toward the
broader legalization of marijuana that could significantly impact drug-related violence in Mexico. Markets are complex. We have to differentiate between short,
medium and long-term effects. Further we have to think about two important factors for Mexico: the profits of cartels and the strength of state institutions. Many
speciously bifurcate these issues. I argue that they cannot be separated. Mexico’s cartels
have significantly diversified their operations.
Marijuana is generally agreed to represent 20 percent to 30 percent of cartel profits. This varies by cartel, with
trafficking-oriented groups such as the Sinaloa cartel having higher profits from marijuana than more territorial groups such as los Zetas. This is not only due to the
trafficking of other drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, but also due to the cartels’ expansion into illicit activities such as kidnapping, illegal tolls,
extortion, etc. Thus the legalization of marijuana in a single state can only cut into cartel profits. Even national marijuana legalization could not wipe them out.
Alejandro Hope and Eduardo Clarke wrote an excellent report for Mexico’s Competiveness Institute that argued that if Oregon, Colorado and Washington (the
states with 2012 marijuana initiatives) legalized marijuana, it would cut into Mexican cartel profits by 30 percent; the Sinaloa cartel would be the most heavily
impacted. The authors made important assumptions. One was that marijuana produced in the legal market of these states would likely be trafficked outside these
states and still undercut the illegal marijuana market. I agree with their general findings but want to point out some issues with those assumptions. First, the federal
government has largely allowed Colorado to legalize marijuana—despite the contravention of federal law—provided it prevents marijuana from being trafficked
outside the state and that marijuana does not fall into the hands of minors or does not benefit organized crime. Second, and as a result of the first, the states of
Colorado and Washington have very carefully regulated their markets, limiting the amounts nonresidents can buy, creating stiff penalties for those possessing large
quantities of marijuana, stepping up enforcement for trafficking outside of the state, and stepping up public awareness efforts about the illegality of trafficking
outside the state. Third, the federal government has also made clear it will be stepping up its efforts to keep Colorado marijuana in Colorado. Given that Colorado is
the test case, enforcement by both state and federal entities to prevent marijuana from leaving the state may be artificially and unsustainably high over the first
year or two. Fourth, Colorado’s marijuana taxes are very high and its vertically integrated market structure—70 percent of marijuana sold in a retail establishment
must be cultivated by that business—will keep the price up and limit the ability of legal marijuana to undercut the black market. In
terms of the impact
on Mexican cartels in the short term, we might see a spike in other extortion-related crimes as profit
starvation sets in for certain cells in illicit networks. Attributing this to changing market dynamics in the United States will be difficult,
given that violent black market forces (rival cartels) may be a much more important confounding variable. These illicit networks may further
diversify into territorial extortionist activities, but over the long term will be wiped out by civil
society and the state as these crimes draw a powerful backlash . I documented this process in Tijuana in my 2011 doctoral
dissertation. The
real benefits of legalization will be seen in the medium- and long-term . By cutting into
Mexican cartel profits, other cartel activities and power could be reduced.
We know that cartel profits can be
redistributed to local cells to maintain territorial control. The ability
to weaken or reduce these payments could limit their
activities and capital investments in kidnapping and extortion franchises. Finally, reducing cartel
profits could help Mexico strengthen its institutions . Building effective police and security institutions
takes decades. Decades can stretch into centuries if those agencies are constantly rejiggered and recorrupted by highly profitable and sophisticated organized criminal networks. Reducing illicit profits could
have an important and salubrious effect on the ability of Mexico to strengthen its security apparatus.
Cartel violence spills up to the US which triggres military response---collapses the
Mexican government and bilateral relations even if the response is limited
Metz, Strategic Studies Institute director of research, 2014 (Steven, “Strategic Horizons: All Options Bad If
Mexico’s Drug Violence Expands to U.S.”, 2-19, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13576/strategic-horizons-all-options-bad-ifmexico-s-drug-violence-expands-to-u-s, ldg)
Over the past few decades, violence in Mexico has reached horrific levels, claiming the lives of 70,000 as criminal organizations fight each other
for control of the drug trade and wage war on the Mexican police, military, government officials and anyone else unlucky enough to get caught in the crossfire.
The chaos has spread southward, engulfing Guatemala, Honduras and Belize. Americans must face the possibility that the
conflict may also expand northward, with intergang warfare, assassinations of government officials and outright terrorism in the
United States. If so, this will force Americans to undertake a fundamental reassessment of the threat, possibly redefining it as a
security issue
demanding the use of U.S. military power . One way that large-scale drug violence might move to
the United States is if the cartels miscalculate and think they can intimidate the U.S. government or strike at
American targets safely from a Mexican sanctuary. The most likely candidate would be the group known as the Zetas.
They were created when elite government anti-drug commandos switched sides in the drug war, first serving as mercenaries for the Gulf Cartel and then becoming
a powerful cartel in their own right. The Zetas used to recruit mostly ex-military and ex-law enforcement members in large part to maintain discipline and control.
But the pool of soldiers and policemen willing to join the narcotraffickers was inadequate to fuel the group’s ambition. Now the Zetas are tapping a very different,
much larger, but less disciplined pool of recruits in U.S. prisons and street gangs. This is an ominous turn of events. Since
intimidation through
extreme violence is a trademark of the Zetas, its spread to the United States raises the possibility of large-scale
violence on American soil. As George Grayson of the College of William and Mary put it, “The Zetas are determined to gain the
reputation of being the most sadistic, cruel and beastly organization that ever existed.” And without concern for extradition,
which helped break the back of the Colombian drug cartels, the Zetas show little fear of the United States government, already
having ordered direct violence against American law enforcement. Like the Zetas, most of the other Mexican cartels are
expanding their operations inside the United States. Only a handful of U.S. states are free of them today. So far the cartels don’t appear
directly responsible for large numbers of killings in the United States, but as expansion and reliance on undisciplined recruits looking to
make a name for themselves through ferocity continue, the chances of miscalculation or violent freelancing
by a cartel affiliate mount . This could potentially move beyond intergang warfare to the killing of U.S.
officials or outright terrorism like the car bombs that drug cartels used in Mexico and Colombia. In an assessment for the U.S. Army War College
Strategic Studies Institute, Robert Bunker and John Sullivan considered narcotrafficker car bombs inside the United States to be unlikely but not impossible. A
second way that Mexico’s violence could spread north is via the partnership between the narcotraffickers and
ideologically motivated terrorist groups. The Zetas already have a substantial connection to Hezbollah, based on
collaborative narcotrafficking and arms smuggling. Hezbollah has relied on terrorism since its founding and has few qualms about
conducting attacks far from its home turf in southern Lebanon. Since Hezbollah is a close ally or proxy of Iran, it
might some day attempt to strike the United States in retribution for American action against Tehran . If so, it would likely
attempt to exploit its connection with the Zetas, pulling the narcotraffickers into a transnational proxy war. The foundation for this scenario is already in place:
Security analysts like Douglas Farah have warned of a “tier-one security threat for the United States” from an
“improbable alliance” between narcotraffickers and anti-American states like Iran and the “Bolivarian” regime in
Venezuela. The longer this relationship continues and the more it expands, the greater the chances of
dangerous miscalculation.
response.
No matter how violence from the Mexican cartels came to the United States, the key issue would be Washington’s
If the Zetas, another Mexican cartel or someone acting in their stead launched a campaign of assassinations
or bombings in the United States or helped Hezbollah or some other transnational terrorist organization with a
mass casualty attack, and the Mexican government proved unwilling or unable to respond in a way that
Washington considered adequate, the United States would have to consider military action.
While the United
States has deep cultural and economic ties to Mexico and works closely with Mexican law enforcement on the narcotrafficking problem, the security relationship
between the two has always been difficult—understandably so given the long history of U.S. military intervention in Mexico. Mexico
would be unlikely
to allow the U.S. military or other government agencies free rein to strike at narcotrafficking cartels in its territory,
even if those organizations were tied to assassinations, bombings or terrorism in the United States.
But any U.S. president would face
immense political pressure to strike at America’s enemies if the Mexican government could not or
would not do so itself . Failing to act firmly and decisively would weaken the president and
encourage the Mexican cartels to believe that they could attack U.S. targets with impunity . After all, the
primary lesson from Sept. 11 was that playing only defense and allowing groups that attack the United States undisturbed foreign sanctuary does not work. But
using the U.S. military against the cartels on Mexican soil could weaken the Mexican government or even
cause its collapse, end further security cooperation between Mexico and the United States and
damage one of the most important and intimate bilateral economic relationships in the world . Quite
simply, every available strategic option would be disastrous. Hopefully, cooperation between Mexican and U.S. security and intelligence services will be able to
forestall such a crisis. No one wants to see U.S. drones over Mexico .
But so long as the core dynamic of narcotrafficking—massive
demand for drugs in the United States combined with their prohibition— persists, the utter ruthlessness, lack
of restraint and unlimited ambition of the narcotraffickers raises the possibility of violent
miscalculation and the political and economic calamity that would follow .
Cartel power causes regional destabilization and diverts resources necessary to
sustain heg
Krepinevich and Lindsey 13 – President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, MPA and PhD from
Harvard/analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, MA in strategic studies and international economics at Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies (Andrew F. Jr., and Eric, “Hemispheric Defense in the 21st Century”, 2013;
<http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Hemispheric-Defense-in-the-21st-Century.pdf>)//Beddow
Although the power and violent behavior of the cartels poses the most immediate
threat to U.S. security interests in Latin America, a number of other actors have contributed
significantly to the region’s growing instability over the past decade. Among them are China, Iran, and
Russia. While these external powers all seek to avoid a direct confrontation with the United States, all
appear to have a common interest in seeing the United States’ influence in the region decline and
American military resources drawn away from their own regions by the worsening crisis in Mexico.
Foreign Interposition
From within Latin America, members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) including Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and
Cuba have persistently opposed U.S.-led efforts to improve regional security cooperation. Some of these states have developed highly
profitable relationships with the cartels and tacitly provided sanctuaries for drug traffickers, arms dealers, and foreign agents within their
borders. Chief among them is Venezuela, which, with the encouragement and tacit support of Iran and Russia, has been a constant obstacle to
U.S. policy in the region since the Chavez era. More recently, Nicaragua has grown into a hub of illicit activity. Emboldened by an increasingly
close security relationship with China and Russia, Caracas has worked to undermine U.S. efforts to help stabilize democratic governments in
Central America. Russia maintains its intelligence listening station in Nicaragua. Beijing has deployed military training teams to that country
along with security detachments (i.e., a PLA military police brigade) to protect the recently completed “grand canal” that is co-owned and
operated with the Nicaraguan government. Beijing has warned that it would act strongly to meet any threat to the canal, a policy that some
have dubbed the “Mini-Monroe Doctrine.” Perhaps the most active external power in Latin America has been Iran. In return for military and
developmental assistance, members of the Bolivarian Alliance are believed to be providing access and bases of operations in the region to Iran’s
Quds Force. Since
at least the early 2010s, when its agents plotted with a member of a Mexican cartel to
assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States,13 Iran has been using its presence in
Latin America to develop cooperative relationships with criminal organizations in the region. Together,
Iran’s state and non-state partners have enabled it to launder money and move personnel and weapons
covertly through the region. Since the United States failed to take military action following Iran’s nuclear weapons test in the 2018,
Tehran has become increasingly aggressive in its support of its Latin American partners and proxies. In what many analysts view as an effort to
exacerbate the challenges that the United States faces at home and distract it from Iran’s recent moves to undermine American influence in the
Middle East, Iran has ramped up its use of surrogates and proxies to carry out attacks on American interests around the world. Perhaps most
significantly, Iran’s agents in Latin America appear to have been selling or providing relatively high-end weapons to the cartels, including rocket
launchers, mortars, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, guided anti-tank missiles, and even unmanned aerial vehicles. According to Mexican
law enforcement, officials the majority of the heavy weapons seized from the cartels have been sold or provided to them by Iran, typically via
middlemen based in Venezuela. Hezbollah, Tehran’s principal proxy in the region, is also believed to have been assisting the cartels in
constructing semi-submersible craft and midget submarines while providing them with autonomous underwater vehicles for use in drug
running. Finally, Russia has continued playing its familiar role as the contrarian “spoiler” of U.S. foreign policy, providing diplomatic and military
assistance to the Bolivarian Alliance and obstructing U.S. efforts to work through the United Nations. Mexico
Unravels By the end
2021, the conflict among the cartel factions and between the cartels and the Mexican government
reached the levels of violence that characterized the height of the First Narco War. Although support for the
war among the Mexican population hovered just above 50 percent, the joint U.S.-Mexican offensive appeared politically sustainable. This all
changed in February 2022 when, eight thousand miles away, actions by Iran to subvert and destabilize the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation
Council along the southern littoral of the Persian Gulf brought the Islamic Republic to the brink of conflict. In accordance with the United States’
2015 Cooperative Security Agreement with the GCC states, U.S. military forces began deploying to the region in mid-November to provide
support for stability operations in these states and to deter Iran from engaging in more direct forms of aggression. Escalating the conflict
horizontally, Iran activated its global network of agents and proxies. In the Levant, Hezbollah and Hamas unleashed a sustained barrage of
attacks on Israeli territory beginning on February 7, 2021, while a suicide attack two days later by Shia militiamen on the U.S. embassy in
Baghdad claimed the lives of 20 U.S. personnel. Iran’s main effort, however, came in Latin America. Exploiting
their established
relationships with the Mexican cartels, Iranian agents and their Hezbollah proxies began providing
weapons to the cartels in exchange for their agreement to carry out attacks on U.S. citizens and
interests in Mexico and to ramp up their attacks on the Mexican government. Up to this point the larger
cartels have been unwilling to risk provoking the United States directly, preferring to focus their
efforts on undermining the Mexican government. However, the Iranian offer appears to have been
taken up by some of the smaller cartels along with a number of rogue cartel factions. Seemingly random acts
of violence against American citizens in Mexico and Central America have spiked since the start of this year as have the number and lethality of
“potshots” taken at U.S. border guards from across the border. Most provocatively, in February a car bomb exploded at a bus station in San
Diego, killing 11 people and wounding several dozen more. Later that month, three DEA agents embedded with the Mexican Federal Police
were betrayed and murdered by their ostensible colleagues. In March four Texas National Guardsmen were killed while patrolling the border
when an anti-tank missile suspected to be of Iranian origin was �red at their vehicle from across the border. Less spectacular attacks have
claimed the lives of more than sixty other Americans in the past month. Although less lethal, another particularly dramatic series of attacks
occurred over seventeen days beginning on February 10, when a series of undersea explosions crippled and sank the Mexican state oil
company’s newest and largest deep-water oil platform, an asset worth hundreds of millions of dollars.1�5 In the weeks since, undersea
explosions have also destroyed three undersea wellheads several miles of Mexico’s Gulf coast, one of which is still leaking thousands of barrels
of oil into the Gulf each day. Exactly how these unprecedented attacks were carried out is not known, but experts from the major oil firms say
the explosives could have been emplaced by unmanned underwater vehicles commandeered from an oil company or built by the cartels for
drug running.1�6 To date no one has claimed responsibility for the attacks. Meanwhile, what appears to have been another unprecedented
attack occurred on February 23 when a massive blackout struck northern Mexico and more than 30 million Americans serviced by the Texas
Interconnection power grid.1�7 Although the precise cause has not yet been determined, the blackouts were traced to computer systems
regulating the flow of electricity believed to have been corrupted through cyber attacks.1�8 Again, no group has stepped forward to take credit
for the cyber strike. By far the most significant attack, however, was carried out on March 15. On that day, unknown assailants assassinated the
Mexican president during his televised speech in Mexico City. Using what Mexican authorities have identified as Russian-made GPS-guided
mortar rounds, the assassins fired four shells in rapid succession from an unknown location in central Mexico City. All four shells burst within
ten meters of the podium at which the president was speaking.1�9 Mortally wounded by shell fragments, the president died two days later.150
In the three weeks since the assassination, the situation in Mexico has greatly deteriorated. Upon the president’s death, power passed to
Secretary of the Interior, a controversial figure who has been a key leader in the offensive against the cartels but has been accused of
corruption by the media and opposition. Immediately upon assuming power the new president, responding to the public outcry following the
assassination, ordered the military and police to surge operations against the cartels, driving the level of violence to new heights. At the same
time the assassination has prompted a widespread loss of confidence in the government’s power, both within the government itself and among
the public. Vigilantism
and rioting are becoming more widespread. Military and police are struggling to
control the chaos, but their forces are plagued by poor morale, insubordination, and increasing
problems with corruption. The growing disorder threatens to produce a humanitarian crisis as
essential services begin to break down in parts of the country. Several hundred thousand Mexicans have become
refugees in the past month alone. Most are moving north in the hope of receiving humanitarian assistance and asylum in the United States.
Some Mexicans are working through official channels; however, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service is completely overwhelmed.
Thousands of others are attempting to cross the border illegally each day. Law enforcement officials and National Guardsmen are struggling to
control the flow, sometimes helped but more often hindered by armed, self-proclaimed U.S. “border rangers” operating in Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas. Summary
Though clearly a “dark” scenario, the hypothetical events outlined above draw
on current trends and events to demonstrate how—as has happened repeatedly throughout U.S.
history—Latin America can be transformed from a strategic backwater into a significant threat when
U.S. strategy for that region amounts to little more than benign neglect. In particular, the scenario illustrates how
powers external to the region could plausibly exploit local instability to generate a major threat to
U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere. With this scenario serving as a cautionary tale, the following chapter outlines a U.S.
strategy whose objective is to preserve regional security while enabling Washington to avoid becoming overly involved in the affairs of its
neighbors or distracted from its pressing global responsibilities.
Hegemonic decline causes multiple scenarios for great power war
Zhang et al., Carnegie Endowment researcher, 2011
(Yuhan, “America’s decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry”, 1-22,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/, ldg)
This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and perhaps alarming. Although the US
still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the world’s largest, the once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from
anyone else is narrowing. Thus, the
global distribution of power is shifting, and the inevitable result will be a world that is
less peaceful, liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict regulation. Over the past two
decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances,
motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a
subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a
status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so
will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse,
American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history attests,
power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation . For example, in the late 19th century America’s emergence as a
regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning
of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of
sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law.
Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and
some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As
a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and
flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter
this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances as America’s influence declines?
Given that America’s authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as
parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way. Public
imagination and
academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional
blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or
the WTO might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to
fill the vacuum left by Washington’s withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets would
become more politicised — and, well, less free — and major powers would compete for supremacy. Additionally,
such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to
the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international
regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A
world without American hegemony is one where great power
wars re-emerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism
devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of
unrivalled US primacy.
Advanced manufacturing is thriving because of integration and cooperation with
Mexico
Berube, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program senior fellow, 2013
(Alan, “Metro North America: Cities and Metros as Hubs of Advanced Industries and Integrated Goods
Trade”, 11-7,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/11/07%20metro%20north%20america
/bmpp_metrona_final.pdf, ldg)
After decades of continued economic integration, the quantity and quality of trade within North
America is truly distinct. In 2011, the latest year for which goods and services trade data are both
available, the United States exchanged nearly $1.2 trillion worth of goods and services with Canada
and Mexico, the country’s first- and third-largest trading partners, respectively. To put this number in perspective, total U.S.
trade with Japan, Korea, and the BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—is also
about $1.2 trillion (Figure 1).31 Integrated value chains have united North America as one economic
market that not only trades finished goods but shares in their production. Many products travel
across the border several times to take advantage of each country’s comparative advantages in
manufacturing. Value-added trade data reveal that for every $100 in final goods value that the United
States imports from Mexico, $40 is actually U.S.-made content. The equivalent share from Canada is $25. By contrast, for each
$100 in imports from China and the European Union, only $4 and $2, respectively, are U.S. value.32 THE NORTH AMERICAN ADVANCED INDUSTRY EXPORT
PLATFORM Production
sharing not only minimizes the cost of goods consumed in each of the three
countries, but makes products exported to the rest of the world more competitive. In 2011, the North American
bloc sent over $1.2 trillion in goods outside the region.33 North America’s most export-oriented sectors tend to be in manufacturing, particularly in advanced
industries—R&D-intensive pursuits that require workers with significant technical knowledge and skills (see the box, “What Are Advanced Industries and Why Are
They Important?”). Advanced
industries such as electronics ($115 billion), transportation equipment ($100
billion), industrial machinery ($82 billion), pharmaceuticals ($39 billion), and medical devices ($26
billion) drive North American goods exports to the rest of the world. Though not included in the definition of advanced
industries, energy commodities—oil, gas, and coal—are the other significant segment of North American exports ($108 billion).34 And while this report does not
focus on services, due to a lack of data, services play a critical role in advanced production sectors. For instance, every dollar of U.S. manufacturing output requires
19 cents of services, including logistics, advertising, and engineering.35 In 2012, the U.S. economy posted a $200 billion trade surplus in services.36 Boosting North
American advanced industry exports has clear advantages for each country. For
the United States and Canada, both of which face
widening trade deficits in manufacturing, advanced industries represent some of the most exportoriented segments of each economy . With little chance to compete on cost alone, each country
recognizes the increasing imperative to offer superior quality and value added. 37 For Mexico, which has
experienced a cyclical boom due to competitive wages and a favorable exchange rate, advanced industries represent opportunities to move into more sophisticated
parts of the value chain, improve productivity, and continue the nation’s economic ascent.38 Meeting the demand of developed economies in Europe and rising
markets in Africa, Asia, and South America for advanced industry products helps meet each country’s goals. Production
sharing means that the
respective export economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico rely greatly on intermediate
imports from their continental neighbors. At first glance, the benefits of imports may seem counterintuitive. Sourcing imports
internationally can displace domestic production and jobs, result in higher transportation costs for firms, and increase the risk of supply-chain disruptions.40 Yet
for both firms and countries, evidence shows that sourcing intermediate goods internationally
increases access to high- quality inputs, lowers overall costs for firms, and as a result increases
productivity and export prowess.41 In other words, imports improve product quality and lower
product cost, making exports more competitive in the global marketplace and ultimately supporting
jobs and wages at home. Co-production within North America also means that each country derives
more value from its partner countries’ exports to the rest of the world than from exports by other
global trading partners. The United States, for example, accounts for 20 percent and 16 percent of the value in Canadian and Mexican transportation
equipment exports, respectively, while Chinese, German, and Japanese transportation equipment exports all contain less than 4 percent U.S. value (Table 1). For
electrical and optical equipment, 14 percent of Canadian exports and 20 percent of Mexican exports are U.S. value added, well above the U.S. content in such
exports from China, Germany, and Japan. For machinery and chemicals, the same pattern holds.42 Simply put, the United States benefits more economically from a
Mexican or Canadian export than from a Chinese, Japanese, or German export. More
recent global dynamics also indicate that this
is a unique moment for the North American production platform. Some experts suggest that changing
global wage structures, fluctuating currencies, volatile energy prices, and rapidly changing
technologies mean that North America, and the United States in particular, may be able to “reshore”
manufacturing jobs that left for East Asia over the past two decades.43 Others remain more pessimistic.44 Notwithstanding these
uncertainties, it does appear that North America‘s free trade base and growing co-production in key
advanced industries positions it more strongly for near-term manufacturing growth . Five additional advantages
seem to favor the North American production platform: rising labor costs in China, transportation and logistical advantages from geographic proximity,
productionenhancing technological advancements, the shale gas revolution, and the growing prominence of urban economies as sites of co-located design and
production. First, experts predict that rising wages in China will make North America’s manufacturing base, particularly Mexico’s, more cost-competitive vis-à-vis
East Asia.45 After decades of Chinese wages undercutting production in Mexico, Chinese and Mexican labor costs are converging.46 Economists at JPMorgan Chase
note that wage advantages, along with a favorable exchange rate, have been responsible for Mexico’s manufacturing surge over the past couple of years.47
Furthermore, changing wage dynamics do not impact all industries equally; the extent to which labor is a significant share of input costs will determine whether
location decisions change as a result. In the case of advanced industries, where automation has already been widely implemented, labor cost changes matter most
in the assembly stages for high-value products such as electronics and precision instruments.48 Second,
for manufacturers selling into the
North American market, transportation costs and logistics advantages favor making products within
North America over East Asia. The rise of “just in time” manufacturing processes also relies on fast,
dependable shipping to lower warehousing costs and to keep factories running at full speed. Shipments from
China can cost as much as $5,000 per container compared to $3,000 per container from Mexico.49 Products from North American factories can reach U.S. supply
chains in less than a few days; containers from China can take up to three months to reach their U.S. destination.50 In the rush to offshore production to East Asia,
many companies focused strictly on labor costs and overlooked costs associated with longer supply chains and more complex logistics.51 As those costs have
become more apparent over time, the calculus for firms seems to be changing, particularly for industries such as chemicals, machinery, and transportation
equipment that rely on lean supply chains, locate production near final demand, and manufacture large and heavy products.52
Competitive advanced manufacturing is key to nanotech innovation
Swezey 11 (Devon Swezey, Project Director for Breakthrough Institute where he works as an energy
and climate policy analyst and Ryan McConaghy, “Manufacturing Growth Advanced Manufacturing and
the Future of the American Economy,” pg online @
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/BTI_Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_Manufacturing_Growth_.pdf)
New manufacturing thrives on and drives innovation. Manufacturing is a core component of the
nation’s innovation ecosystem. Firms engaged in manufacturing re-invest a significant portion of revenues in research and
development (R&D). Overall, the manufacturing sector comprises two-thirds 9 of industry investment in
R&D and employs nearly 64% of the country’s scientists and engineers. 10 Manufacturers also have
unique opportunities to apply new technologies for specialized functions and achieve economies of scale
at the plant or firm, 11 making the return on manufacturing R&D significant. The transition to advanced manufacturing will
enhance the sector’s role in fostering innovation and developing and commercializing new
technologies. Advanced manufacturing industries, including semiconductors, computers, pharmaceuticals, clean energy
technologies, and nanotechnology, play an outsized role in generating the new technologies, products, and processes that drive
economic growth. Advanced manufacturing is also characterized by the rapid transfer of science and technology into
manufacturing processes and products, which in and of itself drives innovation. The research-to-manufacturing process is cyclical, with multiple
feedbacks between basic R&D, pre-competitive research, prototyping, product development, and manufacturing. This
opens new
possibilities for product development and manufacturing. 12
Nano innovation makes us invulnerable to cyber attacks-lagging behind causes them.
Shay 10 (Christopher, Time Correspondent, “ China's Great (Quantum) Leap Forward,” Sep. 09, 2010,
Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2016687,00.html)
The advance in secure communications comes none too soon. With ever-increasing computing power, the
expiration date on today's cryptography techniques could be looming, Luce says. Right now, breaking modern
encryption techniques require such computing power that one can change the code long before a computer has time to crack it. But "it's
become very difficult to 'future proof' the encryption of data," Luce writes for the Jamestown Foundation. Tomorrow's
computers will improve and data could suddenly become unprotected, while quantum teleportation,
he says, "has a seemingly infinite time horizon." (Comment on this story.) Though the Chinese scientists claim in their peerreviewed paper that this experiment communicated quantum information more than 20 times farther than previous tests over open space, this
may not be entirely true. According to Luce in 2005, a group of universities along with defense corporations with a grant from the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) transferred quantum information over 23 km (14 miles) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Though
Luce writes that a few differences in the DARPA project "may not technically disqualify the Chinese" from their claims, it's clear the
U.S.
military is also investing in this technology. Luce says it's difficult to know how far the U.S. is in developing quantum
teleportation, "because a lot of the U.S. work is classified." Of course, what's possible in theory — perfectly secure communication — is
China's pioneering research in this technology is as much an
attempt to find weaknesses in a possible U.S. quantum security network as it is to develop its own. Roy
of the East-West Center says one of China's "pockets of excellence" is its cyber-warfare capability. If
developed by the U.S., however, this technology could help neutralize China's ability to break into
sensitive computer systems. Less than two weeks ago, researchers from Germany and Norway claim to have
hacked a commercial quantum cryptography system by exploiting flaws in its detection equipment. It doesn't
undermine the fundamental principle of secure quantum messaging, but it is a reminder that there is
almost always a loophole. "The security of quantum cryptography relies on quantum physics but not only," Gerd Leuchs, a
professor at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, says in a press release announcing the vulnerabilities. "It must also be properly
implemented." No one claims that the Chinese military will surpass the U.S.' anytime soon, but it isn't
just dueling naval exercises that will determine pecking order. It's also how fast China can integrate
the newest technologies into its military, maintaining its strengths like cyber-warfare while improving the
PLA's precision, coordination and secrecy. In these ways, China has made a quantum leap forward.
different from what will happen in practice. Luce suspects
Nuclear war
Tilford 12 Robert, Graduate US Army Airborne School, Ft. Benning, Georgia, "Cyber attackers could
shut down the electric grid for the entire east coast" 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/cyberattackers-could-easily-shut-down-the-electric-grid-for-the-entire-east-coa
To make matters worse a
cyber attack that can take out a civilian power grid, for example could also cripple the U.S.
military. The senator notes that is that the same power grids that supply cities and towns, stores and gas stations, cell towers and
heart monitors also power "every military base in our country." "Although bases would be prepared to weather a
short power outage with backup diesel generators, within hours, not days, fuel supplies would run out", he said. Which means
military command and control centers could go dark. Radar systems that detect air threats to our country would
shut Down completely. "Communication between commanders and their troops would also go silent. And many weapons
systems would be left without either fuel or electric power", said Senator Grassley. "So in a few short hours or days, the
mightiest military in the world would be left scrambling to maintain base functions", he said. We contacted the Pentagon and officials
confirmed the threat of a cyber attack is something very real. Top national security officials—including the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA Director— have said, "preventing
a cyber attack and improving the nation~’s electric grids is among the most urgent priorities of our country" (source: Congressional Record). So
how serious is the Pentagon taking all this? Enough to start, or end a war over it, for sure (see video: Pentagon declares
war on cyber attacks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kVQrp_D0kY%26feature=relmfu ). A cyber attack today against the US
could very well be seen as an "Act of War" and could be met with a "full scale" US military response. That could include
the use of "nuclear weapons", if authorized by the President.
1AC2
Legalization is key to DEA’s operations – infighting will wreck them
Hale, Drug Policy Fellow, 14
(Gary J. Hale is a nonresident fellow in drug policy and Mexico studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute
for Public Policy. Hale is a law enforcement and intelligence professional who retired from the federal
government in 2010 after a 37-year career with various intelligence community and federal law
enforcement agencies. “Marijuana Legalization and Decriminalization:
A Paradigm Shift in Federal Policy,” 8/15/14, http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/dab725fa/BIBrief-081514-Marijuana.pdf, ldg)
Good governance is about good stewardship, and that means that government executives should always look at how best to use the
government's vast assets, including personnel, money, and materials. To this end, continued opposition
by the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA)
to the legalization of marijuana is not only a losing battle, but also a waste of taxpayer money—
the president, the Congress, and nearly half of the state legislatures are responding to
the will of the people by decriminalizing nonviolent crimes such as marijuana drug use and possession. Our federal tax
dollars would be better spent by focusing on responding to the current widespread increase of heroin use
especially when
in ways that will prevent continued abuse , reduce harm to users , and provide greater public safety.
One of the tools that policymakers in government public safety and intelligence circles always seek to have in their toolbox is a predictive
analysis or an over-the-horizon view of the landscape so that resource decisions based on realistic threats can be developed. These analyses
often involve the combination of hard numbers, such as dollars in the budget, and softer criteria that provide patterns and indicators, to reach
a strategic or policy decision.
By using these same methodologies, an objective analyst can see a clearly emerging picture: Marijuana decriminalization and
legalization have gone past being a trend and are settling in as federal policy, especially with the costs
outweighing the benefits of incarcerating so many otherwise nonviolent offenders.
The paradigm has shifted, and the public is no longer interested in demonizing marijuana, especially after learning about the positive medicinal
benefits of the substance. The tipping point for this paradigm shift began with the state legislatures' decriminalization and legalization of
recreational use and medicinal marijuana. These efforts were given a boost when President Obama stated that marijuana is no more dangerous
than alcohol. While this assertion may be scientifically debatable, it nonetheless provided validation to the legislatures of those states that
recently passed decriminalization laws. Combined, these moves provided a platform for the federal government to begin the slow process of
reversing federal policy regarding marijuana enforcement, despite complaints from many in law enforcement.
The first and perhaps most important indicator that demonstrates the public’s disinclination to criminalize marijuana use was the decision by
the states of Colorado and Washington to legalize it for "recreational” use.1
The second was Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to stop prosecuting offenses related to medical marijuana in those states where its
medicinal use has been legalized. This was evidenced in an August 29, 2013, memorandum that separated the "seriously ill and their caregivers"
from "for-profit commercial enterprises." stressing that the latter is a more "appropriate target" for the Drug Enforcement Administration.3 By
issuing the memorandum. Holder took the first step toward realigning federal drug enforcement policy. Soon thereafter he also acknowledged
that the national incarceration rate was out of control, especially with regard to nonviolent offenders. The change is expected to cut many
federal drug sentences by an average of nearly two years, thereby reducing the prisoner population and the costs associated with those
incarcerations. This was not only a pragmatic move, but a fiscally necessary one as well.
From a policy point of view, the
federal government, especially the executive branch law enforcement agencies, needs to adopt
and adhere to the directives of the legislatures and stop clinging to archaic ideologies that are
counterproductive and seen as authoritative and repressive. Our current federal policy regarding marijuana is schizophrenic
and is regarded by the international community as hypocritical .
The actions of Colorado and Washington state have also allowed several nations to follow suit, most notably in Uruguay, where marijuana
legalization became national policy in 2012. Concurrent with the legalization of small, user-amounts of marijuana, Colombia and Mexico have
subsequently called for a review of international drug enforcement policies to reassess whether marijuana should continue to be afforded the
same level of enforcement effort as was previously given.3 Many nations are also taking note that despite
the US government's
liberalized policy accommodations for states that have decriminalized and legalized marijuana, the US
simultaneously holds its international law enforcement partners to a different and separate standard.
These incongruities translate into seemingly hypocritical policies that must be reconciled if the US
intends to maintain a leadership role for counter-drug matters around the world.
Under the terms of the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA, in consultation with Congress and other agencies, assigns drugs to various
"schedules" according to several criteria. Since the passage of the act in 1970, marijuana has been consigned to Schedule I, the most restrictive
category, because it allegedly has "a high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” Drugs
in the less restrictive Schedule II include cocaine, methamphetamine, oxycodone, morphine, and fentanyl, the latter drug being approximately
100 times stronger than morphine and exponentially more dangerous.4
Like it or not. the DEA is fighting an uphill battle by enforcing marijuana laws in the face of a new era of understanding, education, and public
sentiment, all of which represent a complete U-turn from the beliefs of the 1970s. The agency must accept that the American people, through
their duly elected representatives, simply do not wish to have our federal government continue to spend time, money, and resources fighting
marijuana possession and use, especially in light of the convincing evidence that the substance provides epileptics, veterans with PTSD, those
suffering the pains of cancer, and others with alternative medicinal choices.
Notwithstanding the enormous contributions the
DEA has made to public safety since its inception in 1973. the agency will be hard
pressed to continue to ignore the autonomy of 23 states when it comes to this issue. It may also be time for
the agency to realign its strategic thinking, adjust its policies to adopt this new paradigm, and develop a new approach for dealing with
marijuana legalization as a state issue rather than a federal crime.
Continued institutional resistance may jeopardize the vital relationship the agency has with
Congress and cause additional, seemingly punitive cuts from the DEA’s budget. Already, DEA administrator Vichelle
Leonhart is under attack by some in Congress who are calling for her dismissal.5 Taking a career law enforcement agent away
from the helm of the agency and into the hands of a non-law-enforcement political appointee could lead to a solution
that may be far too permissive and sound the death knell for a strong counter-drug advocacy in the federal
government. The DEA may have gone out on a proverbial limb when it reportedly criticized President
Obama's assertions regarding the dangers of marijuana, but looking back, it may well see that nonacceptance of public sentiment may be more like a walk onto a gang-plank that has adverse
consequences not only on the DEA but also on federal counter-drug law enforcement in general.
To this end, it may be in the best interest of all parties involved on either side of the issue to engage in a “timeout" of sorts in order to reassess
the merits of particular arguments, specifically regarding medicinal marijuana, followed by recreational use, followed by a review of
international norms regarding marijuana policy. Objective leadership must prevail over archaic propaganda.
AND – Legalization restores the DEA budget and refocuses their efforts – that’s key to
fighting narco-terror
Hale, Baker Institute Fellow in drug policy, 14
(Gary, a 31-year veteran of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and chief of intelligence in the
DEA's Houston Field Division from 2000 to 2010, is a nonresident fellow in drug policy at Rice
University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, “Gary Hale: Pot legalization is no longer a trend, it's policy,”
da: 7/16/14, http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Gary-Hale-Pot-legalization-is-no-longer-atrend-5626411.php, ldg)
In April, Holder said that the Justice Department is disposed to work with Congress should it wish to reschedule marijuana into a less dangerous
but still regulated category within the Controlled Substances Act. I believe rescheduling marijuana is the right road to take, given the lack of
convincing evidence that it is the evil portrayed by a more conservative public of the 1960s and '70s, a label some refuse to let go even today.
Rescheduling would not mean the government would give free rein to the growing marijuana industry, but it would mean the
DEA is listening to the public and the Congress and making well-reasoned decisions. It is also in the
best interests of the DEA's organizational and political survival. My predictive and objective analysis is that
Congress eventually will remove the designation of marijuana as one of the most threatening of
drugs, thereby redirecting federal counter-drug resources to focus on more clear and present dangers.
Federal tax revenues generated by marijuana legalization could provide the DEA with a much-needed
boost in funding to confront drug-related terrorism and other more pressing threats.
DEA is key to solve narcoterror – the threat is growing
Royce, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism chair, 2011
(Ed, “Narcoterrorism and the Long Reach of U.S. Law Enforcement, Part II”, 11-17,
http://royce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=269409)
Nothing better illustrates this threat than the Iranian-directed plot to assassinate a foreign ambassador on U.S. soil, detailed by the Justice Department last month.
A key conspirator in this plot approached a DEA informant seeking to hire a Mexican drug cartel hit squad to carry out the attack. The plot was planned over
multiple meetings in Mexico between the man now in U.S. custody and people he believed to be cartel members. This foiled plot is the latest example of how the
DEA has reached beyond U.S. borders to investigate, arrest and bring to justice those involved in
terrorist conspiracies . This plot wasn’t a surprise to this Subcommittee. In 2006, I chaired hearings, held on the border, where we heard testimony
from local law enforcement that the drug cartels would move anyone or anything: "so long as the price was right." Iran apparently believed $1.5 million was the
right price for this brazen attack. As we’ll hear today, an
increasing number of U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are
involved in drug trafficking. As investigator Doug Farah testified last month, "growing ties between transnational organized
crime from multiple regions, and terrorist organizations, are morphing into something new, which represents unprecedented
dangers " for our country. Whether it is the Russian mafia, FARC, Chinese Triads, Zetas, AQIM,
Hezbollah , Qods Force or al-Shabaab – many of these disparate groups may be connected through "super
fixers" or "shadow facilitators." These are the individuals or groups that provide the weapons, sophisticated
document forgeries and money laundering facilities. They work for both terrorists and drug cartels. One premier "super fixer" was
Viktor Bout, who supplied weapons to insurgents, militias, and terrorists. Bout was brought down by DEA agents in 2008 for conspiring to supply weapons to the
FARC, a designated terrorist group. After a long saga, Bout was extradited from Thailand to the U.S., and this month was found guilty of all charges against him. The
team that nabbed Bout is part of DEA’s Special Operations Division. They’ve had other high-profile
successes. As Mr. Maltz will testify, these
operations exemplify "what DEA does best: maximizing limited resources while working closely with
foreign counterparts and leveraging [DEA’s] vast array of confidential sources to infiltrate the highest
levels of the world’s most significant and notorious criminal organizations." But there are always ways to get better. A
former top DEA official told us last month that these shadow facilitators haven’t been "attacked to the extent necessary."
Even with the will, the Special Operations Division has only two of these field enforcement teams dedicated to narcoterrorism cases. With a unique set
of authorities, human sources, and experience in running complex operations, the DEA has been
bringing a " cutting edge " approach to attacking narcoterrorism. But the DEA’s presence in Africa is spread thin. Despite the
dramatic increase in drug trafficking across West and North Africa, many of these countries are covered by DEA offices in Europe. With a mix of al-Qaeda presence,
ungoverned spaces and weak institutions, the threat of narcoterrorism in this part of the world is a real concern.
narco-sub attacks are likely – DEA focus is key
Jorisch ‘12
Avi, a former U.S. Treasury Department official, is a senior fellow for counterterrorism at the American
Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C. “Drug War at Sea: Rise of the Narco Subs,” 5/13/12,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/13/the-drug-war-at-sea-rise-of-the-narco-subs.html
After a two-year manhunt, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency last week arrested Colombian drug kingpin Javier Antonio Calle
Serna, a senior leader of Los Rastrojos, one of the country’s most formidable drug-trafficking organizations. After being indicted last summer
by the Eastern District of New York, Serna reportedly felt so squeezed by the agency and rival drug dealers that he began negotiating for his
surrender.
His arrest is by all accounts good news, especially due to Los Rastrojos alleged connections to Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, Mexico’s most
wanted man and perhaps the world’s most notorious drug lord. Yet Serna’s
capture is also a reminder of one of the
growing challenges in the seemingly never-ending war on drugs: combating narco subs. Serna headed an
organization well known for its ability to rapidly build and use roughly 50-foot-long fiberglass vessels (PDF), which float just above the
waterline, to surreptitiously smuggle drugs across the globe.
Despite concerted efforts by governments to patrol their coastlines, drug traffickers have shown a remarkable ability to adapt, according to
experts such as Rear Adm. Joseph L. Nimmich, former commander of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Joint Interagency Task Force South. And over the
d rug- t rafficking o rganization s and terrorist groups have increasingly been moving massive
amounts of narcotics by way of these vessels. Indeed, U.S. counter-drug officials have estimated that
roughly 32 percent of all cocaine sent between Latin America and the United States is transported by
way of narco sub.
past five years,
Historically, each innovation in drug trafficking has come about when existing methods have reached a state of crisis. Early in the drug war,
Colombian drug cartels preferred to move their product by small planes, which landed on secret air strips in Central America. American
authorities eventually started tracking these planes and closing down the secret airports. During the Miami Vice era, drug traffickers used highspeed boats for transport, but again American authorities caught on. And so in the early ’90s, the narco sub was born.
Over the past few years, law-enforcement officials have received reports that terrorist
organizations, such as the FARC
in
Colombia and
the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, have been constructing semi-submersible narco subs to fund
their activities. So too have drug-trafficking organizations such as Mexico’s powerful Sinaloa Cartel. And though it hasn’t been
reported that al Qaeda and Hizbullah have ever tried to rent space on a narco sub or build one themselves in an effort to
move drugs, weapons, or terrorists, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine this development, especially
considering the latter’s alleged links to drug traffickers in parts of Latin America.
The reason these vessels are so successful, according to U.S. and Latin American law-enforcement officials, is that they’re difficult to capture.
Their hulls are painted dark blue, making them nearly impossible to spot. Powered by ordinary diesel engines, they leave little wake and
produce an extremely small radar signature. The
DEA claims that roughly 10 percent of all narco subs leaving Latin
America are caught, but the true number is probably much lower since crews often sink their craft if
they fear they might be discovered.
During the 1990s, American drug-enforcement officials heard of narco subs operating in Central America. In fact, the subs earned the named
Bigfoots because some considered them a myth. In 2006, that myth was shattered when U.S. authorities spotted and seized their first vessel. By
2008, they began spotting about 10 a month.
Analysts have estimated that drug-trafficking organizations manufacture more than 120 narco subs every year. The building process, they say,
takes anywhere from three months to a year, and costs up to $2 million per sub. The price may be well worth it, though, as these Bigfoots
reportedly move as much as 12 tons of cocaine per trip; cut and sold, that translates to up to $4 million.
In an interview with VICE’s VBS TV, former drug trafficker Miguel Angel Montoya said that most narco submarines are made in the
Buenaventura Jungle, one of Colombia’s poorest regions and an area that is accessible only by boat. Under the cover of the jungle’s heavy
foliage, traffickers are able to hide in plain sight from law enforcement as they carry out their nefarious activities. For access and protection,
narco traffickers pay the FARC and other paramilitary groups undisclosed sums, according to Montoya. The traffickers then assign each sub a
four-man crew and pay them roughly $40,000 total per voyage.
Semi-submersible subs generally leave Colombia and make their way to drop off their cargo in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. But
narco subs have been captured in Honduras, Colombia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Spain. And some are even rumored to have tried to
reach Italy. For drugs intended for the U.S. market, traffickers tend to ship their wares over land or transfer them to smaller crafts for smuggling
across the border. Narco subs can be used multiple times, but Colombian Coast Guard members have reported that crews tend to sink them
after their first voyage to decrease the chances of future detection.
As difficult as these subs are to detect, the situation is not hopeless. Allies
in the war on drugs can create obstacles for
drug runners. The U.S. (PDF) and Colombia have passed laws criminalizing the financing, construction, storage, transport, or use of semisubmersible submarines. Other Latin American countries should follow suit, especially now as successes in the drug war have increasingly
pushed cocaine producers into countries such as Peru and Bolivia.
Vigilance is especially important . The next generation of narco subs, Montoya says, will be piloted
remotely like unmanned aerial vehicles. And drug traffickers have reportedly already built full-blown submarines, equipped
with a periscopes and electric motors, which are able to dive to a depth of 20 meters.
Such rapid innovation is cause for concern, and law-enforcement officials throughout the Americas should bolster their
operations and increase their intelligence-sharing activities. In particular, the Organization of American States’ Anti-Money-Laundering Section,
which provides training and technical assistance to countries throughout the Western hemisphere, has an important role to play in assisting
countries to curb this threat. And
the U.S. and its allies in Central and South America should devote resources
Doing so is vital
allocated in regional security pacts such as the Merida Initiative and Plan Colombia, specifically to thwarting narco subs.
to our national security.
Extinction
Watkins ‘11
Lance, is a Lieutenant, United States Navy, “Self-propelled semi-submersibles: The next great threat to
regional security and stability,” https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=689011
It has become apparent that DTOs are maximizing their efforts of efficiency by developing more complex and sophisticated
submersibles . These fully submersibles are completely hidden beneath the ocean and can carry anything
unnoticed into the region, including WMDs.
In the past, chasing down high-speed go-fast boats was challenging, but not as scary as
having to fathom WMDs could be on one of these SPFS vessels heading straight to the U.S. The
new generation of narco subs developers
has scored a ―big one,‖ developing the capability to penetrate the region totally undetected. The technology
of SPSSs has taken a leap forward for DTOs, and it is just a matter time before they use the same innovative tactics to
create indefinable tunnels that reach into the U.S. In addition, the increasingly successful use of submarine-like small vessels by drug
smuggling organizations should raise the nation‘s anxiety concerning the possibility of a successful small boat attack in U.S. waters.128 The primary function of SelfPropelled Semi-Submersibles (SPSSs) is to transit cocaine from Colombia to Mexico and Central America. While this is bad enough, the real fear of U.S. officials is
that future
SPSSs may become the delivery vehicle for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), either biological or
nuclear , in the event that DTOs collaborate with terrorists to carry out an attack in the Western Hemisphere, or that terrorists simply acquire SPSS technology
SPSSs may deliver the next Armageddon, because, any viable method to covertly transport
large quantities of illicit drugs over long distances such as these [vessels] could conceivably be employed to
transport other prohibited materials.129 The Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast
offer a range of vulnerable targets for terrorist attacks. SPSSs also have the capability to smuggle human
cargo, perhaps Al Qaeda or Taliban agents. As SPSSs become more sophisticated, the potential to reach U.S. territorial waters grows.
on their own.
Therefore, deterrence and detection will become a layered, multi-agency challenge, involving distant interdiction by Colombia, intermediate interception by U.S.
and international navies, and potentially U.S. law enforcement agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and even local and state police.
1AC3
Despite the Farm Bill, hemp cultivation is failing – DEA crack downs
Rolling Stone 6/5/14 “Is DEA Dazed & Confused Over Industrial Hemp?,”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-dea-dazed-confused-over-industrial-hemp-20140604
Yet, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA) considers hemp a narcotic in the same category as LSD or heroin .
That’s why the DEA recently seized 250 pounds of hemp seed in Kentucky. The seeds, imported from Italy, were
destined for research projects authorized by Congress and President Obama as part of the 2014 Farm
Bill. To prevent the DEA from interfering with hemp research, numerous groups are teaming up against the federal agency. Last week, the U.S. House
approved two amendments that would stifle the DEA’s control over hemp. Just a few weeks ago, Kentucky’s Department of
Agriculture filed a lawsuit in federal court to force the DEA to release the confiscated seeds, which were imported from Italy. Following a two-week battle in federal
court, the DEA released the seeds. But only after Kentucky officials applied for a controlled substance permit. The "controlled substance" was delivered via UPS
truck to State Agriculture Commissioner James Comer’s office and some were planted at University of Kentucky’s research farm in Lexington, Kentucky. Scientists
there hope to pinpoint which types of hemp will grow best in the region. The
planting was hailed as a historic moment for Kentucky,
which was once a hotbed for hemp production. But the battle over hemp is far from over , according to those
involved in the case. "Although we applied for a permit to import a controlled substance, we still maintain industrial hemp is not a controlled substance and DEA has
no authority over hemp pilot programs because the farm bill specifically gave regulatory authority to the states," said Holly Harris VonLuehrte, chief of staff to
Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner James Comer, who is overseeing the research projects. "We concede nothing by planting these seeds. We simply wanted to get
this seed in the ground and get our research started. However, we will keep this case active." In a May 22nd letter releasing the seeds, the
DEA warned
Kentucky officials that private farmers could face prosecution for planting hemp, and pilot projects could be
destroyed as part of the federal marijuana eradication program. The DEA said it seized the seeds because
the intent of the farm bill is unclear and doesn’t include rules for importing hemp seeds . In response, state officials sent a
letter to a federal judge in Louisville, seeking a declaratory ruling. A court date has yet to be announced.
Marijuana legalization opens the door for hemp – that solves warming and displaces
cotton and corn ethanol production
Kozloff 13 –Nikolas, Phd, Latin American History from Oxford, frequent writer for al-Jazeera, “Fighting
Climate Change and Creating "Green Jobs": Is Hemp the Silver Bullet?,” March 30, 2013,
http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0330-kozloff-hemp.html
Though Obama has frequently spoken of the need for more “green jobs,” he has failed
to acknowledge the inherent environmental
advantages associated with a curious plant called hemp. One of the earliest domesticated crops, hemp is incredibly versatile
can be utilized for everything from food, clothing, rope, paper and plastic to even car parts. In an era of high unemployment, hemp could
and
provide welcome relief to the states and help to spur the transition from antiquated and polluting
manufacturing jobs to the new green economy . What is more, in lieu of our warming world and climate change, the need for
environmentally sustainable industries like hemp has never been greater. Given all of these benefits, why have Obama and the political establishment chosen to
remain silent? The explanation has to do with retrograde and backward beliefs which have been hindering environmental progress for a generation. A biological
cousin of marijuana, hemp contains minute amounts of THC or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive chemical. Even though advocates say one would have to
smoke huge amounts of hemp to get high, the plant occupies a highly dubious legal status in the U.S. During the 1970s, Congress
declared hemp a
“Schedule I” drug under the Controlled Substances Act, ridiculously lopping the plant in the same category as heroin. Though the authorities allow farmers to
petition the federal government to grow hemp, the Drug Enforcement Administration or D.E.A. has proven incredibly resistant to such licenses and for all intents
and purposes the crop has remained illegal [ironically enough, however, the U.S. imports many hemp-related products from abroad]. Tide Beginning to Turn On the
other hand,
tectonic political and cultural change may provide some reason for optimism.
Last fall,
Washington state and Colorado legalized marijuana which has in turn exerted pressure on the Obama administration. As I discuss in a recent
article, surprisingly diverse social constituencies supported the ballot initiatives , which suggests that the political tides may be turning
[in Latin America, too, public sentiment seems to have soured on Washington’s unpopular drug war].
In moving to legalize marijuana ,
Colorado also passed hemp legalization though the D.E.A. must still grant permission to farm the crop. Colorado joins a growing number of states
which are moving on hemp legislation, though such measures are hardly uniform. Some
states have authorized the study of industrial hemp
as an industry, while others have simply asked the Feds to relax draconian drug laws. Some, however, have legalized hemp
production just like Colorado. This
raids on local farms
in turn raises the question of whether the Obama administration might
actually
conduct
in an effort to crack down on the crop. Perhaps, such
a scenario will never come to pass since change
has even come to Capitol Hill: recently, a bipartisan group ranging from liberal Democrat to right-wing Republican
reintroduced legislation which would require the federal government to respect state laws allowing for the
cultivation of hemp. Could hemp help to bring back sorely needed employment in the American heartland? That is the hope in Kentucky, which had a
booming hemp industry as recently as World War II. Somewhat outlandishly, Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell no less has remarked “the utilization of
hemp to produce everything from clothing to paper is real, and if there is a capacity to center a new domestic industry in Kentucky that will create jobs in these
difficult economic times, that sounds like a good thing to me.” In Colorado meanwhile, hemp boosters are hoping that the once taboo crop could help the local
economy. Indeed, hemp production might provide the state with new jobs and tax revenue. Colorado farmers believe that their state could lead the way in this
new, innovative field and some even hope to turn their crop into edible oil. Trendy food markets in Boulder are already carrying a number of products made out of
hemp ranging from soaps to lotions and even protein powders. Perhaps, Colorado farmers will one day turn out “Hemp Hearts,” a new product made out of the
partially shelled seed of the plant. Boosters say Hemp Hearts, which don’t have an overly assertive taste, can be spread over cereal or yogurt. Not to be outdone,
manufacturers in Oregon hope that hemp will help to revive flagging industry. Oregon has been hard hit by the economic downturn, and hemp boosters say the
crop could assist in the production of everything from bio-plastics to sustainable construction materials to bio-fuels. Some envision a scenario in which hemp
farmers sell their crop to bio-fuel refineries and budding green-building entrepreneurs. Just across the border in California, meanwhile, farmers hope that hemp
fiber may help to spur the growth of a budding textile industry. From New Vehicles to Masonry to Textiles and Petrochemicals If such
hemp’s transformative properties were not enough, advocates
also
claims regarding
envision nothing less than the end of
the petrochemical industry as we know it . From shoes to sofas to cars and even planes, many of the common materials
that we use today are derived from petrochemicals. Hemp on the other hand is a versatile fiber and could be
employed in everything from the construction of tractor hoods to shields to cabs. At one time, none other than Henry
Ford produced a car whose frame was partially made of hemp and whose engine could be powered with hemp
fuel. Some manufacturers claim that vehicles made out of hemp are lighter and as a result display greater fuel efficiency. In addition, agricultural fibers can be
cheaper to produce than fiberglass. What is more, scientists are conducting research on how to derive biodegradable plastic products from hemp. Already,
such
research has borne fruit as auto companies introduce hemp into major manufacturing . Perhaps most
interestingly, hemp can also be made into most any building material including roofing, flooring, paint and even bricks. Hemp plaster is known for its high insulation
qualities and can reduce the need for heating in winter and air conditioning in summer. Curiously, by simply adding water and lime to hemp one winds up with
efficient and lightweight “hempcrete” which can help to construct houses. Experts say that hemp masonry exhibits exceptional fire resistant qualities and is easily
recycled. Advocates also believe that hemp
“
can help to bring about a revolution in the textile industry. In the not-too-distant future,
eco-textiles” could become a popular buzzword as hemp replaces environmentally wasteful cotton
production . Entrepreneurs say that hemp necessitates far less water to grow than cotton. Additionally, hemp rarely
requires pesticides to grow and scientists are developing an innovative technique designed to turn tough hemp
fiber into yarn. Early independent tests indicate that the process yields clothes which are durable and comparable to cotton in both softness and brightness.
Interestingly enough, by shifting to large-scale hemp production the U.S. might not only spur the growth of new industries but also help to clean up contaminated
landfill. Recently, the Colorado State legislature passed a bill to study hemp’s potential to bring about so-called “phyto-remediation,” a process by which plants
actually filter and clean polluted soil. If Colorado plants hemp on contaminated sites, the state would follow in the steps of Ukraine, which planted industrial hemp
near Chernobyl in the late 1990s in an effort to remove harmful contaminants from the ill-fated nuclear site. Bio-Fuels and Climate Change As if all these potential
advocates hope that hemp could also be used to create a new bio-fuel . To be sure, the
planet needs to shift away from fossil fuels which exacerbate climate change , though in practice some bio-fuels fail
to measure up. As I argue in my last book, No Rain in the Amazon: How South America’s Climate Change Affects the Entire Planet , corn-based
benefits were not enough,
ethanol based in the American Midwest does not put much of a dent in our global warming problem .
Though Brazil’s program of sugar cane ethanol is somewhat better than corn from an environmental standpoint,
the crop still eats up land and leads to deforestation in sensitive bio-diverse areas such as the
cerrado.
Moreover, sugar
cane requires fertilizer and deprives poor peasant farmers of land which could otherwise
be used to grow food. So, how does hemp stack up when compared to corn or sugar cane? Writing in Salon, Steven Wishnia remarks that hemp oil for biofuel “is unlikely to be practical.” At 50 gallons per acre, he explains, “even if every acre of U.S. cropland were used for hemp, it would supply current U.S. demand
for oil for less than three weeks.” Nevertheless, hemp biomass can be converted into many diverse fuels such as methane, methanol and gasoline. Moreover,
planting hemp arguably represents a more efficient use of land and resources than corn or sugarcane. That is so
because hemp can be used for fuel but also for food and its seeds contain roughly four times the cellulose biomass
potential of corn. Best of all, hemp grows very fast and leaves the soil in good shape.
In addition to bio-fuel, could
hemp also lead to other benefits — like helping restore the earth’s climate equilibrium ? The short answer seems to be, yes . As
hemp grows, it “sequesters” or captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere . Hemp is able to
sequester such large amounts of carbon because it grows very tall — between 9 and 12 feet to be exact
—
within a very short span of time. Furthermore, when hemp is manufactured into masonry this acts as a carbon sink:
the carbon is literally locked into the building material. A Silver Bullet?
With so many benefits, hemp
advocates
believe that the plant may represent a silver bullet when it comes to solving the earth’s many
environmental problems. Take for example widespread deforestation which has exacerbated climate change.
Though deforestation is linked to many diverse and complex causes, the
and marijuana boosters
— which often overlap — claim
timber industry has no doubt played a nefarious role. Hemp
that hemp might offer a way out of our deforestation
dilemma. Hemp has a higher cellulose level than wood, advocates argue, and therefore the plant could be
used for paper to avoid cutting down trees. The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol argues that
hemp paper manufacturing may reduce wastewater contamination and the plant’s low lignin content reduces the
need for acids utilized in the process of pulping. Hemp can be used for every quality of paper, though it would most likely be mixed with
recycled paper. Moreover, advocates say that high quality hemp paper can be recycled more times than wood-based paper. “Hemp produces more pulp per acre
than timber on a sustainable basis,” the group states. Not everyone, however, agrees with such rosy prognostications. According to the Instituto Superior Técnico in
Portugal, hemp is nowhere near as environmentally-friendly as eucalyptus and researchers say that hemp is an “annual” plant that needs to be grown from scratch
year in and year out. Whatever
the case, hemp’s overall environmental potential should not be underestimated. In an era of
the Obama administration
ever worsening global warming and job scarcity, this unlikely plant may represent an ecological and social boon to wider society. If
is serious about job creation and the next wave of green employment, it would do well to investigate hemp
more seriously. To be sure,
the humble crop still carries a social stigma, though such outmoded attitudes seem to be changing.
Indeed, if
recent political and cultural change associated with marijuana legalization is any indication , hemp
production may be coming to America sooner rather than later.
US reducing carbon foot print while maintaining growth is key to global emission
reductions
Traub, Centre on International Cooperation, 2012
(James, “Transforming the future lies in our hands”, 12-14,
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/transforming-the-future-lies-in-our-hands-1.1118704, ldg)
Despite President Barack Obama’s vow, in his first post-reelection press conference, to take decisive action on climate change,
the global climate talks in Doha dragged to a close with the US, as usual, a target of activists’ wrath. The Obama
administration has shown no interest in submitting to a binding treaty on carbon emissions and refuses to increase funding to help developing countries reduce
their own emissions, even as the US continues to behave as a global scofflaw on climate change. Actually, that is not true — the last part, anyway. According to the
International Energy Agency, US emissions have dropped 7.7 per cent since 2006 — “the largest reduction of all countries or regions”. Yes, you read that correctly.
The US, which has refused to sign the Kyoto Accords establishing binding targets for emissions, has reduced its carbon footprint faster than the greener-than-thou
European countries. The reasons for this have something to do with climate change itself (warm winters mean less heating oil — something to do with market
forces — the shift from coal to natural gas in power plants) and something to do with policy at the state and regional levels. And in the coming years, as both new
gas-mileage standards and new power-plant regulations, championed by the Obama administration kick in, policy will drive the numbers further downwards. US
emissions are expected to fall 23 per cent between 2002 and 2020. Apparently, Obama’s record on climate change is not quite as calamitous as reputation would
have it. The West has largely succeeded in bending downwards the curve of carbon emissions. However, the developing world has not. Last year, China’s emissions
rose 9.3 per cent; India’s, 8.7 per cent. China is now the world’s No 1 source of carbon emissions, followed by the US, the European Union (EU) and India. The
emerging powers have every reason to want to emulate the energy-intensive economic success of the
West — even those , like China, who have taken steps to increase energy efficiency, are not prepared to do anything to
harm economic growth. The real failure of US policy has been, first, that it is still much too timid ; and second, that it has not
acted in such a way as to persuade developing nations to take the truly difficult decisions which would put the world on a
sustainable path. There is a useful analogy with the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In an earlier
generation, the nuclear stockpiles of the US and the Soviet Union posed the greatest threat to global
security. Now,
the threat comes from the proliferation of weapons to weak or rogue states or to non-state actors. However, the only
way that Washington can persuade other governments to join in a tough nonproliferation regime is by taking the lead
in reducing its own nuclear stockpile — which the Obama administration has sought to do, albeit with very imperfect success. In other words, where power is more
widely distributed, US
action matters less in itself, but carries great weight as a demonstration model
— or anti-
demonstration model. Logic would thus dictate that the US bind itself in a global compact to reduce emissions, as through the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
it has bound itself to reduce nuclear weapons. However, the Senate would never ratify such a treaty. And even if it did, would China and India similarly bind
themselves? Here the nuclear analogy begins to break down because the NPT mostly requires that states submit to inspections of their nuclear facilities, while a
climate change treaty poses what looks very much like a threat to states’ economic growth. Fossil fuels are even closer to home than nukes. Is it any wonder that
only EU countries and a few others have signed the Kyoto Accords? A global version of Kyoto is supposed to be readied by 2015, but a growing number of climate
change activists — still very much a minority — accept that this may not happen and need not happen. So what
can Obama do? It is possible that
much tougher action on emissions will help persuade China, India and others that energy efficiency
need not hinder economic growth. As Michael Levi, a climate expert at the Council on Foreign Relations points out, the US gets little credit
abroad for reducing emissions largely — thanks to “serendipitous” events. Levi argues, as do virtually all policy thinkers and advocates, that the US must increase
the cost of fossil fuels, whether through a “carbon tax” or cap-and-trade system, so that both energy efficiency and alternative fuels become more attractive and
also to free-up money to be invested in new technologies. This is what Obama’s disappointed supporters thought he would do in the first term and urge him to do
now. Obama is probably not going to do that. In his post-election news conference, he insisted that he would find “bipartisan” solutions to climate change and
congressional Republicans are only slightly more likely to accept a sweeping change in carbon pricing than they are to ratify a climate-change treaty. The president
also said that any reform would have to create jobs and growth, which sounds very much like a signal that he will avoid new taxes or penalties (even though
advocates of such plans insist that they would spur economic growth). All these prudent political calculations are fine when you can afford to fail. But we cannot
afford to fail. Global temperatures have already increased 0.7 degrees Celsius. Disaster really strikes at a 2 degree Celsius
increase, which leads to large-scale drought, wildfires, decreased food production and coastal flooding. However, the current global trajectory of coal, oil and gas
consumption means that, according to Fatih Birol, the International Energy Agency’s chief economist, “the door to a 2 degree Celsius trajectory is about to close.”
That is how dire things are. What,
then, can Obama do that is equal to the problem? He can invest . Once the fiscal cliff
negotiations are behind him, and after he has held his planned conversation with “scientists, engineers and elected officials,” he can tell the American
people that they have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the future — for themselves and for people
everywhere. He can propose — as he hoped to do as part of the stimulus package of 2009 — that the US build a “smart grid” to radically improve the efficiency of
electricity distribution. He can argue for large-scale investments in research and development of new sources of energy and energy-efficient construction
technologies and lots of other whiz-bang things. This, too, was part of the stimulus spending; it must become bigger and permanent. The reason Obama should do
this is, first, because the
American people will (or could) rally behind a visionary programme in a way that they
never will get behind the dour mechanics of carbon pricing. Second, because the way to get to a carbon tax is to use it as a
financing mechanism for such a plan. Third, because oil and gas are in America’s bloodstream; as Steven Cohen, executive director of
the Earth Institute, puts it: “ The only thing that’s going to drive fossil fuels off the market is cheaper renewable
energy .” Fourth, the US cannot afford to miss out on the gigantic market for green technology. Finally, there’s
and India may not do something sensible but painful, like adopting carbon pricing, because the
US does so, but they will adopt new technologies if the US can prove that they work without harming economic
growth. Developing countries have already made major investments in reducing air pollution, halting deforestation and
leverage. China
practising sustainable agriculture. They
model
— the
are just too modest. It is here, above all, that the US can serve as a demonstration
world’s most egregious carbon consumer showing the way to a low-carbon future. Global
warming-denial is finally on the way out. Three-quarters of Americans now say they believe in global warming and more than half believe that humans are causing it
and want to see a US president take action. President Obama
does not have to do the impossible. He must, however, do
the possible.
The polar icecaps are melting faster than we thought they would; seas are rising faster than we
thought they would; extreme weather events are increasing. Have a nice day! That’s a less than scientifically rigorous
summary of the findings of the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released this morning in Stockholm.¶
Newest and most rigorous studies conclude warming is anthropogenic – no alt causes
Muller, University of California-Berkeley physics professor, 2012 (Richard A., former MacArthur
Foundation fellow, "The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic," 7-28-12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-aclimate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all)
Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my
mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort
involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of
the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. My total
turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my
daughter Elizabeth. Our
results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a
half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.
Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of
greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United
Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the
prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of
Our Berkeley Earth approach used
sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth
land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from
urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the
available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and
from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that
none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. The historic temperature pattern we
changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful
sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream;
because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the
gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We
tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials),
to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the
record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice. Just as important, our record
is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little
Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from
satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little. How definite is the
attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its
magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t
prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well
as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results.
Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and
adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas
increase. It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just
plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed. Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global
warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding
ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the
“Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent
warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.
The
careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also
shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches
solar activity. Four
of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the
newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and
computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data
or analysis. What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise . I
expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the
next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged
10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same
warming could take place in less than 20 years. Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I
embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate
regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be
done.
Failure to solve warming causes extinction – geological history proves
Bushnell, NASA Langley Research Center chief scientist, 2010 (Dennis M. has a MS in mechanical
engineering, won the Lawrence A. Sperry Award, AIAA Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Award, the AIAA Dryden Lectureship, and is the recipient of
many NASA Medals for outstanding Scientific Achievement and Leadership, "Conquering Climate Change," The Futurist 44. 3, May/Jun 2010,
ProQuest)
Unless we act, the next century could see increases in species extinction, disease, and floods affecting one-third
of human population. But the tools for preventing this scenario are in our hands. Carbon-dioxide levels are now
greater than at any time in the past 650,000 years, according to data gathered from examining ice cores. These increases in CO2
correspond to estimates of man-made uses of fossil carbon fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. The global climate
computations, as reported by the ongoing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) studies, indicate that s uch man-made CO2 sources could
be responsible for observed climate changes such as temperature increases, loss of ice coverage, and ocean
acidification. Admittedly, the less than satisfactory state of knowledge regarding the effects of aerosol and other issues make the global climate
computations less than fully accurate, but we must take this issue very seriously. I believe we should act in accordance with the precautionary principle: When
an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures become
obligatory, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. As paleontologist Peter Ward discussed in his book Under a
Green Sky, several "warming events" have radically altered the life on this planet throughout geologic
history. Among the most significant of these was the Permian extinction, which took place some 250 million years ago. This
event resulted in a decimation of animal life, leading many scientists to refer to it as the Great Dying.
The Permian extinction is thought to have been caused by a sudden increase in CO2 from Siberian
volcanoes. The amount of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere today, through human activity, is 100 times greater
than what came out of those volcanoes. During the Permian extinction, a number of chain reaction events, or
"positive feedbacks," resulted in oxygen-depleted oceans, enabling overgrowth of certain bacteria,
producing copious amounts of hydrogen sulfide, making the atmosphere toxic, and decimating the ozone
layer, all producing species die-off. The positive feedbacks not yet fully included in the IPCC projections include the
release of the massive amounts of fossil methane, some 20 times worse than CO2 as an accelerator of warming, fossil CO2
from the tundra and oceans, reduced oceanic CO2 uptake due to higher temperatures, acidification and algae
changes, changes in the earth's ability to reflect the sun's light back into space due to loss of glacier ice, changes in land
use, and extensive water evaporation (a greenhouse gas) from temperature increases. The additional effects of these feedbacks
increase the projections from a 4°C-6°C temperature rise by 2100 to a 10°C-12°C rise, according to some estimates. At those temperatures,
beyond 2100, essentially all the ice would melt and the ocean would rise by as much as 75 meters, flooding the homes of
one-third of the global population. Between now and then, ocean methane hydrate release could cause major tidal waves, and
glacier melting could affect major rivers upon which a large percentage of the population depends. We'll see increases in flooding, storms,
disease, droughts, species extinctions, ocean acidification, and a litany of other impacts, all as a consequence of manmade climate change. Arctic ice melting, CO2 increases, and ocean warming are all occurring much faster than previous IPCC forecasts, so, as dire as the
forecasts sound, they're actually conservative.
Hemp will displace corn ethanol without trading off with food production – its ten
times as effective
Kolosov 9 – Christine, J.D., UCLA School of Law, 2009. “Comment: Evaluating the Public Interest:
Regulation of Industrial Hemp Under the Controlled Substances Act,” 57 UCLA L. Rev. 237
Also intriguing is a phytoremediation 48 study conducted in Germany suggesting that industrial hemp is an "ideal
candidate as a profit yielding crop" 49 when used for absorption in soils contaminated with heavy
metals. Hemp accumulates high concentrations of such metals in its leaves with relatively low levels in
the hurds 50 and fibers. 51 Whereas these levels would disqualify the hemp fibers for use in food or
clothes production, the fibers could be used in composite materials, and the oil could still be utilized in
lacquer or industrial oil production . 52 The investigators further hypothesized [*244] that industrial
hemp grown for phytoremediation could later be used for energy production in thermal power
stations , as the fiber contamination levels fall within the range approved for this purpose. 53 They highlighted
that hemp can be successfully grown under natural conditions, requiring neither "the expensive use of fertilisers
nor the time-and money-consuming control of optimal growth conditions." 54 Researchers conducting a
phytoremediation study in Hawaii also found that industrial hemp has a very high tolerance for chrysene and
benzoapyrene, hydrocarbons present in many industrial sites and in harbor sediments. 55 As it grows very
quickly in locations like Hawaii, 56 hemp is a strong candidate for remediation in tropical areas
contaminated with hydrocarbons. 57 Hemp also holds significant potential for production of biofuels .
Twenty gallons of methanol can be produced per acre of industrial hemp - ten times as many as from an acre
of corn stalks. 58 And, as cellulose ethanol technology advances, industrial hemp holds great promise because
of its high biomass cellulose content . 59 Moreover, because of its heartiness and adaptability to a wide
variety of climates and growing conditions, 60 hemp is cited as a crop that could yield biofuels without
competing with food crops for water or land. 61 Retail sales of imported hemp products exceeded $
70 million in the United States in 2006. 62 Given hemp's wide-ranging utility, supporters of domestic
cultivation estimate that it would create a $ 300 million dollar industry. 63 However , its legal status, as
interpreted by the DEA, has thwarted the attempts of farmers to grow hemp domestically.
Food spikes risk global food wars and imperils billions
Klare 12 [Michael, Professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, As Food Prices
Rise, Dangers of Social Unrest Seem Imminent, August 9, http://highbrowmagazine.com/1459-foodprices-rise-dangers-potential-social-unrest-seem-imminent]
The Great Drought of 2012 has yet to come to an end, but we already know that its consequences will
be severe. With more than one-half of America’s counties designated as drought disaster areas, the
2012 harvest of corn, soybeans, and other food staples is guaranteed to fall far short of predictions. This,
in turn, will boost food prices domestically and abroad, causing increased misery for farmers and lowincome Americans and far greater hardship for poor people in countries that rely on imported U.S.
grains.
This, however, is just the beginning of the likely consequences: If history is any guide, rising food prices
of this sort will also lead to widespread social unrest and violent conflict.
Food—affordable food—is essential to human survival and well-being. Take that away, and people
become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the United States, food represents only about 13 percent of
the average household budget, a relatively small share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably
not prove overly taxing for most middle—and upper-income families. It could, however, produce
considerable hardship for poor and unemployed Americans with limited resources.
“You are talking about a real bite out of family budgets,” commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural
economist at Omaha’s Creighton University. This could add to the discontent already evident in
depressed and high-unemployment areas, perhaps prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent
politicians and other forms of dissent and unrest.
It is in the international arena, however, that the Great Drought is likely to have its most devastating
effects. Because so many nations depend on grain imports from the U.S. to supplement their own
harvests, and because intense drought and floods are damaging crops elsewhere as well, food supplies
are expected to shrink and prices to rise across the planet.
“What happens to the U.S. supply has immense impact around the world,” says Robert Thompson, a
food expert at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn
and soybeans, disappear from world markets, he noted, the price of all grains, including wheat, is likely
to soar, causing immense hardship to those who already have trouble affording enough food to feed
their families.
The Hunger Games, 2007-2011
What happens next is, of course, impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn
ugly. In 2007-2008, when rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100 percent or more, sharply
higher prices—especially for bread—sparked “food riots” in more than two dozen countries, including
Bangladesh , Cameroon , Egypt , Haiti , Indonesia , Senegal , and Yemen . In Haiti, the rioting
became so violent and public confidence in the government’s ability to address the problem dropped so
precipitously that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the country’s prime minister, Jacques-Édouard Alexis.
In other countries, angry protestors clashed with army and police forces, leaving scores dead.
Those price increases of 2007-2008 were largely attributed to the soaring cost of oil, which made food
production more expensive. (Oil’s use is widespread in farming operations, irrigation, food delivery, and
pesticide manufacture.) At the same time, increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being
diverted from food crops to the cultivation of plants used in making biofuels.
The next price spike in 2010-11 was, however, closely associated with climate change. An intense
drought gripped much of eastern Russia during the summer of 2010, reducing the wheat harvest in that
breadbasket region by one-fifth and prompting Moscow to ban all wheat exports. Drought also hurt
China’s grain harvest, while intense flooding destroyed much of Australia’s wheat crop. Together with
other extreme-weather-related effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by more than 50
percent and the price of most food staples by 32 percent.
Once again, a surge in food prices resulted in widespread social unrest, this time concentrated in North
Africa and the Middle East. The earliest protests arose over the cost of staples in Algeria and then
Tunisia, where—no coincidence—the precipitating event was a young food vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi,
setting himself on fire to protest government harassment. Anger over rising food and fuel prices
combined with long-simmering resentments about government repression and corruption sparked what
became known as the Arab Spring. The rising cost of basic staples, especially a loaf of bread, was also a
cause of unrest in Egypt , Jordan , and Sudan . Other factors, notably anger at entrenched autocratic
regimes, may have proved more powerful in those places, but as the author of Tropic of Chaos, Christian
Parenti, wrote, “The initial trouble was traceable, at least in part, to the price of that loaf of bread.”
As for the current drought, analysts are already warning of instability in Africa , where corn is a major
staple, and of increased popular unrest in China , where food prices are expected to rise at a time of
growing hardship for that country’s vast pool of low-income, migratory workers and poor peasants.
Higher food prices in the U.S. and China could also lead to reduced consumer spending on other goods,
further contributing to the slowdown in the global economy and producing yet more worldwide misery,
with unpredictable social consequences.
The Hunger Games, 2012-?
If this was just one bad harvest, occurring in only one country, the world would undoubtedly absorb the
ensuing hardship and expect to bounce back in the years to come. Unfortunately, it’s becoming evident
that the Great Drought of 2012 is not a one-off event in a single heartland nation, but rather an
inevitable consequence of global warming which is only going to intensify. As a result, we can expect not
just more bad years of extreme heat, but worse years, hotter and more often, and not just in the United
States, but globally for the indefinite future.
Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to blame particular storms or droughts on global warming.
Now, however, a growing number of scientists believe that such links can be demonstrated in certain
cases. In one recent study focused on extreme weather events in 2011, for instance, climate specialists
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Great Britain’s National Weather
Service concluded that human-induced climate change has made intense heat waves of the kind
experienced in Texas in 2011 more likely than ever before. Published in the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, it reported that global warming had ensured that the incidence of that Texas
heat wave was 20 times more likely than it would have been in 1960; similarly, abnormally warm
temperatures like those experienced in Britain last November were said to be 62 times as likely because
of global warming.
It is still too early to apply the methodology used by these scientists to calculating the effect of global
warming on the heat waves of 2012, which are proving to be far more severe, but we can assume the
level of correlation will be high. And what can we expect in the future, as the warming gains
momentum?
When we think about climate change (if we think about it at all), we envision rising temperatures,
prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels. Among other things, this will
result in damaged infrastructure and diminished food supplies. These are, of course, manifestations of
warming in the physical world, not the social world we all inhabit and rely on for so many aspects of our
daily well-being and survival. The purely physical effects of climate change will, no doubt, prove
catastrophic. But the social effects including, somewhere down the line, food riots, mass starvation,
state collapse, mass migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could
prove even more disruptive and deadly.
In her immensely successful young-adult novel, The Hunger Games (and the movie that followed),
Suzanne Collins riveted millions with a portrait of a dystopian, resource-scarce, post-apocalyptic future
where once-rebellious “districts” in an impoverished North America must supply two teenagers each
year for a series of televised gladiatorial games that end in death for all but one of the youthful
contestants.
These “hunger games” are intended as recompense for the damage inflicted on the victorious capitol of
Panem by the rebellious districts during an insurrection. Without specifically mentioning global
warming, Collins makes it clear that climate change was significantly responsible for the hunger that
shadows the North American continent in this future era. Hence, as the gladiatorial contestants are
about to be selected, the mayor of District 12’s principal city describes “the disasters, the droughts, the
storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land [and] the brutal war for
what little sustenance remained.”
In this, Collins was prescient, even if her specific vision of the violence on which such a world might be
organized is fantasy. While we may never see her version of those hunger games, do not doubt that
some version of them will come into existence—that, in fact, hunger wars of many sorts will fill our
future. These could include any combination or permutation of the deadly riots that led to the 2008
collapse of Haiti’s government , the pitched battles between massed protesters and security forces that
engulfed parts of Cairo as the Arab Spring developed, the ethnic struggles over disputed croplands and
water sources that have made Darfur a recurring headline of horror in our world, or the inequitable
distribution of agricultural land that continues to fuel the insurgency of the Maoist-inspired Naxalites
of India .
Combine such conflicts with another likelihood: that persistent drought and hunger will force millions of
people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns and expanding slums
surrounding large cities, sparking hostility from those already living there. One such eruption, with grisly
results, occurred in Johannesburg’s shantytowns in 2008 when desperately poor and hungry migrants
from Malawi and Zimbabwe were set upon, beaten, and in some cases burned to death by poor South
Africans. One terrified Zimbabwean, cowering in a police station from the raging mobs, said she fled her
country because “there is no work and no food.” And count on something else: millions more in the
coming decades, pressed by disasters ranging from drought and flood to rising sea levels, will try to
migrate to other countries, provoking even greater hostility. And that hardly begins to exhaust the
possibilities that lie in our hunger-games future.
At this point, the focus is understandably on the immediate consequences of the still ongoing Great
Drought: dying crops, shrunken harvests, and rising food prices. But keep an eye out for the social and
political effects that undoubtedly won’t begin to show up here or globally until later this year or 2013.
Better than any academic study , these will offer us a hint of what we can expect in the coming decades
from a hunger-games world of rising temperatures, persistent droughts, recurring food shortages, and
billions of famished , desperate people .
2AC
Hemp
a) Market potential—US legalization is necessary to spur enough domestic production
to displace products that cause warming—only legalized hemp is cheap enough
Seabolt 14
Jessica, reporter for The Statehouse File, "General Assembly passes bill to legalize industrial hemp",
Indianapolis Business Journal, March 13 2014, www.ibj.com/articles/46674-general-assembly-passesbill-to-legalize-industrial-hemp
A bill to legalize the cultivation of industrial hemp in Indiana is headed to Gov. Mike Pence after it passed the House on Wednesday night and
the Senate on Thursday. Democratic Sen. Richard Young of Milltown said that over a period of years Senate Bill 357 would have a large impact
by providing Indiana with hundreds or even thousands of jobs, especially in agriculture. “While
the cultivation and production
of industrial hemp will create jobs in the agricultural sector, the current costs of importing and
transporting hemp from countries like Canada prevent our manufacturers from really prospering
while making hemp products, ” Young said in a press release. “Producing hemp in the state will cut those costs
and help our manufacturers create jobs,” he said. Young said industrial hemp products could be made right
now but it’s expensive to import hemp from out of the country. He said manufacturers in Indiana choose to
use other products instead. But being able to grow hemp right next to industrial facilities will cut
down on the transportation costs and make it really cost-effective.
d) International markets fail—Hemp is currently grown for novelty products, not largescale manufacturing
Ehrensing 98
Daryl T., Alternative Crop Development Specialist, Researcher, Agronomist, and Farms Manager at
Oregon State University, "Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in the United States Pacific
Northwest", May 1998, Oregon State University, Extension Service,
extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sb/sb681/
Because of their strength and durability, hemp fibers have been used for production of cordage and coarse textiles for centuries. In addition,
hemp can provide raw material for pulp and paper manufacture, composite wood products such as particleboard and insulation board, and
industrial products including geotextiles and nonwoven industrial fabrics. Hemp
currently provides less than one percent
of total world production of vegetable fibers (Table 1.) (FAO, 1996). Use of hemp for marine cordage was largely replaced by
abaca in the 1800’s because abaca ropes are lighter and will float in water, are more resistant to damage from salt water without being tarred,
and are less expensive than hemp due to lower labor costs in the tropics (Ash, 1948; Robinson, 1953; Dempsey, 1975). Relatively inexpensive
synthetic (polypropylene) and natural (sisal) fibers have occupied most of the agricultural twine markets formerly served by hemp. Hemp
textile production is based primarily in Asia and central Europe. Korea has a long history of hemp fabric production,
primarily for use as domestic clothing (Ree, 1966). In Italy, Hungary, and adjacent countries, water-retted fiber is
prepared with great care to produce relatively fine yarns and soft fabrics resembling flax (Montgomery,
1954). These yarns and cloth are quite expensive compared to natural and synthetic fiber blends made
from competing fiber sources largely due to the amount of hand labor involved in their production. A
small novelty market based on hemp textiles imported from China and Hungary has been developing
in western Europe and the United States since the late 1980’s.
Not Profit CP
Little marijuana is harder to regulate
Mikos, Vanderbilt law professor, 2014
(Robert, “Which poses the bigger threat: Big Marijuana or Little Marijuana?”, 2-25,
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/marijuana_law/2014/02/which-poses-the-bigger-threat-bigmarijuana-or-little-marijuana.html, ldg)
On the other side, government officials have raised the specter of Little Marijuana. Little
Marijuana depicts the current structure of
the industry. It is populated with hundreds – and in states that allow home cultivation, thousands -- of
relatively small growers and distributors. While a fragmented industry wields less political clout, it is
also far, far more difficult to police. It is a lot easier for government agents to monitor an industry comprised of a few Big firms than it is for
them to monitor an industry comprised of many Small ones. Hence, as long as the marijuana industry remains highly
fragmented, governments will likely have a difficult time enforcing sensible restrictions on its
activities. C olorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, for example, has struggled to monitor the hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries in the state,
and state officials have complained that home cultivation exacerbates the problem. For all of its vices, Big Tobacco helps demonstrate the
upside of a highly concentrated industry structure. For example, as I discuss in more detail in this paper, there is relatively
little evasion of cigarette taxes in this country, even though the taxes imposed on cigarettes can be
quite high (e.g., 45% in federal and state excise taxes alone in California). For example, several studies estimated that only about 7-12% of cigarette taxes go
unpaid on average. (Not surprisingly, the number is higher in high-tax jurisdictions.) In large part, the successful enforcement of
cigarette taxes can be traced to the highly concentrated structure of the tobacco industry: three
firms now manufacture roughly 85% of all cigarettes consumed in this coun try (and they do so at just 15 factories). I
think it safe to say that monitoring this industry to ensure that taxes are paid (and other regulations
followed) is far easier than it would be if thousands of firms were now manufacturing cigarettes.
Perm do the cp—regulations are the end-point of the legalization process—
parameters are established based on specific challenges
Global Commission on Drug Policy 2014
(“Taking Control: Pathways To Drug Policies That Worktaking Control: Pathways To Drug Policies That
Work”, September,
http://static.squarespace.com/static/53ecb452e4b02047c0779e59/t/540da6ebe4b068678cd46df9/141
0180843424/global_commission_EN.pdf, ldg)
There is no simple blueprint for drug regulation. A flexible array of established regulatory tools is available and will
need to be applied as appropriate for regulating different drugs, within different populations and environments. Just
as spirits are regulated differently from beer, so the riskier the drug product, the more restrictive the controls are likely to be. It is also
important to stress that many
activities and products would remain prohibited under a system of legal
regulation. Sales to minors, for example, would obviously not be permitted within any regulatory framework. Exploring
regulatory models for a range of drugs does not suggest that all drugs or drug preparations should be made legally available. Maintaining
prohibitions on the most potent and risky drugs or drug preparations, such as ‘crack’ cocaine or ‘krokadil’98 (a homemade injectable opioid) is
also a health imperative. Responses
to the continued use of such highrisk prohibited substances in any future
scenario should, however, adhere to the principle of harm reduction, rather than be based on the
criminalization of users.99 By way of contrast, under prohibition, no similar product controls exist. Drug markets are driven by
economic processes that encourage the production and supply of more potent – and therefore more profitable – drug preparations. For
example, smokeable cocaine products like crack, ‘paco’ or ‘basuco’ are in many places more widely available than less potent, safer
preparations like coca leaf or other coca-based products. Effective regulation could help to gradually reverse this dynamic. Drug
regulation is not a leap into the unknown. Many drugs that are already prohibited for non-medical use
– including opiates, amphetamines, cannabis and even cocaine – are currently produced safely and securely for
medical use without any of the chaos, violence and criminality of the illicit trade. Almost half of the world’s
opium crop is entirely legal, produced under a strict regulatory framework for medical purposes. Experiences with alcohol and tobacco
are also instructive. While serious concerns remain about inadequate controls on the availability and marketing of alcohol and tobacco in
many regions, these two drugs are produced and transited largely without problem – certainly compared
to instances where alcohol prohibition has been attempted. It is necessary to distinguish between key terms and
concepts in order to avoid unnecessary confusion. ‘Legalization’ is merely a process — of making something illegal,
legal. What most reform advocates understand by the term is more usefully described as ‘regulation’, ‘legal regulation’ or
‘legally regulated markets’. These terms refer to the end point of the legalization process – the system
of rules that govern the production, supply and use of drugs. Drug markets that are subject to strict legal regulation are
not ‘free markets’. Nor does exploring alternatives to prohibition imply a drug market ‘free for all’, where access to drugs is unrestricted and
availability is dramatically increased. Regulation
is about taking control, so that governments, not criminals,
make decisions on the availability and non-availability of different substances, in different
environments. Inevitably, while some drugs will be accessible with appropriate controls and some only available via medical prescription,
other more harmful drugs will necessarily remain prohibited. Unlike in criminal drug markets, legal regulation enables
governments to control and regulate most aspects of the market, including: • Production and transit
(location, licensing, and security); • Products (dosage/potency, preparation, price, and packaging); • Vendors (licensing, vetting, and
training requirements); • Marketing (advertising, branding and promotion); • Outlets (location, outlet density, and appearance); and •
Access (age controls, licensed buyers, club membership schemes, medical prescription) A legal regulatory framework
therefore establishes strict and transparent parameters for the drug trade. Rather than expand what is available,
it would instead control what is permitted and set guidelines for the availability of specific products . The
precise details of which drugs or drug products should be available and under what regulatory
framework would need to be decided by local jurisdictions themselves, based on their specific
realities and challenges.
Nonprofit businesses are less efficient and are subject to DEA raids
Bricken, Harris Moure associate and Miami JD, 2012
(Hilary, “How To Open A Cannabis Business: For-Profit vs. Not-for-Profit, That is the Question”, 2-16,
http://www.cannalawblog.com/how-to-open-a-cannabis-business-for-profit-vs-not-for-profit-that-isthe-question/, ldg)
Now for some of the downsides: Paperwork – The main disadvantage of forming a non-profit organization is
the increased paperwork that is required. Articles of incorporation must be filed with the state, by-laws
prepared, and meeting minutes kept. If a non-profit hires an employee then there are additional forms to
complete and employment taxes to pay Regulatory demands – Similar to paperwork, it’s important to be prepared for the
amount of time and energy that will be required to comply with regulatory demands and to grow your organization. Restrictions – There will be
operating restrictions to contend with, such as no pay for your directors, no political campaigning or
lobbying, and when your organization folds, its assets must be given to another nonprofit. One thing we
should clear up right away, the name “non-profit” is somewhat of a misnomer , as your non-profit can — and should
— have a profit, a surplus of revenues after expenses. A properly functioning non-profit should have some money left over at the end of
each year to reinvest in improving the organization and preparing for unexpected future costs. What
makes non-profits different from for-profit corporations is that they cannot distribute their profit to the
organization’s members, directors, or officers. This has been a problem in other states as regulators in
California have raided dispensaries’ business records in an effort to prove that they are not being
operated on a nonprofit basis . It’s important to point out that you can pay employees and directors a reasonable salary; a vow of
poverty is not a requisite. You will want to take special care in documenting your business expenses and compensation decisions to eliminate
any question regarding whether profits are being distributed to insiders.
DEA raids kill solvency
Fulmer, City National Bank PR VP and former Times Staff writer, 2002
(Melinda, “Hemp Imports Run Afoul of DEA Rule”, 1-16,
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/16/business/fi-hemp16)
Kenex contends the rule is discriminatory to Canadian
producers, who provide the bulk of hemp products to the U.S. because
Americans are banned from growing the plant. "Our company has invested a significant amount of money in Canada and the U.S. to
develop these markets for the past three years, and it has been one stumbling block after another ," said Jean Laprise, Kenex president.
"They're squashing an emerging industry." The Kenex case adds more heat to a debate over the provision of NAFTA that allows private
investors to sue governments for taking actions that restrict trade. Since NAFTA was enacted, 15 such cases have been filed. Critics argue the provision gives
companies too much power and undermines the ability of governments to protect their citizens. But Laprise says it's necessary to protect companies' rights when
the law is discriminatory. DEA officials refuse to comment on the issue because of the pending litigation. But DEA
Administrator Asa
Hutchinson put forward the agency's position recently when he said that "many Americans do not know that
hemp and marijuana are both parts of the same plant and that hemp cannot be produced without
producing marijuana." The DEA says consumers have until Feb. 6 to dispose of these items or be subject to penalty. Although hemp and marijuana
come from the plant species, cannabis, the variety grown for industrial hemp contains much lower amounts of THC, a point the DEA acknowledges. The
burning issue for the DEA is: When can cannabis legally be sold as hemp, and when is it still a drug? Hemp oil
and seeds can't make people high, but they do contain minuscule amounts of THC, much as poppy seeds contain trace
amounts of opium. "The leaves and flowers on industrial hemp, when you smoke them, it gives you a headache," said John Roulac, president of Nutiva in
Sebastopol, Calif., which makes snack bars and chips out of hemp. "If you smoke more, you just get a bigger headache."
If there weren't a cloud
hanging over the industry from this regulation, manufacturers say, it would grow exponentially over
the next several years as demand for functional foods grows. However, confusion over the new rule , and high-profile
seizures of hemp-containing products such as birdseed, should keep many companies from using the
controversial ingredient, Roulac said. Many, however, say they plan to continue to sell their products. Food companies that use hemp
ingredients hope that the industry and government can come up with guidelines that will allow the
industry to grow as it was expected to before the rule was published. Without them, they say, the DEA's ambiguous standards will
make that difficult.
Kansas Envo DA
Regulations on legal marijuana prevent Big Tobacco 2.0
Milbank Quarterly 14
The Milbank Quarterly features peer-reviewed original research, policy review, and analysis from
academics, clinicians, and policymakers, "Tobacco Companies Were Waiting for the Opportune Moment
- the Legalization of Marijuana", June 3 2014, Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education,
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/tobacco-companies-were-waiting-opportune-moment-legalization-marijuana
Implications for health policy For an “on the ground” view of the realities of these new policy dilemmas,
the study is accompanied by a commentary by Colorado Governor John W. Hickenlooper in which he
acknowledges that, as one of the first states to legalize marijuana, “Colorado is a testing ground for
this experiment in marijuana legalization….” In determining regulations, Colorado has turned to
examples from the alcohol, gaming and tobacco industries when it comes to underage use and the
impact on public health. He believes the state is “asking the right questions” and “attempting to
collect the right data,” while focusing on the well-being of Coloradans. “As marijuana is
decriminalized, policymakers need to guard against Big Tobacco or other powerful corporate interests
from bringing modern branding, marketing and product engineering to bear on marijuana,” says
Rachel Barry, MA, one of the study authors. The third author is Heikki Hiilamo, PhD, Professor of Social
Policy at the University of Helsinki. Some of the same regulations that have been applied to tobacco
could be applied to marijuana, say the researchers. These include restrictions on advertising; taxation;
prohibiting free samples, flavored products and products that also contain nicotine; no brand-name
sponsorship of events; and warning labels on packaging as well as no sales in vending machines, no
point-of-sale advertising and Internet sales. Smoking marijuana should not be allowed anywhere
where smoking conventional cigarettes is not allowed.
Industrial ag is locked in—transition won’t happen
Boyd, 2013, MBA in Finance from Stern School of Business at New York University, USA, and a MA in
Integrated Studies from Athabasca University(Roger, “Unsustainable Farming: From Bird Droppings to
Corporate Agriculture”, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-11-20/unsustainable-farming-frombird-droppings-to-corporate-agriculture)
The Cuban example shows that a nation can move away from industrial agriculture dependent upon
non-renewable fossil fuels, but what if such a transition was required on a global level because of fossil fuel
depletion and/or the need to reduce fossil fuel use to curtail Climate Change? Such changes, especially if they required moves to smaller locally
managed farms with less dependency upon industrially produced inputs,
would greatly challenge large vested interests
which yield significant economic and social power . As Fitzgerald-Moore and Parai point out the Green Revolution
new high yielding crop varieties require a package of inputs “which includes not only chemical
fertilizers and irrigation, but also biochemical programs to control for disease, insect and weeds, and
increased mechanization”10. Without these inputs the new varieties would underperform the
traditional seeds, which have been bred for the previous much less modified ecosystems. The high level of investments
required to provide the required package of inputs for modern agriculture encourages a move from
subsistence to commercial agriculture, and a consolidation of farms into larger entities. Thus,
traditionally more self-sufficient communities were integrated into the global market environment,
reliant upon the large conglomerates that provided the seeds, other agricultural inputs, and the financing for the purchase of these inputs
together with modern agricultural machinery. The net result was a wide dispersion in incomes, with the larger farms and the providers of the
new inputs and machinery taking the majority of the economic benefits. This economically-driven Darwinian process removed both the
knowledge of, and the political support for, the traditional agricultural processes. Within a matter of generations the traditional ecological
knowledge gained over centuries that supported the previous low energy input farming methods was lost in one area after another. Even the
memory that proved that industrialized high energy agriculture was not the only way of growing crops disappeared over time. The separation
of people from the land through the urbanization that was facilitated by the labor-saving mechanization of food production in general, also
separated the vast majority of the population from any first-hand knowledge of food production. In the rich countries of today the average
person is used to food magically appearing on the shelves of the supermarket, disembodied from the actual crops and animals that were the
living inputs to the production of that food. With
populations disconnected from the actual processes used to
produce their food, questions about the current, and long term impacts and sustainability, of the food industries rarely
enters into public discourse . On some occasions aspects of this industry do burst into public
consciousness, as in a significant case of food poisoning, or an investigation of horrendous practices in slaughterhouses. These
instances quickly fade away from public consciousness
though, and do
not trigger wider ranging and
more systemic questions. Limited scientific solutions are provided , such as food irradiation, and working practices
are changed to assuage public concern. All such actions are incremental changes to the hegemonic industrial food
production systems rather than any fundamental change to them. The production processes for many
of the inputs required for industrialized agriculture have large scale efficiencies which benefit larger
organizations. In addition, the large development of many new agricultural products requires extremely
large and lengthy research and development activities , with a scale of investment only open to larger
organizations. These factors supported the consolidation of supplying companies into a few very large
organizations, with the process of consolidation accelerating in the past few decades. The top 10 pesticide producing companies now
control almost 90% of the agrochemical business worldwide, the top 10 biotechnology companies have 75% of industry revenue. There
has also been significant concentration in seed providers , with 6 of the leading seed companies also
being within the top 10 companies for pesticides and biotechnology. With such significant concentration only a
handful of profit maximizing companies have control over the majority of plant production that has been integrated into the world market
economy18. The
fossil fuel inputs to the production processes for such things as herbicides and fungicides,
provided by the highly concentrated fossil fuel industry
which includes some of the largest private corporations in the world , such as Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, and
as well as the agricultural and food transport machinery, are
Gazprom together with huge state owned organizations such as those of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Some of the producers of farm and
transportation equipment used by farmers are also very large corporations. In addition to the above levels of economic concentration,
are numerous industry associations that concentrate the political weight of a given industry.
there
An example
is the International Fertilizer Industry Association which “has some 540 members in about 85 countries. About half of the membership is based
in developing countries. IFA member companies represent all activities related to the production, trade, transport and distribution of every
type of fertilizer, their raw materials and intermediates.” 19 These trade
organizations, as well as individual companies,
employ large numbers of lobbyists and other staff to help direct government policies, and
international agency decisions, in ways beneficial to them.
The plan solves small farms—
a. stimulus
Kuchinskas, 2009, writer @ Pacific Standard(Susan, “The Buds of Wrath”,
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/business-economics/the-buds-of-wrath-3396/)
“When the line starts forming for licenses to become a legitimate producer, the people that have
established their reputations will be given the first consideration,” he believes. “If I have an ongoing relationship with
a reputable dispensary, of course I’m going to be considered.” He also knows that dispensaries have become more like
gourmet markets than seedy drug clubs . “The quality has got to be just top-notch. It’s not just potency,” he
says. “Smokability, taste, smell, sensation — all these elements are terribly important and have to be addressed.” Sarah, too, sees herself as
part of the vanguard of what she thinks could be as big in Sonoma County as the wine industry. She’s studying the
medicinal qualities of different varietals and experimenting to see the effects of exotic pot types like Lavastan, Very Berry and Agent 99. These
are among the many hybrids of Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa that are showing up in dispensaries, without much documentation as to
their origins or effects. Maryanne, who’s come by on a golden August evening to pick up a bag, is an example of the discerning buyer Sarah
wants to serve. “Before we met Sarah, we
didn’t know where our pot came from,” Maryanne says. “We didn’t know
whether it had been sprayed with pesticides. Hers, we know it’s organic. And I like the spongier bud; it works
better in the vaporizer.” While legalization might open the market to industrialized farms, Sarah expects to
charge a premium for small-batch, organically grown product . “I’ll be like a boutique winery,” she says.
“You’ll come to my farm to get your primo flavors.” She might even start a bed-and-breakfast . People
who came from Michigan or Arizona would go back, she says, and tell their friends, “We went to wineries and stayed on a pot farm.”
b. tech spinoff
Grover 13 (Sami, November 13th, “Why the legalization of marijuana may be good for agriculture”,
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/why-the-legalization-of-marijuana-may-be-goodfor-agriculture)
The growing availability of legalized (and semi-legalized) marijuana may have implications for all of us — from a
massive increase in tax revenues to new employment opportunities. Take sustainable farming , for instance. Traditionally, covert
marijuana growers have earned themselves a bad rap, at least environmentally speaking. From indoor growers' massive
consumption of electricity to deforestation and agricultural pollution, a lack of regulation — combined with the promise of massive cash
rewards — have led to an "anything goes" mentality, which has resulted in significant harm in the past. But growers
have also learned
to be resourceful, and The Guardian reports that their use of energy-efficient LED grow lights in particular is getting
attention from mainstream farmers : Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the marijuana
industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial
agriculture . [...] "They've undoubtedly been doing this for years and years," Mitchell says about the cannabis
growers' use of LEDs. "Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably
are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." Energy-efficiency isn't the only benefit
that may come with legalization. From better management of irrigation to monitoring of fertilizer runoff,
bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the harmful impacts of
cultivation . As I've speculated before, marijuana growing may also provide a gateway for some young people
into horticulture as a profession.
Hemp trades off with harmful substitutes that trigger their impacts
Smith, 2008, policy analyst at Reason Foundation, part of the New Environmentalism
program(Skaidra, “Illegally Green: Environmental Costs of Hemp Prohibition”,
http://reason.org/news/show/1002980.html)
The parallel histories of industrial grain alcohol and hemp, from early prevalence in domestic industrial applications to
taxation, prohibition, and relative obsolescence, also share at least one broad-reaching environmental implication:
elevated industrial emissions resulting from the replacement of these carbohydrates with hydrocarbon
industrial feedstocks. Many commodities which came to replace traditional uses of industrial hemp in the United
States in the last century and a half also carried considerable environmental baggage . Cotton and polyester
production are two good examples of industries that replaced industrial hemp. Both are high-performance materials with unique qualities.
Polyester fiber manufacturing requires six times the average energy required to produce either cotton or industrial
hemp fiber, generating particulate pollution, as well as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur
oxides, and carbon monoxide .16 Cotton is one of the most water- and pesticide-intensive crops in the
world.17 The United States is the second largest producer of cotton, accounting for roughly a fifth of world production.
Health effects due to pesticide use are a concern for both humans and wildlife, particularly bird and amphibian
species. One researcher has estimated environmental and societal damages as a result of pesticide use in the United States at a value of $9.6
billion annually.18 Because
industrial hemp has far greater natural pest and weed resistance than cotton
does, fewer inputs are needed for economic cultivation of this crop . Even new technologies that allow for
more precise application of pesticides and genetic engineering for herbicide-tolerant and insectprotected cotton still leave cotton well outside the environmental performance range of hemp.19 Industrial
hemp experts consider it a low-input, low-impact crop.20 Inputs required for cultivation of any crop are an important
environmental consideration because of the pollution created in their production and left behind from their use—from the manufacture of
chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, to their shipment, storage, and delivery in the field. Depending on the irrigation source, crop
irrigation can also represent a substantial energy input for any crop. For example, irrigating California’s crop land is the
state’s single largest water commitment. Pumping for crop irrigation accounts for 5 percent of the state’s total energy use, and more than 90
percent of the state agricultural sector’s electricity use—though the dollar value of this cost is often subsidized by below-market water pricing
for agricultural applications.21 Petroleum is inextricably tied to conventional agricultural production through the use
of inorganic fertilizers. The U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2003 that the cost of natural gas accounted for up to 90
percent of the cost of nitrogen fertilizer in the United States. Decreased domestic natural gas supplies resulted in decreased domestic nitrogen
fertilizer production and lower crop yields as recently as 2001.22 Natural gas prices spiked again in 2005, and testimony to the United States
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources stated that “almost one-third of U.S. crop production is derived from nitrogen fertilizer”
and over 93 percent of the total cash cost of production of nitrogen fertilizer is from the cost of natural gas.23 The U.S. imports most of the
nitrogen fertilizer it uses. Worldwide, fertilizer
production consumes approximately 1.2 percent of the world's
energy and is responsible for about 1.2 percent of the total emission of the greenhouse gases.24
Additionally, nitrogen fertilization of soils accounted for 9 percent of U.S. industrial greenhouse gas
emissions in 2005 (60 percent of total nitrous oxide emissions).25 Fertilizers can also cause environmental damage
when they leach from soils , contributing to eutrophication (the nutrient-loading of waterbodies). Eutrophication
resulting from agricultural runoff is, along with soil erosion, one of the leading causes of water
impairment in the United States.26
Prohibition is worse—regulations solve the impact
Juchao, 2014, Drug Policy Alliance(Aaron, “Marijuana Could Lead to a Paradigm Shift in Environmental
Stewardship”, http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/marijuana-could-lead-paradigm-shift-environmentalstewardship)
There have been a number of reports on environmental damage in California caused by marijuana
cultivation. The issue centers on problems of water use and pollution created by irresponsible farmers, especially illegal grows
on public lands. Compounded by the drought in California, this issue has reached the point where at least one county has
drastically restricted outdoor grows. The severity of this problem should not be understated, but the reasons for it and solutions to it are not
nearly as cut-and-dry as some might lead you to believe. It should be noted that
negative environmental impacts are not
unique , nor even directly related to the marijuana plant . Rather, they are a product of bad cultivation practices,
which exist primarily due to a regulatory vacuum created by prohibition . Because marijuana
production is still illegal at the federal level, and only quasi-allowed under California’s medical marijuana law, some
farmers grow their products clandestinely on public lands to avoid law enforcement and thieves. In these
cases, a lack of responsibility for the land and fear of discovery leads unaccountable farmers to cut corners
at the expense of the environment. Federal prohibition also prevents the creation of a clear regulatory
framework for production even for farmers who want to play by state rules . This stymies counties from working
Prohibition also prevents market transparency ,
which means consumers can’t effectively vote with their money for responsible farmers who make a point to grow
sustainably and organically. Legalization would substantially mitigate these environmental problems
with those farmers who are following state law to establish best practices.
by allowing for the widespread adoption and enforcement of environmental regulations . We regulate all
legal industries, but marijuana’s situation is unique because it has been illegal for so long. This presents a real opportunity to create simple,
enforceable regulations that protect the land while giving farmers a clear framework to build and innovate. Most
industries view
regulations as pure impediments, but smart marijuana cultivation principles (which some farmers are already
advocating for) could set a new bar for sustainable production by reinforcing the co-dependent
relationship between business and the environment . Perhaps someday soon we can spend our efforts thinking of ways
business can enhance the environment, instead of just preventing it from doing damage.
Illegal cultivation damages watersheds and increases pesticide pollution
Christensen, Godon Thomas Honeywell Energy, Telecommunications & Utilities Group chair,
2014
(Eric, “Pot, Power & Pollution: The Overlooked Impacts of Marijuana Legalization on Utilities and the
Environment”, 4-17, http://www.energynaturalresourceslaw.com/2014/04/pot-power-pollution-theoverlooked-impacts-of-marijuana-legalization-on-utilities.html)
Water utilities and irrigation districts should also pay attention to the process of legalizing marijuana in Washington. In
addition to being heavy
energy users, indoor grow operations also use huge amounts of water, especially if the operation uses hydroponics.
One recent estimate suggests that a one-room hydroponic operation may require as much as 151
liters of water per day, equivalent to application of nearly 100 inches of water per year. Often, water
discharged from indoor operations carries heavy nutrient and pesticide loads, of potential concern for wastewater utilities. Illegal operations
frequently steal fresh water and illegal dump wastewater, and legalization therefore represents an
opportunity to curb these practices . Even when grown outdoors, marijuana is a water-intensive crop.
Experts suggest that marijuana grown outdoors has water needs similar to water-intensive crops such as hops and corn. Not surprisingly, illegal
growers pay little heed to legal requirements for water diversions. Illegal diversions can severely
reduce water flows where marijuana cultivation is common. For example, recent reports indicate that illegal diversions for
marijuana farms have dewatered northern California streams, making the bad effects of its severe drought even worse. Such practices have
serious implications for legitimate water users downstream, as well as fisheries and other waterdependent resources. Legalization should reduce this form of illegality, and may reduce pressure in
Washington watersheds that are already bumping up against limits on diversions , even on the relatively moist
west side of the state. Implications for Environmental Protection Contrary to the stereotype of marijuana growers as genial and environmentally-conscious hippies,
illegal marijuana growers are often heavily-armed and operate with little or no regard for the environmental impacts of their operations. A
growing body
of evidence demonstrates that illegal marijuana operations often use extremely heavy doses of
pesticides and rodenticides, far above what would be allowed for legitimate agricultural enterprises. In
addition, labeling, storage, use, and disposal restrictions and other regulations aimed at reducing the
environmental and human health impacts of pesticide use are often ignored. Illegal operations have many other
environmental impacts. For example, thousands of "trespass" operations, illegally occupying sites on National Forests and other public lands, especially in California,
have cropped up in recent years. Often, these operations are associated with illegal clearing of forests and severe damage to other public resources such as streams,
lakes, and soils. Illegal
operations in remote locations often rely on heavily-polluting diesel generators for
power. Indoor grow operations relying on diesel generators may require 70 to 140 gallons of diesel fuel to produce a single plant. Greenhouse gas emissions
associated with illegal marijuana production provide a good proxy for its total environmental impacts. One recent analysis suggests that U.S. marijuana operations
Moving these illegal
operations out of the shadows should help reduce these environmental impacts. Legal growers will
have to comply with environmental regulations in the same manner as operators in other legal
industries. In addition, specific regulatory requirements may increase the incentives for legalized
growers to reduce their environmental impacts. For example, as noted above, the LCB's draft regulations require growers to disclose
produce about 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the emissions of three million average automobiles.
information about pesticide use, creating an incentive to reduce that use. Similarly, some commentators propose a specific tax on carbon-intensive grow
operations, which would create incentives to reduce energy intensity and switch to low-carbon or carbon-free energy sources. Already, the LCB, which originally
proposed to allow only indoor production, has revised its regulations to allow for outdoor production in response to comments about the carbon footprint
associated with indoor production,
Freshwater biodiversity is independently key to prevent extinction
Dudgeon et al, University of Hong Kong Ecology & Biodiversity professor, 2006
(David, he has spent 30 years researching the ecology, biodiversity and conservation of the animals that
inhabit streams and rivers, author of over 150 papers in international journals, with Angela H.
Arthington, Mark O. Gessner, Zen-Ichiro Kawabata, Duncan J. Knowler, Christian Le´veˆque, Robert J.
Naiman, Anne-He´le`ne Prieur-Richard, Doris Soto, Melanie L. J. Stiassny, and Caroline A. Sullivan,
"Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges," Biological Reviews,
81.2, 2006, 163-82, Wiley Online Library)
Freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the International Decade for Action – ‘Water for Life’ –
2005 to 2015. Fresh water makes up only 0.01% of the World’s water and approximately 0.8 % of the Earth’s surface, yet this tiny fraction of global water
supports at least 100 000 species out of approximately 1.8 million – almost 6 % of all described species. Inland waters and freshwater
biodiversity constitute a valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientific and educational terms. Their
conservation and management are critical to the interests of all humans, nations and governments. Yet this precious heritage is in crisis. Fresh
waters are experiencing declines in biodiversity far greater than those in the most affected terrestrial ecosystems, and if trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species losses continue at current rates, the
opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the ‘Water for Life’ decade ends in 2015. Why is this so, and what is being done about it? This article explores the special features of
freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We document threats to global freshwater biodiversity under five headings : overexploitation; water pollution ; flow
modification; destruction or degradation of habitat; and invasion by exotic species. Their combined and interacting influences have resulted in population declines and range reduction of freshwater biodiversity worldwide.
Conservation of biodiversity is complicated by the landscape position of rivers and wetlands as ‘receivers ’ of land-use effluents, and the problems posed by endemism and thus non-substitutability. In addition, in many parts of the
world, fresh water is subject to severe competition among multiple human stakeholders. Protection of freshwater biodiversity is perhaps the ultimate conservation challenge because it is influenced by the upstream drainage
network, the surrounding land, the riparian zone, and – in the case of migrating aquatic fauna – downstream reaches. Such prerequisites are hardly ever met. Immediate action is needed where opportunities exist to set aside intact
trade-offs between conservation of freshwater biodiversity
and human use of ecosystem goods and services are necessary. We advocate continuing attempts to check species loss but, in many situations, urge adoption of a
lake and river ecosystems within large protected areas. For most of the global land surface,
compromise position of management for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning and resilience, and human livelihoods in order to provide a viable long-term basis for freshwater conservation. Recognition of this need will
require adoption of a new paradigm for biodiversity protection and freshwater ecosystem management – one that has been appropriately termed ‘reconciliation ecology’. I. INTRODUCTION In December 2003, the United Nations
General Assembly adopted resolution 58/217 proclaiming 2005 to 2015 as an International Decade for Action – ‘Water for Life’. The resolution calls for a greater focus on water issues and development efforts, and recommits
countries to achieving the water-related goals of the 2000 Millennium Declaration and of Agenda 21: in particular, to halve by 2015 the proportion of people lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.
These
are vitally important matters, yet their importance should not obscure the fact that the ‘Water for Life’ resolution comes at a time when the biodiversity and biological resources of inland waters
are facing unprecedented and growing threats from human activities. The general nature of these threats is known, and they are manifest in all non-polar regions of the Earth, although their relative magnitude varies significantly
from place to place. Identifying threats has done little, however, to mitigate or alleviate them. This article explores why the transfer of knowledge to conservation action has, in the case of freshwater biodiversity, been largely
unsuccessful. The failure is related to the special features of freshwater habitats – and the biodiversity they support – that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We start by elucidating why freshwater biodiversity
is of outstanding global importance, and briefly describe instances where humans have caused rapid and significant declines in freshwater species and habitats. If trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species
losses continue at current rates, the opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the ‘Water for Life’ decade ends. Such opportunity costs will be magnified by a signifi- cant loss in
option values of species yet unknown for human use. In addition, these vital ecological and potential financial losses may well be irreversible. Importantly, effective conservation action will require a major change in attitude toward
freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem management, including general recognition of the catchment as the focal management unit, and greater acceptance of the trade-offs between species conservation, overall ecosystem
it is incumbent upon scientists to communicate effectively that
freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the ‘Water for Life’ decade and beyond ; after all,
water is the fundamental resource on which our life-support system depends ( Jackson et al., 2001; Postel & Richter,
integrity, and the provision of goods and services to humans. At the same time,
2003 ; Clark & King, 2004).
Neolib K
Discount their impacts-prior assumptions dispose them to pessimism-better to adapt
globalization for the better and prefer specificity.
Aisbett, Crawford School of Economics and Government lecturer, 2007
(Emma, “Why Are the Critics So Convinced That Globalization Is Bad for the Poor?”, March,
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0113.pdf)
This paper has attempted to explain why criticisms of globalization’s impact on the poor continue to
abound despite the general consensus that liberalization promotes growth and growth is good for the
poor. The explanation consisted of four parts. First, many people view the empirical evidence in favor of globalization skeptically because they
see globalization as a process through which power is concentrated upward and away from the poor. In particular, they see
transnational corporations as gaining a disproportionate amount of both political and market power. Critics of globalization are also firmly of the opinion that
corporations will use their increased power in ways that benefit themselves and harm the poor. Although these concerns are not without basis, there
are
mediating factors that make it difficult to conclude that globalization is increasing corporate power or
that increased corporate power is necessarily bad for the poor. On the first point it is important to remember that
globalization exposes many previously powerful national corporations to outside competition, and
requires greater transparency in government policymaking. On the second point, it may be that the efficiency
benefits of large corporations outweigh any losses from increased market power. Thus, it would seem that there is
room for more empirical research to determine whether the corporate globalization does indeed give the poor cause for concern. The next part of the
explanation focused on the multiplicity of meanings of the phrases “worsening poverty ” and “increasing
inequality.” The discussion in regard to poverty followed on from Kanbur’s (2001) work, which identified four major differences between the concepts of poverty
employed by globalization’s critics and proponents. These four dimensions are the total number of poor versus poverty incidence, monetary versus
multidimensional measures, level of aggregation, and time horizon. I argued that although level of aggregation and time horizon do appear to be important
distinctions, they are both emblematic of a more general concern that the poor should not be the ones to bear the adjustment costs of globalization. I then
examined the implications of each of these different concepts for the assessment of the progress of the last twenty years. It
was argued that
invariably some groups of poor are adversely affected by globalization, even when a much larger
number of poor are made better off. Thus, concern for negatively affected subgroups will always lead
to a less favorable assessment of the impact of globalization. In the presence of strong population
growth, looking at total number of poor rather than poverty incidence also leads to a predictably
more pessimistic assessment. However, the implications of including nonmonetary dimensions of poverty are less clear. Many people clearly
believe that liberalization will lead to negative impacts on nonmonetary dimensions of poverty, but the empirical evidence on this is mixed. In regard to
inequality I argued that economic research generally applies measures of the shape of the income
distribution, while many of the criticisms of globalization are based on polarization and on changes in absolute
inequality. The latter concept is related to the observation that the poor often do not have equal access to the opportunities presented by globalization (Birdsall
2003; Winters, McCulloch, and McKay 2004). Both polarization and absolute changes in
inequality tend to indicate rising
inequality more often than the measures of inequality preferred by economists. The next section showed that
there remain important unresolved methodological issues in the calculation of even the most fundamental poverty and inequality measures. Foremost among these
issues are the use of household survey data versus national accounts data to estimate average national incomes, and the method of comparing incomes across
countries and over time. Both of these issues have major implications for our assessment of the last twenty years. Until we reach a consensus on them, there will be
empirical support for both optimistic and pessimistic views of the period of globalization. Global trends over the last twenty years, however, are not the best facts
on which to base claims about the benefits or otherwise of globalization. Thorough
empirical work, which links specific policy
measures to poverty outcomes, provides a far better basis. The empirical work to date has
contributed to a broad acceptance that trade and FDI are growth promoting. Yet much work remains to show which
policies can reduce the adjustment costs borne by the poor and maximize the share of the benefits they obtain from globalization. Overall it seems that
the difference of opinion between globalization’s supporters and critics can be largely explained by
differences in prior views and priorities, as well as current ambiguities in the empirical evidence. Rather than viewing criticism as a burden to
be thrown off as quickly as possible, policymakers and researchers alike could do well to heed its message: “good” isn’t good enough. We owe it to the world’s poor
to do better.
Permutation legalize marijuana and endorse race-centric challenges to mass
incarceration-embodying the values of the alternative via the plan is key to
momentum for broader change---all or nothing approaches fail
Wright, Wisconsin sociology professor, 2007
(Erik Olin, “Guidelines for Envisioning Real Utopias”, April,
www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Guidelines-soundings.pdf
5. Waystations The final guideline for discussions of envisioning real utopias concerns the importance of waystations. The
central problem of
envisioning real utopias concerns the viability of institutional alternatives that embody
emancipatory values, but the practical achievability of such institutional designs often depends upon
the existence of smaller steps , intermediate institutional innovations that move us in the right
direction but only partially embody these values. Institutional proposals which have an all-ornothing quality to them are both less likely to be adopted in the first place, and may pose more
difficult transition-cost problems if implemented. The catastrophic experience of Russia in the “shock therapy” approach to
market reform is historical testimony to this problem. Waystations are a difficult theoretical and practical problem because there are many instances in which
partial reforms may have very different consequences than full- bodied changes. Consider the example of unconditional basic income. Suppose that a very
limited, below-subsistence basic income was instituted: not enough to survive on, but a grant of income unconditionally given to everyone. One possibility is
that this kind of basic income would act mainly as a subsidy to employers who pay very low wages, since now they could attract more workers even if they
offered below poverty level earnings. There may be good reasons to institute such wage subsidies, but they would not generate the positive effects of a UBI,
and therefore might not function as a stepping stone. What
we ideally want, therefore, are intermediate reforms that have
two main properties: first, they concretely demonstrate the virtues of the fuller program of
transformation, so they contribute to the ideological battle of convincing people that the
alternative is credible and desirable; and second, they enhance the capacity for action of people ,
increasing their ability to push further in the future. Waystations that increase popular participation
and bring people together in problem-solving deliberations for collective purposes are particularly salient in this regard.
This is what in the 1970s was called “nonreformist reforms”: reforms that are possible within
existing institutions and that pragmatically solve real problems while at the same time
empowering people in ways which enlarge their scope of action in the future.
Mobilizing anti-systemic movements damages institutions that regulate capital—
makes the system more violent
Wallerstein, former Binghamton sociology professor, 2000
(Immanuel, “Globalization or the Age of Transition? A Long-Term View of the Trajectory of the World
System “, International Sociology, June, http://www.iwallerstein.com/wpcontent/uploads/docs/TRAJWS1.PDF)
The major argument for patience has been the inevitability of reform. Things will get better – if not immediately, then for
one’s children and grandchildren. A more prosperous, more egalitarian world is on the horizon. This is, of course, official liberal ideology, and it has dominated the
geoculture since the 19th century. But it
has also been the theme of all the anti-systemic movements, not least those
which have proclaimed themselves most revolutionary. These movements have particularly emphasized this theme when they
have occupied state power. They have said to their own working classes that they were ‘developing’ their economies, and these working classes must be patient
while the fruits of economic growth eventually improve their life situations. They have preached patience not only about standards of living but also about the
absence of political equality. As long as such anti-systemic movements (whether they were communist, social-democrat or national liberation movements) were in
their mobilizing phase against inegalitarian, militaristic, dictatorial, fascist, colonial or even simply conservative regimes, this theme was muted and did not interfere
with the ability of anti-systemic movements to secure extensive popular support. Once,
however, such movements came to power,
as they did extensively throughout the world during the period 1945–70 (the Kondratieff A-period of which we have
been speaking), they were put to the test. And worldwide they have been found wanting. The record of
post-’revolutionary’ regimes has been that they have not been able to reduce worldwide or even
internal polarization to any significant degree, nor have they been able to institute serious internal
political equality. They have, no doubt, accomplished many reforms, but they promised far more than reforms. And because the world
system has remained a capitalist world economy, the regimes outside the core zone have been
structurally unable to ‘catch up’ with the wealthy countries. This is not merely a matter of academic analysis. The result
of these realities has been a monumental disillusionment with the anti-systemic movements. To the
extent that they retain support, it is at most as a pis aller, as a reformist group better, perhaps, than a more right-wing alternative but certainly not as a harbinger of
major result has been a massive disinvestment in state structures. The masses of the
world, having turned toward the states as agents of transformation, have now returned to a more
fundamental skepticism about the ability of the states to promote transformation or even to maintain social order. This worldwide
upsurge of anti-statism has two immediate consequences. One is that social fears have escalated, and
people everywhere are taking back from the states the role of providing for their own security. But of course this institutes a negative
spiral. The more they do so the more there is chaotic violence, and the more there is chaotic violence,
the more the states find themselves unable to handle the situation, and therefore the more people
disinvest the state, which further weakens the ability of the states to limit the spiral. We have entered into this
the new society. The
kind of spiral at varying paces in the various countries of the world system but at a growing pace virtually everywhere.
Rejection alt will never lead to change
McCormack, Leicester international politics lecturer, 2010
(Tara, Critique, Security and Power: The Political Limits to Emancipatory Approaches, pg 58)
Contemporary critical and emancipatory approaches
reject the possibility of reaching an objective evaluation of
the world or social reality because they reject the possibility of differentiating between facts and values.
For the contemporary critical theorists, theory can only ever be for someone and for some purpose. As this is so then quite
logically critical theorists elevate their own values to be the most important aspect of critical theory. As a result of the rejection of the
fact/value distinction we see within the work of contemporary critical theorists a highly unreflective
certainty about the power of their moral position. Critical theorists argue that all theory is normative,
they offer in its place better norms: ones, as we have seen, that will lead to emancipation and will help the marginalised.
The claims made for the central role of the values of the theorist reveal the theoretical limits of critical
and emancipatory theory today. Yet even good or critical theory has no agency, and only political action can
lead to change. Theory does of course play an important role in political change. This must be the first step towards a critical engagement with
contemporary power structures and discourses. In this sense, we can see that it is critical theory that really has the potential to solve problems, unlike problemsolving theory which seeks only to ensure the smooth functioning of the existing order. Through substantive analysis the critical theorist can transcend the narrow
and conservative boundaries of problem-solving theory by explaining how the problematic arises. Unlike problem-solving theory, critical theory makes claims to be
able to explain why and how the social world functions as it does, it can go beyond the ‘given framework for action’.
The critical theorist must
therefore be able to differentiate between facts (or social reality) and values , this ability is what marks the critical
theorist apart from the traditional or problem-solving theorists, who cannot, because of their values and commitment to the existing social world, go beyond the
‘given framework for action’. If
we cannot differentiate between our desires or values or norms (or our perspective, to put it in Cox’s
actually occurring social and political and historical processes and relationships, it is hard to
see how we can have a critical perspective (Jahn, 1998: 614). Rather, through abolishing this division we can
no longer draw the line between what we would like and everything else, and thereby contemporary
critical theories are as much of a dogma as problem-solving theories. Contemporary critical theorists
are like modern-day alchemists, believing that they can transform the base metal of the unjust
terms) and
international order into a golden realm of equality and justice through their own words. For contemporary
critical theorists, all that seems that the crucial step towards progress to a better world order is for the
theorist to state that their theory is for the purposes of emancipation and a just world order.
Pharma DA
The pharmaceutical industry is going to collapse now – limited capability and capacity
– statistic data proves.
Lutz, award-winning science writer who has been an editor or contributing editor at Scientific
American, American Scientist, The Sciences, and Natural History, editor-in-chief for Muse, writer for
ChemMatters, The Horn Book, Wisconsin Natural History, 9/22/2014 “‘The process by which drugs are
discovered and developed will be fundamentally different in the future’”
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/27347.aspx
Big Pharma has left the building Over the past several decades, Kinch said, the pharmaceutical industry
has managed to dismantle itself. “It’s done a really efficient job of it,”
he said. Starting
in the mid-
1970s, the industry started outsourcing the discovery of new drug targets and then the early stages
of drug development. “When you compare the number of drugs that were approved to their R&D
costs,” Kinch said, “ you see that the cost per drug was going through the roof . So they were happy to
outsource research.” “As pharma pulled out, biotech pulled in,” he said. That continued through the ’70s and ’80s, but
then pharmaceutical companies began to buy out biotechnology companies. The number of biotech companies
peaked in 2000, and today they are often acquired before their first product is approved. “I used to work for a big biotech company called
MedImmune that everyone thought would remain independent indefinitely. It was bought by AstraZeneca in 2007,” Kinch said. He sees two
worrying trends. One is that the number of biotech companies has followed a Bell curve. “What’s scary to
me,” he said, “is how symmetrical that curve is. There really aren’t that many independent biotechs left , and there
aren’t that many entering the field. Where is the drug discovery and early development going to
come from?”
(See “The rise (and decline?) of biotechnology.”) The
second worry is the rise of drug companies with
limited R&D capabilities . One example is Valeant Pharmaceuticals, a Canadian company that now
controls as many drugs as the more familiar Eli Lilly but has a research budget that is one percent of Eli Lilly’s.
The only research Valeant does is post-approval trials for the FDA or market research, Kinch said. They don’t do new drug
research. “A growing number of drugs,” Kinch said, “are now controlled by marketing organizations that
have little or no internal drug discovery or development activities .” (See “An overview of FDA-approved new
molecular entities: 1827-2013.”) “We all see it coming,” Kinch said. “And no one has an answer for it. The pharmaceutical industry
has made rational business decisions . It is unrealistic to expect them to repopulate their labs ; they’re
out of it and they’re not going back.” Because of the shrinkage in the pharmaceutical industry, Kinch estimates that
we have lost more than 75 percent of the “expertise ” that supported drug discovery. By expertise he
means scientists with the experience to modify chemical compounds to improve their efficacy and
decrease their toxicity, the hard part of drug development . While Kinch was at Yale he hired three
computational chemists who had been laid off from Pfizer’s Groton CT labs. One was teaching high school chemistry, one was a 50something postdoctoral associate, and one was working part-time. “These are not just good people; they are world leaders in their
field with decades of experience,” Kinch said. This is the hidden sting in the scorpion’s tail because, once
gone, there is no quick way to replace these highly skilled people . “They learn their craft through a
mentoring relationship and over many years in the lab,” Kinch said. “Some of what they know is written down, but
most of it is passed on in the lab. “These guys are getting ready to retire or they’ve retired, or given
up. “Who’s going to train the next generation?” he asked. “I started my professional life as a professor
and I can tell you academia doesn’t do it . Is academia going to take over this role or are we going to
find another way to do it? “I don’t know how this story’s going to end,” he said, “but right now it’s not looking like it
ends well.”
Legalization solves big pharma profits – they’ll use it to create other drugs.
Cohen, 2011 Barry, health care provider, “Could Legalized Pot Give Big Pharma a Much-Needed Boost?”
http://investorplace.com/2011/05/medical-marijuana-pharmaceutical-stocks-pfe-mrk-bmy/#.VCBZhPldW5p
If the U.S. government ever legalizes marijuana, sales of the drug would probably make the $11 billion Pfizer
(NYSE: PFE) raked in on Lipitor worldwide last year look like chump change . Consider that medical marijuana sales in
the U.S. already will reach $1.7 billion this year, with nearly $250 million coming from Colorado,
according to a report released in March. Further, the report predicts that medical marijuana sales will reach $8.9
billion if 20 more states allow its sale for medical use. Medical marijuana markets currently exist in Colorado and six other states
and will open this year in five more. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg . If people could use marijuana without
the fear of getting busted, some industry observers say the market would likely be in the $10 billion-to-$40 billion
range-and could even top $100 billion annually. Given the dollars at stake, it’s easy to see why your best known
Big Pharma, wants in on the action. And recent developments indicate that sometime in the
not-too-distant future they may be competing with your friendly neighborhood pot dealer. Just last week,
the D rug E nforcement A dministration said 55 unnamed companies have been granted licenses to grow
purveyor of pills,
cannabis in the U nited S tates. Observers say the pharmaceutical companies need the pot farms to cultivate
weed so they can produce a generic version of the THC pill Marinol, which is currently marketed by Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE: WPI ), and at least one other cannabis-based pill for a wide variety of new uses. It’s thought that
pharmaceutical researchers are using THC, cannabis’ main psychoactive ingredient, as well as the number-two cannabinoid,
CBD, in studies to treat obsessive compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, fibromyalgia, PTSD, and even
irritable bowel syndrome. That’s because pot modulates a newly discovered yet primal-cell signaling pathway called “the
endocannabinoid system,” with special effects in the brain and the gut. But to grow pot and put organic THC and CBD in pills, the DEA to would
need to move organic THC down from Schedule I, where it is now, to the far less restrictive Schedule III, where synthetic THC Marinol currently
resides. That’s exactly what drug companies have requested. And by all indications, their wish is likely to be granted. These developments have
sparked outrage among advocates for legalizing marijuana. They wonder why big companies will be able to grow pot, put it in a pill and call it
medicine while those who grow it at home or in a city-permitted pot farm face felony charges and jail. Good point. But welcome to the world of
big business, where large companies have high-powered lobbyists pleading their cases in Congress every day. So
which companies are
among the fortunate 55 starting up their own pot farms? Probably Watson. Another likely candidate is Valeant
Pharmceutical International (NYSE: VRX ), which has a THC prescription drug marketed under the name Cesamet. You can probably add
the list such Big Pharma names as Pfizer, Merck (NYSE: MRK), GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK), and Bristol
Myers-Squibb (NYSE: BMY). Novartis (NYSE: NVS) is probably in there, too, considering the company once
tested a cannabinoid agonist to treat chronic pain.
Legalization revives the sinking pharmaceutical industry – patents and innovation
Sam Becker 14, business and auto writer for Wall St. Cheat Sheet, 5/2/14, “Is Big Pharma Ready to
Jump Into the Marijuana Market?”, http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/is-big-pharma-ready-tojump-into-the-marijuana-market.html/?a=viewall
While the medicinal properties of marijuana have thus far been commoditized by small operations,
usually operating in some sort of gray legal area, the new legal markets and increased public acceptance of cannabis are offering
bigger companies an opportunity to take a serious look into the possibilities marijuana offer. With a myriad of existing
products, from topical treatments to oil capsules, the medical marijuana industry has already been a source of incredible
innovation and research. Cannabis has been shown to successful treat ailments as diverse as multiple
sclerosis to nausea experienced by cancer patients going through chemotherapy.¶ So what interest do pharmaceutical companies
like AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN) or Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE) have in an opening legal cannabis market? For starters, it has
patents that are set to expire in the near future . With the long list of treatable ailments by
marijuana, the answer is fairly obvious.¶ The adoption of cannabis-based medications and products
could be the future of the pharmaceutical industry . While marijuana has been designated as a Schedule 1 controlled substance at the federal
Now with two states passing legislation
enabling full legalization, entrepreneurs have the chance to jump into the new industry. The problem
level, many states have gone ahead to pass bills making medical marijuana use legal for certain ailments.
for many national and international companies is that it does not want to be exposed to legal
backlash in areas where prohibition is still in place .¶ Companies like Novartis have started divesting in reaction to the rapid changes in the
biotech industry. With businesses willing to take aggressive moves like this, seeking out new avenues to invest in is most likely in the industry’s best interest. One example of a company taking
the leap is Earth Science Tech, Inc. (QB:UNOV.PK), who recently announced its entrance into a variety of different cannabis-based industries, including legal medical marijuana, cannabinoid
and legal hemp. ¶ Earth Science Tech, Inc.’s CEO Dr. Harvey Katz laid out his company’s reasoning behind the move, with perfectly sound reasoning. “We’re a health and wellness company,
and we will continue to be a health and wellness company with our new entry into the Legal Cannabis and Medical Marijuana Industry. A growing proportion of the medical community
believes that Medical Marijuana and, more specifically cannabinoids, have the potential to help patients who are suffering from a variety of conditions and disorders,” he said.¶ What future
does cannabis have in pharmaceuticals? It will depend on when and how it is adopted by Big Pharma. In the meantime, small businesses and science-savvy entrepreneurs will continue to drive
innovation and introduce new products and medications to the market. Some companies, like Earth Science Tech, Inc. are putting its foresight to work, and it will probably pay off.¶ In a
turbulent industry, pharmaceutical heavy-hitters will do what it needs to stay afloat. If embracing cannabis as a new source of revenue and innovation is the next step, expect to see some big
names throwing money toward the battle to end prohibition.
1AR
CP
CP would just result in state to state competition and link to the DA
Novak, CNBC, 2014
(Jake, “Legalizing pot: States need to put on their poker face”, 7-8,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819418#, ldg)
Don't be fooled: More money is being made overall (and therefore more tax revenue) — it's just that
the pot is being spread out much more and everyone's margins are a lot smaller. In other words, it's a more competitive
market which is better for the gambling consumer and better for the casinos who offer the best services and attractions. But it's worse for the
statist bureaucrats who simply want to approve gaming licenses and collect easy money with no other
effort required. Boo hoo for them. It took a long time for more states to catch the casino fever, so Nevada and New Jersey enjoyed a few decades worth of
artificially inflated tax revenues while they cornered the market. Now, that's over and while Las Vegas still has a big edge in the "cool" part of the casino-marketing
story, Atlantic City is struggling to keep up. There
are two important lessons to be learned from the casinos in America
story. First: the only thing that can beat one state's commercial monopoly is a commercial monopoly
run by another state . For anti-statists everywhere, the results have been fun to watch, as oncecomfy and lethargic government officials are now having to squirm and actually make an effort to
keep milking the gaming cash cow . Imagine if every state ran building-permit offices or DMVs that could legally market their services to
people in other states! Sure, it would be far from a truly free market environment, but it would be an improvement.
Tobacco companies are the easiest to regulate
Sealy, Boston Company director, 2014
(David, “Up in Smoke: Changes Sweep the Tobacco Industry”, April,
http://www.thebostoncompany.com/assets/pdf/viewsinsights/April14_Views_Insights_Up_in_Smoke.pdf, ldg)
Several reasons are behind Big Tobacco’s likely dominance. Its
core cigarette business is weakening, particularly in the highmargin developed markets where secular declines have worsened from 3% to 5%. As a result, the
industry has articulated an adjacency strategy, seeking to diversify into adjacent categories such as smokeless products,
cigars, roll-your-own and just recently e-cigs. Marijuana would be a natural evolution of this strategy . Second, the
tobacco industry is already accustomed to high taxation, regulation and litigation, all of which are sure
to accompany any commercialization of marijuana. Also, while tobacco’s history as model corporate citizen is a bit spotty, it is
likely to be the regulators’ player of choice. Its core cigarette business is very vulnerable to increased
regulation, and as such, it is highly incentivized to cooperate with whatever regulatory body would
assume control of legalized marijuana . In fact, the 2009 Tobacco Control Act allows the FDA to ban nicotine if deemed in the public health
interest (not a very high hurdle), so tobacco clearly has the most to lose by getting on the wrong side of regulators
and irresponsibly commercializing marijuana. This leverage will probably not be lost on regulators or
on tobacco companies . Strangely enough, tobacco may be the most responsible – or at least the
most controllable – player in the commercialization of marijuana . As for marijuana’s market
potential, our estimates peg it as high as $15 billion to $20 billion, 20% accretive to the current U.S.
cigarette market and a meaningful addition to a growth-challenged U.S. tobacco market. Hard data is still
tough to find, but we have simply extrapolated Colorado’s first-year estimate of $750 million (net of taxes) in retail sales to the entire U.S. population, but at percapita rates 50% below that of Colorado. This estimate will likely prove conservative, particularly given the fact that only two months into 2014, Colorado already
raised its tax-collection estimates.
Big marijuana is key to solve cartels and state revenues.
Mikos 10—Robert, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School. A.B., Princeton University; J.D.,
University of Michigan, “Article: State Taxation of Marijuana Distribution and Other Federal Crimes,”
2010 U Chi Legal F 223
Though the
federal government would probably allow the states to legalize and tax marijuana, its continuing ban on marijuana
would impair enforcement of a state marijuana tax for two reasons: 1) it would preserve the current fragmented
structure of the marijuana market, by giving marijuana distributors an incentive to remain small and to
operate inconspicuously; and 2) it would put state tax collectors in a dilemma, because federal
authorities could use state tax rolls (and similar state-gathered information) to track down and punish tax-paying
marijuana distributors. This Section discusses the structure of the marijuana market and its implications for the enforcement of the
proposed marijuana tax. The next Section discusses federal law and the dilemma it poses for state monitoring of marijuana distribution. [*252]
1. The fragmented marijuana market. As it stands,
the marijuana market is highly fragmented ; in other words, there are
many small producers and distributors. Not surprisingly, the exact number of "firms" is unknown; however, law enforcement data suggest it is
several thousands. In 2008, for example, law enforcement agents seized 2,455 marijuana grow sites in California. 104 Assuming this number
represents between 10-25 percent of all California grow sites, 105 and assuming that one grow site represents one firm, there would be
anywhere from 10,000 to 25,000 firms operating illegally across the state. 106 The fragmented structure of the legal medical marijuana market
in California lends some support to the high estimate. In Los Angeles County alone, for example, there are more than 1,000 dispensaries that
distribute medical marijuana; in other words, it is now easier for patients to obtain cannabis than a Frappucino or Big Mac. 107 2. Why market
structure matters. California's ability to monitor marijuana distribution is
severely constrained by the
fragmentation of that market. Monitor [*253] ing thousands of growers and distributors would overwhelm
the state's limited enforcement capacity. 108 Indeed, market structure is one reason prohibition has been such a costly--and
largely futile--endeavor; despite investing billions annually, law enforcement agencies apprehend only a small fraction of all marijuana
offenders (perhaps 10 percent). 109 Contrast the highly fragmented marijuana market with the highly concentrated cigarette market. Three
firms dominate cigarette production: Altria, R.J. Reynolds, and BAT/Brown & Williamson in combination control more than 85 percent of that
market. 110 Although cigarette distributors are more numerous, consolidation at the manufacturing stage greatly enhances government
monitoring and taxation of distribution. Most importantly, it means government need not monitor individual distributors closely to figure out
how much a given distributor sells; rather, it can estimate sales (and tax burdens) by examining manufacturers' sales records. 111 For example,
if the government examined Altria's accounts and found that Altria had sold 100 thousand cartons of cigarettes to Firm A, it could easily infer
Firm A's (probable) tax burden. If Firm A reports only 10 thousand cartons sold, government investigators would know to target Firm A for
audit. As suggested above, the industry's highly concentrated structure helps explain why the cigarette tax gap remains tolerably low. 3. The
prospect of consolidation. To be sure, one might expect the marijuana market to consolidate post-legalization. The alcohol industry sets a
precedent for such consolidation. During Prohibition, tens of thousands of small distillers supplied spirits, largely unchecked by law
enforcement. 112 In the decades following the repeal of Prohibition, [*254] the market has become increasingly concentrated; by 2003, for
example, three firms together controlled more than 80 percent of the beer market. 113 Similarly, various barriers to entry that enabled the
cigarette market to become--and remain--consolidated could enable the marijuana market to become consolidated as well. First, there are
enormous economies of scale to cigarette manufacturing. 114 Cigarette rolling machines significantly reduce the cost of manufacture and
increase the minimum efficient scale of firms. In fact, scholars attribute the consolidation of the cigarette industry in part to the introduction of
such machines in the late 1800s. 115 Presumably, the production of marijuana joints, like the production of cigarettes, could be mechanized as
well. Such mechanization would give larger growers and distributors a competitive edge, eventually weeding out numerous smaller, less
efficient firms. 116 [*255] Second, there is strong brand loyalty among consumers in the cigarette market. 117 Strong brand loyalty, built up
through substantial firm investments in advertising, helps explains why new cigarette firms cannot easily capture market share from the
entrenched firms. 118 Namely, it would take enormous investments to dislodge customers from their existing brands. It seems plausible that
commercial marijuana firms could cultivate similar brand loyalty, which would enable them eventually to consolidate market share. To be sure,
the marijuana market might never achieve the same level of consolidation as the alcohol or cigarette markets. For example, the comparative
ease of producing marijuana could enable smaller producers (including many users) to survive in the marijuana market. And, in any event, it
could take years for the above-mentioned forces to consolidate the marijuana market. 119 In other words, the tax gap could be especially large
at the outset, that is, when California needs the revenue most. But one could reasonably suppose that over time, only a few firms would survive
in a truly legal marijuana market. If so, the task of collecting the marijuana tax would be made much simpler. 4. How the federal ban blocks
consolidation. California, however, does not have the power to lift prohibition writ large, only state prohibition. Marijuana would remain
criminal under federal law. And for at least two reasons, the federal ban would impede consolidation of the marijuana market. 120 [*256] First,
the federal ban creates a strong disincentive for distributors to grow big . Compared to smaller
distributors, larger distributors are more likely to be caught and punished
by federal authorities. 121 Every drug
transaction conducted by a distributor carries a distinct risk of detection. To be sure, the risk probably declines with every transaction, since the
distributor who evades detection once probably acquires knowledge that could help her evade detection again. At the same time, however, the
consequences of being caught escalate with every transaction, since the detection of one transaction could reveal others. For example, if
authorities catch D distributing marijuana once, they might search D's home; in the course of the search, the authorities might discover
evidence of previously undetected transactions. 122 In the ensuing plea deal (or trial), D would be punished for all of the offenses, boosting the
effective sanction for the nth transaction. In a related vein, if
caught, a larger distributor is more likely to be prosecuted
and punished. The United States Attorneys (USAs) have wide latitude to decide what cases to pursue. And when it comes to marijuana
offenses, some USAs decline to pursue cases unless they involve substantial quantities of the drug. Many United States Attorneys' Offices have
set this threshold at 200 pounds or more. 123 To be sure, the USA can ignore these guidelines; but their very existence suggests a reluctance
(or perhaps inability) to expend resources chasing down mom-and-pop marijuana operations. The CSA's graduated penalty schedule provides
added incentive for USAs to focus on cases involving substantial quantities; for example, cases involving more than 100 kilograms trigger
mandatory sentences of five years imprisonment and fines up to $ 10 million, and those figures are doubled for cases involving 1,000 kilograms
or more. 124 A marijuana distributor might choose to forgo the benefits of expansion (for [*257] example, economies of scale) in order to avoid
detection and prosecution by federal authorities. 125 Second, federal
laws impede distributors' ability to build brand
names and consolidate market share. The federal Lanham Act bars the registration of a trademark
used on any product proscribed by federal law, including marijuana. 126 For similar reasons, federal law would
presumably bar common law protection of an unregistered trademark on marijuana. 127 Hence, a
distributor that wanted to expand its market share by building a brand name could not seek federal
protection of its trademark. 128 Suppose, for example, that D, our distributor, develops a new strand of marijuana she labels
"Acapulco Gold." D could not easily capture the benefits of her development. If her new strain becomes a hit, other distributors could exploit
the name "Acapulco Gold" to push their own (inferior) products. D could not sue for [*258] trademark infringement (in federal court, anyway),
so any money spent building the brand name would be lost. Lacking
the means to differentiate their products through
branding, marijuana distributors and producers could not achieve the high concentration seen in the
cigarette market.
In short, the federal ban would frustrate California's monitoring of marijuana distribution by preventing consolidation
of the marijuana market. The
federal ban on marijuana gives firms an incentive to stay small, and, in any
event, hampers attempts to grow via branding. To detect tax evasion, California would need to adopt costly enforcement
measures (for example, random audits) that may not yield positive returns. 129 C.The Monitoring Dilemma Even supposing, arguendo, that
California could find a way to observe marijuana distribution (for example, via licensing), it would not be out of the woods yet, for the federal
ban creates another, even more daunting problem: federal law enforcement could use California's monitoring system to track down and
sanction marijuana distributors who obey state law. Monitoring marijuana distribution creates a long paper trail. If successful, a state licensing
or tax administration system would reveal the name, place of business, and sales of every marijuana distributor in the state. Such data may be
needed for enforcing a state tax, but it could also be used to help enforce the federal ban. Federal law enforcement agents could seize the data
and there is nothing the states can do to stop them. First, the states cannot shield distributors from federal sanctions. Although states may
"legalize" marijuana distribution for purposes of state law, they cannot eliminate federal sanctions. 130 Second, states cannot necessarily
conceal data from federal authorities, even when that data is privileged under state law. As I argue elsewhere, federal statutory privileges, the
anti [*259] commandeering rule, and the privilege against self-incrimination, among other legal doctrines, provide only limited protection for
sensitive information states require citizens to report. 131 As a consequence,
marijuana distributors could be made worse
off by obeying state law . To be sure, distributors could be prosecuted by federal authorities regardless of
whether they pay the state tax; however, the
probability they would be detected by federal authorities goes up
dramatically if they do so--the federal government simply would not have the resources to track
down any but the largest marijuana distributors without using a state database. 132 Of course, evading state
taxes carries a risk as well; a distributor who does so faces state punishment if caught. But a drug distributor might still find it worthwhile to
face this risk (it is only a risk) rather than face near certain (and very large) sanctions that could be imposed by the federal government upon
paying the state tax. Simply put, to the extent expected federal sanctions increase by paying the state tax, distributors are given added
incentive to evade the tax. Ironically, the better information states gather, the worse off they (or drug distributors) become. Even
if
marijuana distributors would rationally choose to pay the state tax in the absence of the federal
regime, they may opt to evade the tax in the presence of the federal regime. Marijuana tax
proponents have overlooked this threat. 133 [*260] D.The Tax Gap (Version 2) Given the persistence of the federal prohibition
on marijuana, comparing the proposed marijuana tax to the tax on a legal vice like cigarettes seems less appropriate. A more fitting benchmark
for assessing the marijuana tax gap could be, well, the marijuana tax gap. Twenty-one states have laws on the books that tax the sale of
marijuana (and other illicit drugs). 134 In these states, however, the drug remains prohibited. The tax merely supplements the criminal and
various other civil sanctions these states impose on the cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Unfortunately for California, such
taxes on illicit drugs are seldom paid and generate correspondingly paltry revenue. 135 Until recently, for example, the state of Tennessee
imposed a tax on possession of all illicit drugs--the rate was set at $ 3.50 per gram for marijuana. 136 Nonetheless, the state collected only $ 10
million total over four years. 137 The state of Oklahoma, which has a similar tax, 138 has fared even worse--it collected only $ 80 in tax year
2005-2006. 139 It is easy to see why states have done poorly when it comes to collecting taxes on illicit substances. As discussed above,
prohibition gives drug distributors ample incentive to hide from law enforcement authorities--this hinders monitoring that is necessary for
effective collection of civil taxes. Proponents had hoped that by legalizing marijuana, California could reap significantly more tax revenues than
are generated by extant taxes on illicit [*261] drugs. In essence, the hope--or assumption--is that marijuana distribution would consolidate and
come out into the open, enabling civil taxation and regulation to occur. The
problem is that the federal ban mitigates the
differences between California's proposed tax and extant marijuana taxes in prohibition states. To be
sure, state legalization is likely to make some difference. Some consolidation could occur--and some
marijuana distributors would operate in the open, because the federal government's law enforcement resources are
limited. 140 But it seems likely marijuana will remain a predominantly black market so long as federal
prohibition --and some willingness to enforce it-- remains in place . California may be able to decriminalize--even legalize-marijuana, but it cannot necessarily regulate the drug effectively. Hence, California could face a much steeper gap than
anticipated above in Part I(C). In fact, the state might collect only a small fraction of taxes due, a realization that substantially diminishes the
financial appeal of the proposals currently under consideration. Conclusion This Article has examined a proposed state marijuana tax to
highlight previously ignored tax compliance problems states face when attempting to tax goods or services that are forbidden under federal
law. Due largely to the strains caused by the recession and attendant fiscal crises, several states are seriously contemplating legalizing and
taxing marijuana. The financial allure is enormous--policymakers and economists suggest that a marijuana tax could generate billions in new
revenues for the states. The
federal ban on marijuana, however, complicates enforcement of the tax. In particular, the
federal ban makes state monitoring of marijuana distribution especially difficult and potentially self-defeating.
First, the federal ban will keep the marijuana market fragmented. This means that thousands of small growers and distributors will continue to
compete on the marijuana market, potentially overwhelming limited state tax collection resources. Second, even assuming a state could find a
way to track taxable marijuana sales, doing so would only create a new problem. Federal law enforcement agents could use this state-gathered
information to impose harsh federal sanctions on tax-paying marijuana distributors. The threat of being exposed in [*262] state records gives
marijuana distributors an additional incentive--above and beyond the state tax--to evade state tax authorities. For both reasons, the continuing
federal ban on marijuana is likely to exacerbate a marijuana tax gap. The states might collect only a fraction of the revenues proponents now
claim a tax would generate. There
is no obvious solution to the problems posed by the federal ban, short of federal
legalization . Many of the steps states could normally take to enhance tax compliance would be
stymied or preempted by federal law . A state, for example, could not sell marijuana at state-operated stores; this option is
clearly preempted by the CSA, which bars states--no less than private citizens--from distributing the drug. A state could attempt to foster
consolidation of the marijuana market--for example, by limiting the number of licenses it issues or by imposing a lower tax rate on larger
distributors--but doing so would not relieve distributors' fears of getting caught in the crosshairs of federal prosecutors. Allowing distributors to
pay the tax anonymously would eliminate the paper trail for federal authorities, but it seems unlikely to deter tax evasion--existing drug taxes
are paid anonymously and generate paltry revenues. The most promising reform could be to focus on taxing medical marijuana. The federal
government's announcement that it would halt enforcement of the federal ban on medical marijuana would seemingly pave the way for
consolidation of this niche market and would remove the concern that federal agents would use state gathered information against medical
marijuana distributors. 141 A tax on this niche market, however, would generate only a fraction of the revenues now being touted by tax
proponents. What is more, singling out medical marijuana for taxation could prove politically unpalatable; indeed, many state lawmakers are
considering exempting medical marijuana from any marijuana tax. In sum, as
long as federal law proscribes marijuana--and
federal agents remain committed to enforcing the ban--a state tax on marijuana would be largely unsuccessful. The tax would not
force marijuana users to internalize the social costs of their activity; nor would it be a panacea for state budget woes. There [*263] are
reasonable arguments favoring legalization of marijuana; rescuing the states from dire fiscal straits, however, is not one of them.
Pharma DA
Drugs are too cheap to sustain research and government funding collapsed
King, 2014 Llewell, Hearst news papers, 8/26/14 “LLEWELLYN KING: Politics never cured a disease”
http://www.sunherald.com/2014/08/26/5764761/llewellyn-king-politics-never.html
Developing new drugs has become too expensive for the private sector , according to a recent article in Nature.
The magazine says the
drug pipeline for new antibiotics, so vital in fighting infectious disease, has collapsed as Big
Pharma has withdrawn . The latest to leave is Novartis, which has ceased work on its tuberculosis drug and handed it over to a
charity coalition. Government
funding for medical research is now at a critical stage. It has flat-lined since
2000 , as medical costs have ballooned . Also, congressional sequestration has hit hard . Stop-and-start
funding breaks careers, destroys institutional knowledge and sets the world back on its scientific
heels. That is to say nothing of the sick, like those with Ebola or CFS, who lie in their beds waiting for someone to do
something.
2. Recent trends prove it’ll collapse in the long run
Daniel Hoffman 14, Ph.D., President, Pharmaceutical Business Research Associates, What's driving the
pharmaceutical industry's drug development process?,
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/Whats-driving-the-pharmaceutical-industrys-drugdevelopment-process.html?c=r
Over the last several years some widely discernible trends of the pharmaceutical industry's drug development process have
emerged. Much of this is driven by three factors. The first is that a declining percentage of the drugs
produced by research constitute genuine breakthroughs capable of substantially advancing the
respective standards of care. At the same time, both public and private payers have grown increasingly
reluctant to pay constantly higher prices for the marginal, incremental improvements that characterize
most of the new drugs coming to market. Given the ceaseless demands of finance-driven pharma companies to maintain the
profitability levels they enjoyed during the 1980s and '90s glory days, these factors have combined to shape the R&D
pattern.¶ One prominent feature in the new R&D landscape is that many pharmas have withdrawn from therapeutic
categories where clinical development is lengthy, expensive and fraught with regulatory hurdles. So for example, some
companies have reduced or entirely quit cardiovascular research where trials often need to enroll 20,000 or more patients in order to show a
statistically meaningful improvement over existing medications. Instead research budgets have flowed into oncology where regulators will
often accept registration trials with only a few hundred test subjects. ¶ At the same time, favorable early results for an oncology compound can
shorten the usual time needed to file because regulators know that the earlier availability of some new products will immediately save lives. In
such cases they will permit filing on the basis of Phase 2 results. Moreover, the specter of imminent mortality in that area will generally make
regulatory bodies more tolerant of debilitating side effects there than in other categories.¶ Autoimmune diseases (MS, rheumatoid arthritis,
irritable bowel disease) are another therapeutic area that is receiving more budget and attention. These conditions and oncology benefit from
pharma's knowledge that the chances for another mega-blockbuster such as Lipitor have greatly declined. In oncology and other areas requiring
major therapeutic advances, it is unlikely that any single compound will be able to successfully treat the vast majority of the world's population.
Advances in molecular biology and genetics, on the other hand, suggest that compounds customized for specific genotypes can usefully treat
specific population segments. Lipitor at its peak collected more than $13 billion in sales per year because scores of millions of patients were
taking it on lifelong regimens. Now the pharma companies want to generate comparable revenue by selling far fewer pills.¶ This has led senior
pharma executives at their recent earnings calls to include presentation segments where someone boasts about the number of compounds in
oncology or autoimmune disease that the company is advancing through its pipeline. The implicit message is that three or four such products in
oncology or irritable bowel disease can produce the sales of one Lipitor or one Plavix, another erstwhile mega-blockbuster.¶ Investors should
not get taken in by this blather. For a number of years pharma
has been smitten by a shots-on-goal approach to drug
development. That is basically the notion that if they can throw enough mud on the wall, some of it
will inevitably stick. While the idea seems plausible, the facts don't bear it out. Bill Albrecht, an industry
consultant in Newtown Square, has examined new drug submissions over a period of decades. He found that the result is what he calls a
"funnel effect." With the exception of occasional blips up or down over a one or two year period, Albrecht found that the number of new
molecular entities (NMEs) approved by the FDA has remained fairly consistent, regardless of how many NME applications the industry filed
each year.¶ Albrecht doesn't claim to know whether this funnel effect results from the agency's limited capacity to review new applications or
some other factor. The fact of its existence, however, should modulate the enthusiasm of investors prone to believe pharma CEOs who tout
their overflowing pipelines.¶ Another thing to keep in mind about the
current pattern of drug development is that it may, at
long last, bring about more price competition in pharma. If only a single drug confers a high remission rate in, say, breast
cancer or multiple myeloma, oncologists will use it and insurers will have to pay the enormously high price. With all the pharmas
focusing their efforts in the same five or six therapeutic categories, payers will be able to demand
some real price discounting. The stiff-necked, outlier company that refuses to cut prices and repeats the line its marketers devised
about a "revolutionary molecule" is apt to find itself entirely off the formularies of most payers.
Pharmaceutical companies will just use Marihuana within their products
Frey, 2012 Thomas “Entering the Legal Marijuana Era – Finding the Pitfalls and Profits in the Years
Ahead” http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2012/11/entering-the-legal-marijuana-era-finding-the-pitfallsand-profits-in-the-years-ahead/
Pharmaceuticals & Alternative Medicines – Suddenly THC will be finding its way into a variety of
stress relieving, pain controlling, and sleep enhancing pills . Big Pharma is already licking their lips on
this one.
The Government Monitor, 2014 “Future Of Marijuana Companies: GW Pharma's Strong Fundamentals Leading The
Charge” http://seekingalpha.com/article/2117713-future-of-marijuana-companies-gw-pharmas-strong-fundamentals-leading-the-charge
GWPH is the darling of the green rush. If you don't know much about this company, read this article for a primer. This
company is way ahead of the curve in terms of position to capitalize on the green rush, and most importantly, they have
substantial marijuana business experience and strong financials . Probably most intriguing about the
company is that they post consistent revenue ($44.2 million as of their year-end September 2013 annual report), which is
derived from the international sales of their flagship product, Sativex. Good news about its efficacy is available
(although further testing is continuing) and it currently sells in several countries such as Canada, Germany, Spain, and the United
Kingdom. An FDA approval to sell in the US market would be a huge win for them , and information straight from
the White House FAQ (which uses Sativex as an example), shows that the government has open ears for the clinical
trial results. Notice the stark contrast of government sentiment between GWPH's already well-established research progress and the red
tape of US startup research cited in the Washington Post article above. While GWPH currently has an operating loss, investors should take note
that the
vast majority of expenses are related to R&D of new products that are currently in the testing phase. This
company really has the ball rolling , and while they might hit some clinical dead ends (like with any biotech company), a few
more successful products means even more revenue on top of their already tried-and- true flagship
medication . Here is their most updated cannabinoid pipeline. Below is an abridged graphical version: The story only gets better on the
is king, especially in an industry where companies may need to nimbly
deploy capital at a moment's notice to take quick advantage of opportunities (such as say, rapidly
balance sheet side of things. Cash
deploying a product throughout the legalized states
or opening US-based facilities).