Tampa Prep 2009-2010
Gonzo and Lison
Medical Marijuana Neg
1/7
MEDICAL MARIJUANA NEG
Medical Marijuana Neg ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1
T – Subsets ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
T – Barriers ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Marijuana CP 1NC 1/2............................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Marijuana CP 1NC 2/2............................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Moral Purity F/L ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Federalism F/L ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010
Gonzo and Lison
Medical Marijuana Neg
2/7
T – SUBSETS
A. The affirmative must target all persons living in poverty
In means throughout.
Words and Phrases 08
In the act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all
complaints, ect., the word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. B. The plan gives to medical marijuana users, which are a subset of the population—not all impoverished people are included.
C. Limits: There are thousands of different subsets under this topic—gives the affirmative an incentive to run small squirrelly
cases such as transgendered natives in Utah that the negative can’t research. Forces generic debates where the aff would
always win on the specificity of their evidence. Preserve a fair limit on the topic.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010
Gonzo and Lison
Medical Marijuana Neg
3/7
T – BARRIERS
A. Interpretations: Increase is causing direct growth
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 96
Increase: 1)to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment 2)to become greater, as in number, size, strength, or
quality 3)to multiply by propagation 4)growth or augmentation in size, strength, quality 5)the act or process of increasing
B. Violation- that affirmative does not directly increase social services, funds are already allocated for those services, people
are simply choosing medical marijuana over those benefits.
C. Limits- By removing a barrier and just allowing people to access services, the aff opens up the possibility for repealing
portions of any law that would eventually lead to social services by either the government or even private companies. This
explodes the topic and creates one-sided debates.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010
Gonzo and Lison
Medical Marijuana Neg
4/7
MARIJUANA CP 1NC 1/2
Counterplan Text: The United States Supreme Court should issue an affirmative injunction that the United States federal
government must transfer scheduling authority to the Department of Health and Human Services, begin clinical trials of
medically supervised drug maintenance therapy, allow doctors greater freedom in prescribing medications for pain control,
allow a broader distribution of opiate agonist chemotherapy and move oversight of such programs to the Center for Substance
Abuse and Treatment, recognize the rights of states, doctors and patients to make their own decisions regarding the usefulness
of medical marijuana, end the de facto moratorium on medical marijuana research, develop a distribution system for medical
marijuana, on the grounds that the Controlled Substance Act’s prohibition on locally produced or consumed medical
marijuana exceeds the scope of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.
Solves the case – counterplan drastically expands both amount and availability of medical marijuana and provides a
distribution mechanism as well as solving the chilling effect
Kevin B. Zeese (President of Common Sense for Drug Policy) and Paul M. Lewin (Common Sense for Drug Policy) 1999: The
Effective National Drug Control Strategy. http://www.csdp.org/edcs/edcs1.pdf
Rationale: No policy to control drug use should be implemented at the expense of the sick, elderly and dying, and no person should be denied access to a potentially
beneficial medication because someone else might use it improperly. Pain management and disease control should be based on respect for individual rights and science,
not politics. Recommendation 1: Transfer scheduling authority to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 created
five schedules (or categories) for various drugs. The authority to schedule a drug resides with the Drug Enforcement Administration. As a
result, scheduling decisions are dominated by law enforcement interests rather than public health concerns. In order to give public
health issues the proper role in the scheduling of drugs, this authority should be transferred to the Department of Health and Human
Services, the only agency whose mandate is to manage public health issues . Recommendation 2: Begin clinical trials of medically supervised
drug maintenance therapy. In one of the most dramatic success stories in modern addiction treatment, doctors in Switzerland have discovered that the
provision of medically determined doses of heroin to heroin addicts significantly improves their health, lifestyle and reduces the
amount of crime associated with drug use when they are permitted to leave the black market environment. The Swiss researchers concluded that: Both the
number of criminal offenders and the number of offenses decreased by about 60% in the first six months of the program. Most illicit drug use, including cocaine,
rapidly and markedly declined. The number of participants on unemployment benefits fell by more than half (from 44% to 20%). Participants' housing situation
rapidly improved, ending homelessness among the patients. The physical health of participants improved. More than half of the patients who dropped out
of the program did so in order to switch to another form of treatment, including abstinence. 96 The success of this program illustrates how deeply our current policies
are failing to reduce most of the consequences of drug use in this country. In light of that failure, our country must be able to learn from the successes of other nations
and experiment with techniques that might improve living conditions for everyone. Recommendation 3: Allow doctors greater freedom in prescribing medications
for pain control.97 As stated by ONDCP Director Barry McCaffrey, we are not doing enough to help the millions of Americans who suffer from
chronic pain. The restrictions for prescribing Schedule 2 drugs like morphine are so strong, and the penalties so great, that doctors
consistently under-prescribe pain medication to those who need it most. In 1998, Rep. Henry Hyde introduced the Lethal Drug Abuse Act of 1998,
which would have given the Drug Enforcement Administration the power to revoke the prescription license of any doctor who intentionally prescribes a lethal dose of
pain medication to a patient. Such a law can only have a chilling effect on the type of pain alleviation doctors will be willing to provide.
Giving greater freedom to doctors will allow them to prescribe drugs that work to those in need. Recommendation 4: Allow a broader
distribution of opiate agonist chemotherapy (e.g. methadone, LAAM) and move oversight of such programs to the Center for Substance Abuse and
Treatment. Methadone is the safest, most effective and least costly method to treat heroin addiction, yet it remains a strictly controlled
method of treatment. For every 10 heroin addicts in America, there are only one or two methadone treatment slots. We must expand opiate agonist treatment facilities
so that every heroin addict can obtain treatment on demand. Opiate agonist treatment and particularly methadone maintenance has many
additional benefits, such as the reduction of criminal behavior. Studies show that arrests decline as patients no longer need to finance a costly heroin
addiction. Methadone is a medication that stabilizes a dysfunctional neurological condition and produces no euphoric effects.98 Methadone allows patients to stabilize
their lives, restore relationships with their families, return to legitimate employment and contribute to their community as any other individual. In order to meet the need
for opiate agonist treatment, doctors must be permitted to prescribe methadone and other pharmacotherapies like any other prescription drug. Opiate agonist treatment
should also be administered in the prison systems and through a variety of delivery systems to give opiate addicts easy access to treatment. Opiate agonist treatment
should be a valid medical procedure for public and private insurance and not limited to one treatment experience. Opiate addiction is a chronic relapsing medical
condition and coverage for treatment should reflect this. Incarcerated opiate addicts and methadone patients who need to be withdrawn should receive adequate medical
care; the only approved medication for opiate withdrawal is methadone. However, since the medical condition of addiction is misunderstood, we recommend that some
form of oversight be undertaken to protect patients from physicians who may decide they no longer want to treat them. Pain patients can also face a similar situation for
a variety of reasons, such as when a clinician is afraid of DEA interference. The oversight of methadone maintenance programs should be transferred from the Food and
Drug Administration to the Center for Substance Abuse and Treatment (CSAT). CSAT's oversight should include the concepts of a new accreditation system that will
be based on reduced regulations, treatment outcome and quality treatment. We urge that state regulatory agencies and programs review their policies which have been
based on the dysfunctional patient rather than the stable patient to reflect this new accreditation system. It is imperative that methadone patients and others participating
in opiate agonist treatment be included in all levels of policy making with regard to treatment. Methadone patients have been excluded from policy decisions for too
long. Finally the government should undertake a public relations campaign to destigmatize the users of illicit drugs and create a more caring environment for those
desiring recovery.
[continues]
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010
Gonzo and Lison
Medical Marijuana Neg
5/7
MARIJUANA CP 1NC 2/2
[continued]
Recommendation 5:
Recognize the rights of states, doctors and patients to make their own decisions regarding the usefulness of
medical marijuana.99 Cancer and AIDS are horrific diseases that require inordinate amounts of strength and energy to overcome. In many cases, the
harsh treatments required to combat the diseases kill patients long before the diseases ever do. A pervasive side-effect of treatment is
intense nausea which prevents patients from obtaining the nourishment they need to fight the disease and endure treatment. The
medical efficacy of marijuana in combating this particular type of nausea has been so well documented that the federal government
and pharmaceutical companies have developed a synthetic form of marijuana's active ingredient, THC. However, the manufactured
drug is not as effective in many cases because marijuana contains many other useful compounds that are not provided by synthetic
THC, and nausea makes it difficult for patients to ingest pills. Over 90 published reports have documented that marijuana has medical value in
controlling nausea, stimulating appetite, controlling muscle spasms and preventing blindness from glaucoma. In recognition of the efficacy
of medical marijuana, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the American Public Health Association (among dozens of others)
have all endorsed medical access to marijuana. The DEA's Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young has ruled: “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one
of the safest therapeutically active substances known. [The] provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana
from Schedule I to Schedule II. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this
substance.”100 In America today, patients face penalties of up to one year in prison for the possession of a single dose of this medication.101 This approach to
medical marijuana must be changed immediately, and seriously ill patients should never be punished for obtaining or using any drug
with the earnest intent of treating their illness, provided that their activities are not directly threatening the safety or well-being of others. Recommendation
6: End the de facto moratorium on medical marijuana research. Now that voters in states representing one-fifth the US population have voted for medical
marijuana, the federal government needs to take urgent action to resolve the medical marijuana debate. The votes in the states, as well as other state laws, provide the
Food and Drug Administration with an opportunity to research medical marijuana on a large number of people. When research stopped FDA research on the
drug was in the final phase before market approval. Funding should be provided to take the final research steps necessary to make
marijuana available by prescription. Many organizations, such as the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the National Academy
of Sciences support unimpeded research of medical marijuana. When it comes to medicine, we should be doing everything we can to help those who suffer from a
serious illness, not outlawing important areas of research. Recommendation 7: Develop a distribution system for medical marijuana. The current total ban
on
the use and distribution of medical marijuana forces thousands of critically ill patients to purchase their medication in dangerous black
markets, where they are at risk of abuse by drug dealers. In order to prevent further harm to medical patients, and in light of the overwhelming public support for
medical marijuana in every state that has had a vote on the issue, the federal government should develop a system of distribution for medical
marijuana so that this medicine reaches patients in a safe and effective manner. Until the government can develop specific guidelines and
regulations, it should allow states and local communities to work with medical marijuana providers, such as patient cooperatives, in order to ensure a safe and effective
distribution system.
Solves federalism – allows states to choose whether or not to legalize medical marijuana
Solves judicial independence – affirmative injunctions allow the court to order other actors to do virtually anything,
dramatically increasing the court’s power
John Choon Yoo (Acting Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley) July, 1996:
SYMPOSIUM: RACE-BASED REMEDIES: Recognizing the Limits of Judicial Remedies: Who Measures the Chancellor's Foot?
The Inherent Remedial Authority of the Federal Courts. Lexis
Process is not the only thing that expands when courts consider structural injunctions; the reach of a federal court's power grows as
well. A federal court may conclude that the widespread nature of the constitutional violation justifies judicial intervention in the most
basic policies and activities of the state or local government. 31 The relief may differ drastically from the monetary damages or
negative injunctions that courts customarily award. Instead, the remedial decree will take the form of affirmative injunctions that
require the defendant to undertake certain conduct or meet specified goals. 32 Courts will make decisions concerning the hiring of
personnel, the allocation and spending of state funds, the implementation of operational and compensatory programs, and the
construction of new facilities. 33 In issuing these affirmative injunctions, the district courts render numerous decisions, both large and
small, that traditionally have been within the province of state and local legislators and administrators. In the school context, the
Supreme Court has approved remedial plans that desegregate faculty and staff according to strict mathematical ratios, 34 order busing,
set racial targets for students bodies and change attendance zones, 35 and initiate remedial education programs. 36 Both the broad scope
and the minute detail of such judicial decisions are best exemplified by the remedial plan in the Jenkins litigation. As Justice Kennedy
put it, the district court's massive expenditures had financed high schools in which every classroom will have air conditioning, an
alarm system, and 15 microcomputers; a 2,000-square-foot planetarium; greenhouses and vivariums; a 25-acre farm with an airconditioned meeting room for 104 people; a Model United Nations wired for language translation; broadcast capable radio and
television studios with an editing and animation lab; a temperature controlled art gallery; movie editing and screening rooms; a 3,500square-foot dust-free diesel mechanics room; [*1127] 1,875-square-foot elementary school animal rooms for use in a zoo project;
swimming pools; and numerous other facilities. 37
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010
Gonzo and Lison
Medical Marijuana Neg
6/7
MORAL PURITY F/L
1. Squo solves – read the rest of their inherency article – it says that policy was overturned in the appellate courts
Maura Dolan ‘1 – Times Legal Affairs Writer “HUD Can't Base Evictions on Guests' Actions, Court Rules” January 25, 2001.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/25/news/mn-16940
SAN FRANCISCO — Public housing officials can no longer evict tenants simply because members of their household or guests
illegally used drugs, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The 7-4 decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an eviction policy announced by former President Bill Clinton in
1996.
Under the Department of Housing and Urban Development regulation, tenants could be evicted if their relatives or guests used drugs
or committed other drug-related crimes, even if the tenants were unaware of the illegal activity.
Housing activists say thousands of low-income tenants nationwide have been booted out of public housing under the "one strike and
you're out" policy.
Although Wednesday's ruling is binding only in the nine Western states covered by the 9th Circuit, tenant advocates predicted that
it will shape how courts elsewhere rule on the policy.
"This will have a substantial impact nationwide," said Catherine Bishop, a staff attorney for the National Housing Law Project.
"And hopefully, housing authorities will wake up and realize they cannot evict innocent tenants."
2. Their plan allows for unsupervised production in homes – this is bad because it allows people to grow their own supply and
assign themselves their own dosages without supervision – they could overdose or sell it – turns moral purity.
3. One must divert to utilitarianism when the alternative is to let everyone die
Kateb, Professor of Politics, 1992 (George, Prof of Politics, Princeton Univ., The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture;
Cornell University Press, p. 12)
The main point, however, is that utilitarianism has a necessary pace in any democratic country's normal political deliberations. But its advocates
must know its place, which ordinarily is only to help to decide what the theory of rights leaves alone. When may rights be overridden by government? I have two sorts
of cases in mind: overriding a particular right of some persons for the sake of preserving the same right of others, and overriding the same right of everyone for the sake
of what I will clumsily call "civilization values." An advocate of rights could countenance, perhaps must countenance, the state's overriding of rights for these two
reasons. The subject is painful and liable to dispute every step of the way. For the state to override is, sacrifice—a right of some so that others may keep it. the situation
must be desperate. I have in mind, say, circumstances in which the choice is between sacrificing a right of some and letting a right of all be
lost. The state (or some other agent) may kill some (or allow them to he killed), if the only alternative is letting every-one die. It is the
right to life which most prominently figures in thinking about desperate situations. I cannot see any resolution but to heed the precept that "numbers
count." Just as one may prefer saving one's own life to saving that of another when both cannot be saved, so a third parry—let us say, the state—can (perhaps
must) choose to save the greater number of lives and at the cost of the lesser number, when there is otherwise no hope for either group.
That choice does not mean that those to be sacrificed are immoral if they resist being sacrificed. It follows, of course, that if a third party is right to risk or sacrifice the
lives of the lesser for the lives of the greater number when the lesser would otherwise live, the lesser are also not wrong if they resist being sacrificed.
4. Doesn’t solve moralization of politics – too many alt causes – Hyde, stem cells, Darwinism in classrooms
5. Utilitarianism is the most moral outlookprovides the most benefits for the most number of people
“Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethic”, Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J.
Meyer, This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V2 N1 (Winter 1989), http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html
Over the years, the principle of utilitarianism has been expanded and refined so that today there are many variations of the principle.
For example, Bentham defined benefits and harms in terms of pleasure and pain. John Stuart Mill, a great 19th century utilitarian figure, spoke of benefits and harms
not in terms of pleasure and pain alone but in terms of the quality or intensity of such pleasure and pain. Today utilitarians often describe benefits and
harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences or in purely economic terms of monetary benefits over monetary costs.
Utilitarians also differ in their views about the kind of question we ought to ask ourselves when making an ethical decision. Some
utilitarians maintain that in making an ethical decision, we must ask ourselves: "What effect will my doing this act in this situation
have on the general balance of good over evil?" If lying would produce the best consequences in a particular situation, we ought to lie.
Others, known as rule utilitarians, claim that we must choose that act that conforms to the general rule that would have the best consequences. In other words, we must
ask ourselves: "What effect would everyone's doing this kind of action have on the general balance of good over evil?" So, for example, the rule "to always
tell the truth" in general promotes the good of everyone and therefore should always be followed, even if in a certain situation lying
would produce the best consequences. Despite such differences among utilitarians, however, most hold to the general principle that morality
must depend on balancing the beneficial and harmful consequences of our conduct.
6. Not an extinction impact – their Lifton evidence is nebulous at best and its empirically proven that neither the Soviet Union
nor Nazi Germany resulted in their impacts – at worst, we’ll win that alternate causalities make it inevitable.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010
Gonzo and Lison
Medical Marijuana Neg
7/7
FEDERALISM F/L
1. Doesn’t solve – Lopez rulings don’t know link Federalism, the federal government still acts
2. Federal systems don’t solve war – disproven by every war we’ve had since the nation was founded.
3. No civil war – their author
Josh Levin, Slate Senior Editor, 8/5/2009 (http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2224104)
Eric Zuelow, a history professor at the University of New England and the editor of The Nationalism Project, argues that "loud voices"
like Perry's bolster the country's strength. The fact that we can debate our country's legitimacy is a sign of national health. For the
United States to fall to pieces, Zuelow says, it'll take more than a demagogue on a PA. Americans will have to come to believe they're
no longer Americans. It wasn't always certain that the states would be as united as they are today. In An Empire Wilderness, Robert D.
Kaplan explains that James Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, envisioned America as "an enormous geographical
space with governance but without patriotism, in which the federal government would be a mere 'umpire,' refereeing competing
interests." There are regional and ideological differences in the modern United States: People in the Deep South and the Pacific
Northwest eat different foods, have different accents, and (generalizing broadly) have different lifestyles and values. But as compared
with a place like the USSR, a constructed nation with immense regional diversity, the United States is bound together tightly by its
shared origins, a common language and culture, and a widely held belief in the country's mythologies (American exceptionalism, selfreliance, and social mobility). In times of perceived danger, Americans pull together. After 9/11, Zuelow says, "I don't care where you
were in the country, the response was We've been attacked. … It wasn't, We eat grits and We eat salmon."
What kinds of countries fall apart? Jason Sorens, a political scientist at the University at Buffalo who studies contemporary
secessionist movements, says that ethnicity, economics, and ideology all come into play. A secessionist sweet spot typically lies in a
region with an embedded minority that has a common language and a history of prior independence. Latvia and Lithuania fit those
requirements, as do the Serbs in Bosnia and Canada's Quebecois. According to Sorens' models, it's no surprise that there aren't any
large-scale movements to break up the United States—the country is too prosperous and too cohesive. (Sorens' own Free State
Project—a push to get libertarians to swarm New Hampshire and influence local politics—is "not a secessionist movement," he says,
though "there are a lot of people [in the project] who would support that as a last resort.")
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells