Round 5—Neg vs. Michigan DM—Strauss
1NC
OFF
GOP will win- they have momentum in key states
Cook, Editor and Publisher of The Cook Political Report, 9-29-14
(Charlie, National Journal, “Republicans Hold the Advantage in Senate Races,”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/republicans-hold-the-advantage-in-senate-races20140929, accessed 10-1-14, CMM)
With the outcome of up to 11 Senate seats plausibly in doubt, here is what we know—or at least can pretty easily assume.¶
Republicans are virtually certain to pick up three open Democratic-held seats in Montana, South
Dakota, and West Virginia. The GOP is now increasingly favored to hold on to at least two of the
party's three endangered seats: the open seat in Georgia and that of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in
Kentucky. Sure, it is possible that either Michelle Nunn in Georgia or Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes
could prevail, but polls indicate that GOP nominee David Perdue and McConnell are starting to build
leads that don't seem likely to be reversed at this point. The Wizard of Oz race in Kansas, however, is a different story. In
this contest, it's just easier to say, "Who the heck knows what will happen?" and instead focus on races where the dynamics are more
recognizable and, therefore, understandable.¶ In
addition to Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, eight more
Democratic-held seats in some degree of danger. Democrats look strongest and seem to have a small but measurable and
relatively stable edge in three: Sens. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire and Kay Hagan in North Carolina, and the open seat in Michigan. Like
Georgia and Kentucky on the GOP side, the New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Michigan seats could still turn over but probably will not.
Some observers are predicting that neither party's candidate will get 50 percent plus one vote in Georgia, necessitating a Jan. 6 runoff between
the top two finishers. However, there will at that point be only three candidates on the ballot, and few political aficionados in Georgia can even
name the Libertarian candidate (Amanda Swafford), so I think there is a decent chance this race is over when all of the Nov. 4 ballots are
counted. If I am wrong, and the contest extends into January, Perdue would likely have the edge in a runoff.¶ Of
the five remaining
endangered Democratic seats, if one were going to give a pinky's worth of an edge to one side or the
other, you would probably give GOP Rep. Tom Cotton the edge over incumbent Mark Pryor in Arkansas, and
Rep. Bill Cassidy a slight advantage over Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. With a field of
nine candidates on the general-election ballot, Landrieu will almost certainly finish first, but it is
extremely unlikely that she can get the 50 percent plus one vote needed to avoid a Dec. 6 runoff. Her
odds of defeating Cassidy in that contest are not that good.¶ If—and this is a big "if"—all of the above assumptions are
correct, Republicans are on track to gain at least five seats (Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Arkansas, and
Louisiana). Thus, they would need only one more seat to capture the majority—or two, if GOP Sen. Pat
Roberts does not survive a challenge from independent candidate Greg Orman in Kansas, and, as important,
Orman opts to caucus with Democrats. On the surface, it looks more likely than not that, if elected, Orman would sit with
Democrats unless it is clear that the GOP would be in the majority anyway, In that case, he might well lick his finger and stick it up in the air and
choose to put on a red jersey.¶ Under this scenario, there
are three Democratic seats left on the table: Sens. Mark Begich
in Alaska and Mark Udall in Colorado, and the open seat in Iowa. The conventional wisdom is that much of the
uncertainty in Alaska comes simply from the fact that it is a very close race in a state where, for a variety of reasons, there are very few reliable
polls. Still, the fundamentals
of this race are enough to make one believe that Begich will have an
extremely difficult time prevailing. First, keep in mind that he narrowly won this seat in 2008 with a
margin of 1.25 percent over longtime GOP incumbent Ted Stevens, who, notably, had been convicted of
seven counts of corruption just eight days before the election. The verdict was subsequently set aside
based on evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Stevens later died in a plane crash. So, to say the
least, Begich was elected under extraordinary circumstances. Second, look at the state itself. Before
Begich's defeat of Stevens, the last time a Democrat won a U.S. Senate seat in Alaska was in 1974, when
Mike Gravel was reelected. The last time a Democrat won the state's at-large House seat was in 1972. And the last Democratic presidential
nominee to carry Alaska was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Given President Obama's
low national numbers, and the political
climate for Democrats, this would hardly seem to be the kind of year for that pattern to be
interrupted. Finally, by most counts, Republican Dan Sullivan is a pretty good challenger, the best the GOP
could have fielded.¶ As for Udall in Colorado and the open seat in Iowa, while neither of these states is
naturally hostile to Democrats, the GOP is definitely beating the point spread. At least in Iowa, the
Republican Party certainly has momentum on its side. Some would argue that this is true in Colorado
as well, but that point remains debatable. So, between Alaska, Colorado, and Iowa, Republicans would need just
one seat—assuming Roberts survives—or two, if Roberts doesn't make it through the election. In most election years, the really tight races
tend to fall more in one direction, rather than splitting down the middle. My hunch is that this is not a year when
Democrats are likely to get a disproportionate share of the breaks. I'm sticking with the 60 percent
chance of a Senate turnover that I've held for several months.
Legalization fires up the Democratic base – it’s perceived as an economic issue.
Becker, Wall St. Cheat Sheet, 7-16-14 (Sam, “Getting High: Public Opinion on Marijuana
Legalization in 4 Charts,” http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/getting-high-public-opinion-onmarijuana-legalization-in-4-charts.html/?a=viewall, accessed 8-29-14, CMM)
Anyone who has been paying an ounce of attention to the news over the past couple of years is well aware that the nation’s attitudes towards
marijuana in particular — are going through a radical shift. Data has shown that the War on Drugs
has turned out to be a monumental failure, wasting billions, if not trillions of dollars and leading to the
incarceration of untold amounts of people. As the Internet has allowed more people to access information easily, it’s also become
common knowledge that marijuana is not the incredibly dangerous narcotic it was made out to be for
many generations, and instead could be a real driver of economic prosperity — if we allow it to be. During the
2012 election cycle, both Colorado and Washington became the first states to pass legislation legalizing
marijuana for recreational use within their borders. The news was met with great fervor, and everyone across the country has sat
back and watched with much anticipation to see what the fallout would be. The DEA announced they would let the states’ experiment proceed forward
without interference, and so far, things have gone off without a hitch. Tax revenue is pouring in, access to cannabis has become
safer and convenient, and other states are getting to work drafting their own legislation to follow in
Colorado and Washington’s footsteps. The positive effects of the legalization process have really been
undeniable in both Colorado and Washington. Fewer people are getting in trouble with the law, police
officers have one less thing to worry about, and it’s opening up an entire new industry for
entrepreneurs and investors to wade into. Still, there are some holdouts who still believe cannabis should be outlawed and criminalized.
For the most part, the divide in attitudes has been along generational and political lines, but those
rifts are starting to close up, which is one of the major reasons the legalization efforts have been able
to pick up steam. Looking at data collected by the Pew Research Center, we can take a closer look at exactly
how these shifts are happening, and when they started to occur. Read on to see four charts explaining the generational and political shifts in
marijuana legalization attitudes that are driving the U.S. towards new drug policies, and as a result, economic prosperity in the brand new cannabis industry. The
biggest shift in attitudes towards cannabis legalization has been across the entire demographic
spectrum. The chart above shows how people of all races, genders, and age groups feel about
legalizing marijuana, and as anyone can plainly point out, there has been a huge change. Starting at around
drugs — and
1990, legalization popularity bottomed out with just 16 percent of those polled supporting it. That number doubled in just ten years to 31 percent in the year 2000.
Since 2000, support grew wildly, and eventually reached the 52 percent threshold during 2012. Currently, numbers
are the highest they’ve
ever been. At the beginning of 2014, CNN polls show 55 percent support. As more and more data becomes available from Colorado and
Washington’s opening industries, it’s hard to think that these numbers would see any regression . A closer look into
the political demographics show that the left is a very strong supporter of the legalization effort, while
conservatives still have a ways to go. Eighty-one percent of the solid liberal base has given legalization advocates
their support, compared to just 28 percent of conservatives of the same degree. In fact, the above chart shows that
only the far right on the political spectrum still maintain fledgling support, while all those on the left and in the center have jumped on board. This may actually
seem counter-intuitive, as conservatives generally vie for less regulation and open markets. The fact that their attitude does not bleed into the cannabis debate tells
of some other factors at play. Of course, everyone was skeptical of legalization at first, but now that most people are behind it, the right will most likely see their
attitudes evolve. Even Colorado Republicans have changed their minds, and if the rest of the party doesn’t change, it could end up hurting them come election time.
Much in-line with the previous chart, here
we get a glimpse of the two main political parties themselves, not just
political beliefs of those polled. It’s painfully obvious that there is a huge gap between Democrats and
Republicans, to the tune of 22 percent. Once again, those numbers may seem counterintuitive, as the Republican party’s platform usually is
all-for free markets and less government interference, while the Democrats typically champion more government regulation. One interesting thing to watch as 2014
and 2016 elections come up is whether or not these numbers see a radical shift. If
the majority of people are supporting the
legalization effort, a 37 percent rating from the Republican side could really put a damper on
conservative’s hopes of gaining more power in Congress, and by passing legislation. Republicans didn’t support
legalization measures in either Colorado or Washington, and if their views don’t morph to fit the mainstream a little more, it could cost
them. In our final chart, we see just where exactly the biggest rift currently sits when it comes to attitudes
regarding marijuana legalization. The rise of the millennial population has been the most significant
driving force behind the legalization effort, with 65 percent of those born after 1981 supporting the
notion. That number has exploded over the past ten years or so, nearly doubling from a mere 34 percent in the mid-2000s. All
other generations have seen increases as well, but none so much as the millennials. Another giant leap in progress has been made in
the baby boomer demographic, in which now half support legalization. As the boomer population
makes up a large percentage of the overall population, their increasing support lends a heavy hand in
the overall evolving attitudes of the country. Generation X has also reached a point to where more than
half of the generation is on board as well, and as the silent generation ages and passes on, many who
are against legalization will go with them. It’s obvious that things are changing, and generational and political lines are
still the biggest factors in deciding attitudes towards marijuana legalization for many. Expect that to
change in coming years, as cannabis becomes an even bigger issue than it ever has before, especially
when monstrous profit and tax revenue is involved.
The economy is key to the election
Sullivan, Washington Post, 9-3-14 (Sean, “In the midterms, it’s (still) the economy, stupid,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/03/in-the-midterms-its-still-theeconomy-stupid/, accessed 9-3-14, CMM)
The economy is the top issue driving those likeliest to vote to cast ballots this fall, according to a new
survey released Wednesday that tested a handful of matters to see how voters would respond. That's good news for
Republicans, who voters rate more strongly than Democrats on the issue. In the George Washington University
Battleground Poll, 24 percent of likely voters say the economy is the top issue for them. The economy
outpaces behavior of your member of Congress (15 percent); Obamacare (13 percent); feelings about
President Obama (10 percent); Social Security and Medicare (10 percent); and women's issues (5 percent). Likely
voters feel Republicans could do a better job addressing economic concerns than Democrats, by 49-42
percent. Obama's approval rating on the economy is under water, with 54 percent disapproving of his performance and 44 percent
approving.
GOP senate is key to trade pacts – TPP and TPIP.
Cadei 2014
Emily, Editor and Contributor – Ozy, What If Republicans Own the Senate?,
http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/obamas-congressional-contretemps/30739.article
But could
Obama find common ground with Capitol Hill Republicans the way Clinton did with, say, welfare reform?
Or will he be reduced largely to lame duck status, à la George W. Bush when Democrats took over Congress during his last
two years in office (at least until the financial crisis hit and he rallied them to help with the emergency response)? For the Obama
White House, there would be one significant opportunity for consensus: trade . In addition to centrist
Democrats, a chunk of the Republican caucus supports current White House negotiations on two sweeping
free-trade agreements—one with Europe (known as the T ransatlantic T rade and I nvestment P artnership) and another with a bloc
of countries along the Pacific Rim (known
as the T rans- P acific P artnership)—that together encompass a huge chunk
of the world’s commerce. Democratic leaders backed away from Obama’s trade agenda earlier this
year, not wanting to alienate the party’s liberal base. But should Republicans win the Senate, there
are incentives for both sides to cooperate on trade. For the GOP, it’s an opportunity to burnish their
bipartisan bona fides and prove they can govern, not just obstruct. ”We’re all expecting that if we get into the majority, the
Senate’s going to function,” insists Tennessee Republican Bob Corker. ”If we get into the majority and that didn’t happen, I can assure you …
the vast majority of the Republican caucus will be highly disappointed.” It
would also be something of a peace offering to
the pro-business community, a traditional GOP constituency that has been rankled by some of the
House’s more extreme budget-cutting positions in recent years. For Obama, meanwhile, it would mean delivering
on his promise to expand American exports and create more American jobs (something some of his more liberal
supporters might dispute). The momentum to reach across the aisle and cut some bipartisan deals could also extend to reform efforts on
American mortgage lending (where there’s consensus that the current system dominated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken) and the
hot-button issue of immigration, although it’s unlikely the GOP would agree to the sort of comprehensive immigration package that Obama and
Democrats have been pushing for. “ There’s
going to be a moment there for Kumbaya to some degree ,’” agrees one
veteran Capitol Hill staffer turned lobbyist, who is watching congressional action closely.
Key to global trade – solves every hotspot.
Sapiro 2014
Miriam, Visiting Fellow in the Global Economy and Development program, former Deputy US Trade
Representative, Why Trade Matters, September 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why%20trade%20matters/trade%2
0global%20views_final.pdf
This policy brief explores the economic rationale and strategic imperative of an ambitious domestic
and global trade agenda from the perspective of the United States. International trade is often viewed through the relatively narrow
prism of trade-offs that might be made among domestic sectors or between trading partners, but it is im- portant to consider also
the impact that increased trade has on global growth, development and security. With that context in mind, this
paper assesses the implications of the Asia-Pacific and European trade negotiations underway,
including for countries that are not participating but aspire to join. It outlines some of the challenges that stand in
the way of completion and ways in which they can be addressed. It examines whether the focus on "mega-regional" trade agreements comes at
the expense of broader liberalization or acts as a catalyst to develop higher standards than might otherwise be possible. It concludes with policy
recommendations for action by governments, legislators and stakeholders to address concerns that have been raised and create greater
domestic support. It is fair to ask whether we should be concerned about the future of international trade policy when dire develop- ments are
threatening the security interests of the United States and its partners in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. In
the Middle East,
significant areas of Iraq have been overrun by a toxic offshoot of Al-Qaeda, civil war in Syria rages with
no end in sight, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in tatters. Nuclear negotiations with Iran have
run into trouble, while Libya and Egypt face continuing instability and domestic challenges. In Asia, historic rivalries and
disputes over territory have heightened tensions across the region, most acutely by China's aggressive
moves in the South China Sea towards Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines. Nuclear-armed North Korea remains
isolated, reckless and unpredictable. In Africa, countries are struggling with rising terrorism, violence and corruption. In Europe,
Russia continues to foment instability and destruction in eastern Ukraine. And within the European Union, lagging
economic recovery and the surge in support for extremist parties have left people fearful of increasing violence against immigrants and
minority groups and skeptical of further integration. It is tempting to focus solely on these pressing problems and defer less urgent issues—such
as forging new dis- ciplines for international trade to another day, especially when such issues pose challenges of their own. But that would be a
mistake. A
key motivation in building greater domestic and international consensus for advanc- ing trade
liberalization now is precisely the role that greater economic integration can play in opening up new
avenues of opportunity for promoting development and increasing economic prosperity. Such initiatives can
help stabilize key regions and strengthen the security of the United States and its partners. The last
century provides a powerful example of how expanding trade relations can help reduce global
tensions and raise living standards. Following World War II, building stronger economic cooperation was a
centerpiece of allied efforts to erase battle scars and embrace former enemies. In defeat, the economies of
Germany, Italy and Japan faced ruin and people were on the verge of starvation. The United States led efforts to rebuild Europe and to repair
Japan's economy. A key element of the Marshall Plan, which established the foundation for unprecedented growth and the level of European
integration that exists today, was to revive trade by reducing tariffs.1 Russia, and the eastern part of Europe that it controlled, refused to
participate or receive such assistance. De- cades later, as the Cold War ended, the United States and Western Europe sought to make up for lost
time by providing significant technical and financial assistance to help integrate central and eastern European countries with the rest of Europe
and the global economy. "There have been subsequent calls for a "Marshall Plan" for other parts of the world,' although the confluence of
dedicated resources, coordinated support and existing capacity has been difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, impor-
tant lessons have
been learned about the valuable role economic development can play in defusing tensions, and how
opening markets can hasten growth. There is again a growing recognition that economic security and national security are
two sides of the same coin. General Carter Ham, who stepped down is head of U.S. Africa Command last year, observed the close
connection between increasing prosperity and bolstering stability. During his time in Africa he had seen that "security and stability in
many ways depends a lot more on economic growth and oppor- tunity than it does on military
strength."1 Where people have opportunities for themselves and their children, he found, the result was better governance, increased
respect for human rights and lower levels of conflict. During his confirmation hearing last year, Secretary John Kerry stressed the link between
economic and national security in the context of the competitiveness of the United States but the point also has broader application. Our
nation cannot be strong abroad, he argued, if it is not strong at home, including by putting its own fiscal house in order. He asserted—rightly
so—that "more
than ever foreign policy is economic policy," particularly in light of increasing
competition for global resources and markets. Every day, he said, "that goes by where America is
uncertain about engaging in that arena, or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win, unwilling to dem- onstrate our
resolve to lead, is a day in which we weaken our nation itself."4 Strengthening America's economic security
by cementing its economic alliances is not simply an option, but an imperative. A strong nation needs a strong economy
that can generate growth, spur innovation and create jobs. This is true, of course, not only for the United States but
also for its key partners and the rest of the global trading system. Much as the United States led the
way in forging strong military alliances after World War II to discourage a resurgence of militant
nationalism in Europe or Asia, now is the time to place equal emphasis on shoring up our collective
economic security. A failure to act now could undermine international security and place stability in
key regions in further jeopardy.
OFF
SPECIFICATION
Violation-They read the resolution not the plan
Vote Negative
Failure to specify beyond “legalize” makes the plan void for vagueness-it wrecks
negative ground and makes policy analysis impossible
Kleiman and Saiger-lecturer public policy Harvard, consultant drug policy Rand-90
18 Hofstra L. Rev. 527
A SYMPOSIUM ON DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION: DRUG LEGALIZATION: THE IMPORTANCE OF ASKING THE
RIGHT QUESTION.
Defining Legalization Legalization, like prohibition, does not name a unique strategy. Perhaps the most
prominent inadequacy of current legalization arguments is their failure to specify what is meant by
"legalization ." Current drug policy provides an illustration of this diversity. Heroin and marijuana are
completely prohibited, 74 and cocaine can only be used in rigidly specified medical contexts, not including
any where the drug's psychoactive properties are exercised. 75 On the other hand, a wide range of pain-killers, sleepinducers, stimulants, tranquilizers and sedatives can be obtained with a doctor's prescription. 76 Alcohol is available
for recreational use, but is subject to an array of controls including excise taxation, 77 limits on drinking ages, 78 limits
on TV and radio advertising, 79 and retail licensing. 80 Nicotine is subject to age minimums, warning label requirements, 81
taxation, 82 and bans on smoking in some public places. 83 [*541] Drug legalization can therefore be thought of as moving drugs along a
spectrum of regulated statuses in the direction of increased availability. However, while legalization advocates do not deny that some sort
of controls will be required, their proposals
rarely address the question of how far on the spectrum a given drug
should be moved, or how to accomplish such a movement. Instead, such details are dismissed as easily
determined, or postponed as a problem requiring future thought . 84 But the consequences of
legalization depend almost entirely on the details of the remaining regulatory regime . The price and
conditions of the availability of a newly legal drug will be more powerful in shaping its consumption than the fact that the drug is "legal." Rules
about advertising, place and time of sale, and availability to minors help determine whether important aspects of the drug problem get better
or worse. The amount of regulatory apparatus required and the way in which it is organized and enforced will determine how much budget
reduction can be realized from dismantling current enforcement efforts. 85 Moreover, currently illicit drugs, because they are so varied
pharmacologically, would not all pose the same range of the problems if they were to be made legally available for non-medical use. They
would therefore require different control regimes. These regimes might need to be as diverse as the drugs themselves.
Independently, what “the United States” means is a prerequisite to policy debates.
Family Guardian Fellowship 9
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MEANING OF THE TERM "UNITED STATES"
http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm
I doubt if many Americans have ever given a second thought to the meaning of the term United
States, or would believe that it could be a perplexing question . It would have my vote, however, as
being by far the most important and controversial
word (or
term) of art , vocabula artis also referred to as a statute
term, leading word (or term), or what the French call parol de ley, technical word of law
in all American legal writings as well
as the most dangerous . For it is ambivalent, equivocal, and ambiguous. Indeed, as you will see, its use in the law exemplifies patent
ambiguity, which is defined as: An ambiguity apparent on face of instrument [sic] and arising by reason of any inconsistency or inherent
uncertainty of language used so that effect is either to convey no definite meaning or confused meaning. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.
Emphasis added.) Reading Hamlet in the park this afternoon, I chanced on to an intriguing way to put it. In the words of King Claudius: The
harlot's cheek, beautified with plast ring art, Is not more ugly to the thing that helps it Than is my deed to my most painted word. O heavy
burden! (III, I, 51-54. Emphasis added.) The editor, Harold Jenkins, in his notes on painted says: " fair but false in appearance, like the beauty of
the painted cheek." What serendipity to find this, just as I am on my final proofing of this paper. It
is so appropriate, to describe
how 'United States' usually is used by the government . And it has indeed imposed on us all a heavy
burden ! With dogged determination and perseverance, however, one can succeed in seeing through this meticulous and painstakingly
contrived duplicity. For, fortunately, Congress must define all terms that it uses in a particular and special way. For example, in the Internal
Revenue Code (IRC), chapter 79 Definitions, Section 7701 Definitions, it states: "(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof " It goes on, then, to define many terms of art. These definitions apply throughout
the code, "where not otherwise distinctly expressed" which will sometimes be done for a single chapter, section, subsection, or even sentence
which, you will later see, can be very instructive. I fear that such analysis can be tedious, and for this I apologize. I will try to be as pithy and
compendious as possible, but I am not writing merely to express opinions; I am writing to prove the points I discuss. And I will worry a question
like a bull dog, until I am satisfied that I have presented enough hard data to conclusively establish my particular contention, especially in the
eyes of those of a different persuasion. For there are intelligent and respected researchers, for whom I have the greatest regard, who do not
agree, for example, with my interpretation of the meaning of 'United States' in Title 26, as well as in all the other titles. The
history of
the usage of United States, from the time of the American colonies to the present, is remarkably complex. This is
thoroughly investigated in an easy-reading yet scholarly book that I highly recommend, by Sebastian de Gracia, A Country With No Name,
Pantheon, 1997. Herein, however, I will have occasion to avail myself of virtually nothing from this wonderful tome. When I think of this, it
astonishes even me. But
my focus is primarily on the relevance of this term as it relates to the law,
especially tax law, to which he simply doesn t allude at least in the way I do. Before getting started, let me give you just a hint as to why
it is
so extremely important to have an absolutely correct interpretation of the term
United States , but also, in the two quotes below, nonresident alien, and gross income. This preview is an important section from the
IRC, which is Title 26, also written in cites as 26 United States Code or 26 USC, Section (the symbol or, often, as in this paper, these are omitted)
872 Gross income: (a) General rule. In the case of a nonresident alien individual gross income includes only (1) gross income which is derived
from sources within the United States and which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States,
and (2) gross income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States Add to this 26 USC
§7701(b)(1)(B): An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States
and I think you will agree that the cardinal conundrum here indeed the very crux is the determination as to what is meant by the term "United
States" and, above, nonresident alien. For, under certain circumstances we see that the nonresident alien is not subject to any federal income
tax if his relationship to the United States is of a certain nature.
The United States is an abstraction given
substantiality when delegated duties began to be performed , and when 1:8:17 of the Constitution was implemented,
which provided for land for the seat of government, as well as forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.
OFF
Text: The United States should legalize marijuana. The United States should establish
prohibition for those substances with a THC content between 0 and 1 percent.
Solves the AFF -The counterplan excludes marijuana with a J from the definition of marijuana -- that
legalizes its use - BUT it clarifies that hemp is still prohibited under US law
Cannabis Sativa L prohibition includes hemp---CSA proves---the plan needs to legalize
it to be topical
Roussell 12—Aaron, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, “THE
FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION OF MARIJUANA: SUSPICION, MORAL DANGER, AND THE CREATION OF NONPSYCHOACTIVE THC,” ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH 22(1):
http://www.albanylawjournal.org/Documents/Articles/22.1.103-Roussell.pdf
Marijuana is known taxonomically as Cannabis sativa from the family Cannabinaceae (order Urticales, subclass Dicotyledons)
and is a seed born
(division Spermatophyta)
and flowering
(class Angiospermae)
plant .13 Hemp, a plant cultivated abroad,
goes by an identical taxonomy .14 Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (“the Controlled Substances Act” or “CSA”) lists “Marihuana” under Schedule I, which
designates it as a substance worthy of outright prohibition.15 “Marihuana,” in the CSA, has been understood broadly
but used domestically for its fibrous qualities,
to mean the species Cannabis sativa , although this has been recently brought sharply into question through hemp and its
taxonomy.16 Curiously, the constituent chemical element recognized as objectionable, psychoactive THC, is
also a Schedule I substance and is listed separately.17 In sum, both “marihuana” and THC , though listed
separately in the CSA,
are both Schedule I, illegal substances. Hemp, though legal to possess, is not legal to
cultivate —it remains, however, nominally unscheduled under the CSA.18 Hemp is a fibrous plant prized for its ease of cultivation and its
versatility.19 Historically, the fibers that compose hemp have been important for providing paper, sail canvas, and carpet.20 Although rope and
clothing continue to be made from hemp, and the fiber finds its way into such esoteric products as composite panels found in automobiles,
many modern uses revolve around biofuel and alternative proteins from more traditional animal and soy sources.21
Despite this litany
of uses, hemp remains illegal to cultivate in the U nited S tates.22, although it is legal to import, possess, and consume, so
long as the hemp material does not allow for THC to enter the body.23 Marijuana, on the other hand, is an illegal drug in the
United States, normally imbibed by crushing and smoking the leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds of the
marijuana plant.24 A description of marijuana provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (“NIDA”) declares that marijuana “can
cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory.”25
NIDA contends that marijuana is potentially addictive and may be linked to mental health problems ranging from anxiety and depression to
schizophrenia and psychosis.26 The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), perhaps the leading opponent of marijuana prohibition in the United States,
counters that there is little evidence of increased marijuana dependency, more evidence that marijuana use is a result of psychological
conditions than the reverse, and that there is no evidence to suggest that there are long term cognitive deficiencies caused by using
marijuana.27 While a marijuana plant and a hemp plant, arguably, may be distinct in their full botanical glories, “[m]ost submissions to forensic
laboratories are in the form of crushed plant materials that no longer retain gross botanical features.”28 Indeed, one study of cannabis testing
methods used 100 samples previously received and tested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police forensic labs. The samples comprised 68
marijuana “extracts,” 20 liquid and resin hashish samples, 6 “rinses,” “washes,” or “extracts” from suspected marijuana smoking paraphernalia,
and only 1 “unidentified green material,” presumably crushed botanical material.29 Clearly, a
sample need not resemble
marijuana, or even a plant, to undergo forensic testing—suspicion by law enforcement is the
determining factor rendering the sample suspect.30
OFF
Oil prices maintain Russian stability now -- if they drop it will fuel nationalism
Blackwill, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at CFR, and O’Sullivan, Professor of the
Practice of International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government, 14 (Robert and Meghan, “America's Energy Edge,” Foreign Affairs. Mar/Apr2014, Vol.
93 Issue 2, accessed 8-23-14, CMM)
A sustained drop in the price of oil , meanwhile, could destabilize Russia's political system . Even with the
current price near $100 per barrel, the Kremlin has scaled back its official expectations of annual
economic growth over the coming decade to around 1.8 percent and begun to make budget cuts. If
prices fall further, Russia could exhaust its stabilization fund, which would force it to make draconian
budget reductions. Russian President Vladimir Putin's influence could diminish, creating new openings for his
political opponents at home and making Moscow look weak abroad. Although the West might welcome the
thought of Russia under such strain, a weaker Russia will not necessarily mean a less challenging Russia.
Moscow is already trying to compensate for losses in Europe by making stronger inroads into Asia and
the global LNG market, and it will have every reason to actively counter Europe's efforts to develop its
own resources. Indeed, Russia's state-run media, the state-owned gas company Gazprom, and even Putin himself have warned of the
environmental dangers of fracking in Europe -- which is, as The Guardian has put it, "an odd phenomenon in a country that usually keeps
ecological concerns at the bottom of its agenda." To discourage European investment in the infrastructure needed to import LNG, Russia may
also preemptively offer its European customers more favorable gas deals, as it did for Ukraine at the end of 2013. More
dramatically,
should low energy prices undermine Putin and empower more nationalist forces in the country,
Russia could seek to secure its regional influence in more direct ways -- even through the projection
of military power .
Hemp biofuels help achieve energy independence which lowers global oil prices
Keller 13—Nicole, “NOTE: THE LEGALIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP AND WHAT IT COULD MEAN FOR
INDIANA'S BIOFUEL INDUSTRY,” Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 23 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L.
Rev. 555, lexis
These countries, which have been able to distinguish between hemp and marijuana, are able to take advantage of an enormous renewable
resource that boosts their economies and lessens their country's impact on the global environment. Hemp "can be used to produce more than
25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to cellophane." 35 This statement was made in 1938 when Popular Mechanics released an article
toting the wonders of industrial hemp, claiming it was the new billion dollar crop. The article "further state[d] that increased
hemp
production 'will displace imports of raw material and manufactured products' and call[ed] hemp the
'standard fiber of the world.'" 36 That was in 1938. With today's advanced technologies, it is highly likely that the number
of uses exceeds 25,000 products. 37 In fact, some sources claim that over 50,000 products can be made from this single plant. 38
Among the 50,000 products are "textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, animal feed," 39 biodegradable
industrial products such as fiberglass, replacement for wood products, biofuel, and detergents. 40 For a majority of these products, the fibrous
stalk of the hemp plant is used. However, the
seeds are also an excellent source of oil, varnishes, body care
products, detergents, and biofuel. In other words, the entire hemp plant has a use; nothing goes to [*559] waste.
Many countries now have active industries utilizing industrial hemp to their benefit. For example, China has large hemp paper and textile
industries. 41 In 2009 Zhang Jianchun, Director General of China's Hemp Research Centre in Beijing, said,
Expanded production of hemp . . . offers enormous benefits for China. First, it would provide a major new source of fibre for the textile
industry, reduce dependency on cotton and, in the process, free large areas of cotton-growing land for food production. In addition, hemp
cultivation would generate extra income for millions of small-scale farmers in some of the country's poorest rural areas. 42
Three years later, "[China] is the largest exporter of hemp paper and [hemp] textiles." 43 It seems that, at least in China, Popular Mechanics'
tout that hemp would become the "standard fiber of the world" 44 is quickly becoming a reality as the Chinese increasingly replace fibers such
as cotton with industrial hemp. 45 Additionally, another large producer of hemp products is Canada, which supplies the world with a variety of
hemp food products. 46 Canada's hemp food industry is growing, and Canadian farmers are benefiting from the US government's refusal to
legalize the crop. 47
Among the products derivable from the industrial hemp plant, and the product most relevant to this
Note, is hemp as a biofuel. In a time of high gas prices, political instability , and increasing concerns
over the environmental effects of fossil fuel consumption , it is natural to seek an alternative. Globally,
the use of biofuels as an alternative to petroleum products is gaining momentum. 48 The United States alone
consumed approximately 11.7 million gallons of ethanol in 2011 49 and over 549 [*560] million gallons of biodiesel in the first 9 months of
2011. 50 In Canada, hemp biofuel research is underway to produce cellulosic ethanol. 51 Cellulosic ethanol is ethanol produced from the nonfood parts of feedstock and is a more efficient source of energy. 52 Currently, the majority of feedstock for biofuels
comes from
corn, soybeans, or wheat. 53 However, in addition to being an inefficient source of fuel, the diversion of these
commodities for fuel production is at the expense of the world food supply. 54 The United States has recognized the
issue and has "announced a $ 510 million initiative meant to spur development of a new US bio-fuel industry that utilizes non-food crops[.]" 55
The initiative is meant to examine sources such as algae or wood chips; 56 however,
there is a more efficient source:
industrial hemp.
"When compared to other plant species of active interest in biofuel production, Hemp
derives 100% more cellulose than
species under active investigation." 57 Furthermore, "[h]emp is Earth's number one biomass resource; it is
capable of producing 10 tons per acre in four months." 58 Hemp biomass fuel products require a minimal amount of
specialization and processing and "[t]he hydrocarbons in hemp can be processed into a wide range of biomass
energy sources, from fuel pellets to liquid fuels and gas." 59 These facts alone make industrial hemp the ideal source for
both ethanol and biodiesel production. Yet, industrial hemp, in addition to its fibrous plant matter, also produces seeds wherein lies a rich
source of hemp [*561] oil, and this oil can also be used for fuel. 60
Industrial hemp's fuel capabilities and desirability is further enhanced by the fact that "[i]ndustrial hemp
can be grown in most climates and on marginal soils. It requires little or no herbicide and no pesticide[.]"
61 The hemp plant is also known to improve soil conditions for rotational crops, 62 and it is a clean-burning
fuel, contributing no g reen h ouse g ase s . 63 Yet, industrial hemp is not seriously considered as a feedstock input, 64 largely
because industrial hemp is illegal to grow in the United States.
Nuclear war
Irsraelyan, Former Soviet Ambassador, 98
(Victor, diplomat and arms control negotiator, “Russia at the Crossroads,” Lexis)
The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this option
would, in the name of a "united and undivided Russia," radically change domestic and foreign policies. Many
would seek to revive a dictatorship and take urgent military steps to mobilize the people against the outside
"enemy." Such steps would include Russia's denunciation of the commitment to no-first-use of nuclear
weapons; suspension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention; denunciation
of the Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force, including the acquisition of additional
intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well as medium- and short-range missiles
such as the SS-20. Some of these measures will demand substantial financing, whereas others, such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties,
would, according to proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. In this scenario, Russia's
military planners would
shift Western countries from the category of strategic partners to the category of countries representing a
threat to national security. This will revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds
against the expanded NATO, Russia will place new emphasis on the first-use of nuclear weapons, a trend that is underway
already. The power scenario envisages a hard-line policy toward the CIS countries, and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in those countries
would be greatly magnified. Moscow
would use all the means at its disposal, including economic sanctions and
political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as well as to have an
influence on other issues. Of those means, even the use of direct military force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. Some will object that this
scenario is implausible because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this strategy. I am not so sure. Some Duma members -- such as Victor
Antipov, Sergei Baburin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert Makashov, who are leading politicians in ultranationalistic
parties and fractions in
the parliament -- are ready to follow this path to save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a
membership of more than 240 Duma members. One cannot help but remember that when Weimar Germany was isolated, exhausted, and humiliated as a result of
World War I and the Versailles Treaty, Adolf Hitler took it upon himself to "save" his country. It took the former corporal only a few years to plunge the world into a
second world war that cost humanity more than 50 million lives. I do not believe that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully,
but then again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either. Thus, I am afraid that economics will not deter the power scenario's
would-be authors from attempting it. Baburin, for example, warned that any political leader who would "dare to encroach upon Russia" would be decisively
repulsed by the Russian Federation "by all measures on heaven and earth up to the use of nuclear weapons." n10 In autumn 1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian
ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator, while saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western
listeners that Russia has enough missiles to destroy both the United States and Europe. n11 Former
Russian minister of defense Igor
Rodionov warned several times that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could become uncontrollable. In this context,
one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals -- and tensions -- Russia and
the United States remain poised to launch their missiles in minutes. I cannot but agree with Anatol Lieven, who wrote, "It may be,
therefore, that with
all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able
to stumble on, until we all fall down together." n12
OFF
Text: The 50 states and all relevant territories should make legal and regulate nearly
all prohibited cannabis sativa L. in the United States
It solves the case-State action forces the federal government to follow on – New York
during alcohol prohibition empirically proves
Robelo 13—Daniel, Research Coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance, “Article: Demand Reduction or
Redirection? Channeling Illicit Drug Demand towards a Regulated Supply to Diminish Violence in Latin
America,” 91 Or. L. Rev. 1227
Several states have, in fact, begun acting as laboratories for marijuana regulation. In November 2012, Colorado and Washington became
the first political jurisdictions in the world to vote to permit the legal regulation of marijuana sales, cultivation, and distribution for adults
twenty-one and older within their borders. 43 A 2012 report by the Mexican Institute for Competiveness estimated that marijuana
regulation in Colorado and Washington could reduce profits of criminal organizations in Mexico by $ 2.5 billion or more. 44 Such
estimates have prompted some experts to recommend that "the federal government should
permit states to legalize the production, sale, taxation, and consumption of marijuana" as part of a
comprehensive strategy to aid Mexico. 45 In addition, medical marijuana is already legal in eighteen states and the District
of Columbia, where more than one million patients now reside who are no longer purchasing their marijuana from the underground
market, and, by extension, likely no longer financing organized crime through their consumption. 46 These jurisdictions have also created a
variety of regulatory models for the [*1238] distribution and production of marijuana, with few discernible problems. 47
As medical marijuana spread from one state (California) in 1996 to one-third of the country today, recreational
marijuana could follow the same pattern. Indeed, more than a half-dozen states have introduced
legislation to regulate marijuana as of this writing, 48 while advocates are gearing up in different
states for ballot initiative campaigns in either the 2014 or 2016 elections. 49 New York was the first
state to repeal its laws prohibiting alcohol in 1923; a decade later when federal Repeal arrived, it
had been joined by ten others - suggesting that as more states abandon marijuana prohibition, the
federal government may be forced to follow suit . 50 Federal legislation has even been introduced
to end marijuana prohibition nationally and defer the issue to the states, 51 which nearly twothirds of the population supports.
52
The effects of the watershed 2012 election spilled outside the U.S. borders as well. Within
weeks of the polls closing in
Colorado and Washington, legislators in Mexico introduced a bill to regulate marijuana in their
country, 53 questioning why their countrymen and women should continue dying to prevent a
substance from reaching [*1239] consumers who, in the case of these two states, clearly want it. Lawmakers in
Uruguay, already planning legislation to regulate marijuana, are now moving full steam ahead. 54
OFF
Obamacare is advancing public health readiness now
Logiurato, Business Insider political reporter, 2014
(Brett, “Major New Study Says Obamacare Is Working — Even For Republicans”, 7-10,
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-obamacare-reduces-uninsured-rate-2014-7, ldg)
The Affordable Care Act has been successful at achieving some major goals in the first year of its full
implementation, according to a new study from The Commonwealth Fund. There are three important findings from the
study : The uninsured rate is dropping, most people like their new insurance plans (even Republicans!), and most
people are finding it easy to visit a doctor. The study found the uninsured rate in the U.S. declined by onequarter over the last nine months, which included the law's first, six-month open-enrollment period in which individuals could sign up for
private insurance plans through exchanges established by the law. From the July-to-September 2013 period to the April-to-June 2014 period, the uninsured rate of
people between the ages of 19-64 dropped from 20% to 15%, according to the study. The research found 9.5 million people gained insurance, either through the
exchanges or through the law's expansion of the federal Medicaid program. The
decline in uninsured was seen across different age
groups and races, though the drop was disproportionately high among the young (-10%) and Latinos (-13%). It was disproportionately low among AfricanAmericans — the decline was only 1%. The findings show the law has been successful at reducing the uninsured rate among the poor — which was, of course, one
of its main goals: Expectedly, there is a significant difference in the reduction of uninsured between states that have expanded Medicaid and those that have not.
According to the study, the uninsured rate among residents who make up to 100% of the federal poverty level fell from 28% to 17% in the 25 states that have
expanded Medicaid (plus the District of Columbia). In the 25 states that haven't, the rate only fell from 38% to 36%. Among
those who have
become newly insured, the vast majority say they are "better off" and like their plans. In total, 58% of
respondents with new plans said they are "better off" than before — including 61% who were previously uninsured. Seventy-nine percent of those who were
previously uninsured said they were either "somewhat" or "very satisfied" with their new plans. Even 74% of Republicans say they're at least somewhat satisfied
with their new plans.
Significantly, most people who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act said they
couldn't have accessed care they have received since obtaining insurance: Finally: About one-fifth of
people who have signed up for a new plan have attempted to find a new primary care or general
doctor, and most — 75% — have said the process is at least "somewhat easy." Two-thirds of those who found a
primary-care doctor got an appointment within two weeks. Thirty-seven percent of people said their new plans included "most" of the doctors they wanted (about
39% don't yet know).
Marijuana legalization wrecks public health-much worse than tobacco
Evans, former Rutgers law professor, 2013
(David, "The Economic Impacts Of Marijuana Legalization", The Journal of Global Drug Policy and
Practice, Dec 30 2013,
www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%207%20Issue%204/The%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Marij
uana%20Legalization%20final%20for%20journal.pdf)
A number of studies have noted significant correlations between marijuana use and many severe
health and social problems (35). The negative impact of expanded marijuana use will have a severe and
pervasive impact on public health
from which there will be no turning back.
Studies show impacts from marijuana
use such as immune system damage , (36) birth defects, (37) infertility, (38) cardiovascular disease, (39)
stroke, (40) and testicular cancer (41). Researchers have also found that chronic exposure to marijuana smoke can
increase the risk of developing respiratory obstruction, emphysema, lung cancer, collapsed lungs, and bullous
lung disease ("bong lung") (42). A recent study shows that marijuana smoke has ammonia levels 20 times
higher than tobacco smoke. Marijuana has hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide, and aromatic amines at 3-
5 times higher than tobacco smoke (43).
Another study shows that that marijuana
smokers face rapid lung
destruction - as much as 20 years ahead of tobacco smokers (44). A recently released study shows
that marijuana damages DNA and that it is toxic to the body (45). One of the earliest findings in marijuana research
was the effect on various immune functions. Cellular immunity and pulmonary immunity are
impaired, and an impaired ability to fight infection is now documented in humans. Researchers have found an inability to fight
herpes infections and a blunted response to therapy for genital warts in patients who consume marijuana. Abnormal immune function is the
cornerstone of problems with AIDS. This impairment leaves the patient unable to fight certain infections and fatal diseases. The
potential for these complications exists in all forms of administration of marijuana (46).
Marijuana addiction threatens military readiness
Coogan, Newsela Chief Content Officer, 2013
(Jennifer, “Military leaders fear America’s youth can’t make the cut”, 4-29,
https://newsela.com/articles/military-recruits/id/46/, ldg)
In an interview on National Public Radio (NPR), General Martin Dempsey said, “I think it’s fairly common knowledge that our
population of military-age young men who qualify for the military is declining.” Drugs, Dropouts And Arrests
According to the NPR report, too many young men are disqualified from joining the military because
they have had trouble with the law, lack a high-school diploma or have used drugs. Recruits must
have a clean criminal record, pass a drug test and meet academic requirements. For young American men,
these standards are getting harder to meet. NPR pointed out that in all 50 states, more boys than girls drop out of school. Young men
also account for three-fourths of all arrests in the United States. Since the majority of people applying to the armed forces are male, this represents a thorny
problem for military recruiters who are trying to meet their enlistment goals. Young Women Wanted The military realized that if this trend continued, by 2020 there
would not be enough male recruits to fill the ranks. So it decided it needed to increase female recruitment. By opening up ground combat roles to women, it’s
hoped the military can attract more female applicants by showing that women can have just as successful careers in the military as men. Ground combat units,
which include jobs like operating a tank or firing mortars, have been off-limits to female troops. The jobs are tough and dangerous, but serving in those units is often
a requirement for certain leadership roles in the military. Still, the
plan to open ground combat jobs to women will not solve
all the military’s recruitment problems. Female soldiers and Marines must pass exhausting training
courses and have superior fitness levels to be admitted to these units. Fighting Fat Fitness is yet another hurdle for
would-be recruits. American youth are suffering from an obesity crisis. According to the Department of Defense, 27 percent of Americans aged 17 to 24 are too
heavy to serve in the military.
When combined with the number of people who are disqualified for academic,
criminal and drug-related reasons, only one in four young Americans is eligible to join the military.
Not having enough recruits threatens U.S. military readiness -- the ability of the armed forces to
respond to threats and accomplish their missions.
Military readiness deters all war- declines cause global conflict
Spencer, Heritage defense and national security policy analyst, 2000
(Jack, “The Facts About Military Readiness”, 9-15, www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/09/bg1394the-facts-about-military-readiness, ldg)
Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that
the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more
likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A
high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital
national interest, thereby preserving peace
OFF
The United States ought to
-propose a treaty through the United Nations on cyber-war that prohibits first use of
cyber weapons and use against civilian infrastructure, applies the law of state
responsibility to non-state actors conducting cyber-attacks, create an obligation of
treaty members to investigate who committed cyber-attacks against a victim state,
with enforcement coming from an International Cyber Forensics and Compliance Staff
-issue a document making its current cyber war doctrine transparent, encourage
discussion on cyberwar and the Law of Armed Conflict, and offer to restrain its cyber
capabilities in exchange for ratification of the treaty, and implement the results of
treaty negotiations.
-make marijuana illegal in accordance with the Single Convention.
The Single Convention outlaws marijuana -- unilateral legalization collapses
international rule of law—shatters cooperation
Counts 13—Nathaniel, J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, 2014, “ARTICLE: INITIATIVE 502 AND
CONFLICTING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW,” 49 Gonz. L. Rev. 187, lexis
In dealing with the conflicting state and federal law, enforcement decisions will affect the United States' role as an actor
in international law and the direction of international cooperation in combatting illegal drug trade.
First, if
the U nited S tates breaches its treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
and the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,
it would undermine the international
rule of law . A strong international rule of law is desirable "to establish and maintain order and
enhance reliable expectations" in international affairs. 142 As there are no enforcement mechanisms for
international legal obligations equivalent to that which exists with domestic law, the weight of
obligations relies to some extent on comity among the states involved. 143 As long as states agree to
limit their sovereignty and comply with international law, states will be more likely to respect one
another's reasonable expectations and fulfill their obligations. 144
Both conventions have provisions that read, "If there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute relating to the interpretation or
application of this Convention, the Parties shall consult together with a view to the settlement of the dispute by ... peaceful means of their own
choice," and should this fail, they agree to jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 145 [*208] Despite this possibility of
justiciability of breach, it is highly unlikely that any state party would bring a case before the ICJ over domestic non-enforcement of the treaty
obligations, as diplomatic channels are more predictable and possible noncompliance with ICJ judgments weakens the international rule of law.
146
If the United States fails to enforce the CSA and allows the Washington legalization system to
succeed , it may signal to other states that the U nited S tates is willing to allow its domestic law
overcome its international law obligations and may not be reliable in international transnational
enforcement efforts in the future. It also signals to other states that they may allow their domestic law
to inhibit effective enforcement of international treaty obligations, which may undermine the United
States' goals in the future.
Aside from rule of law concerns, breach of treaty obligations may undermine the international cooperation
required to combat international drug trafficking. The United States has historically been a strong
proponent of drug prohibition and prioritization of enforcement efforts against trafficking, so
legalization and non-enforcement of a Schedule I drug within our borders would send a conflicting
message . 147 The former Administrator of the DEA, John C. Lawn, commented, "A violation of these treaties by the
United States would destroy our credibility
with drug source and drug transit countries that are now working with the United States in
the global war on drugs." 148 Some parties have already softened their domestic enforcement policies and similar action by the United States would make this
course more acceptable. 149 If other governments follow suit and legalize drugs in some capacity, this may decrease the focus on enforcement against drugs
generally, which may negatively impact coordinated efforts against illicit drug trafficking. Thus, if the United States allows legalization of marijuana in its borders, it
should be ready to support the change in policy that this represents and address it at the international level. The United States would need to restate the
importance of cooperation against international drug trafficking, even though some amount of domestic social experimentation may be permissible.
Trust and legitimacy of US offers are key to ratify the cyber the treaty the CP proposes
Mueller ‘14
Benjamin, is the International Relations Stonex PhD Scholar at LSE IDEAS, “The laws of war and
cyberspace on the need for a treaty concerning cyber conflict,” Strategic Update 14.2
http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SU14_2_Cyberwarfare.pdf
The UN Disarmament & International Security Committee appears to be the most appropriate forum for talks to
commence on a cyber war treaty. The incentive structure for states to engage in such a process is
easily framed in the game theory terms that are familiar to students of bargaining and cooperation under anarchy.46 The
simplest explanatory analogy is the Prisoner's Dilemma: it is in the interest of all states if cyberspace becomes a
more ordered military domain, by anchoring expectations and introducing a degree of certainty for
governments. It is in the private interest of each state to defect from this regime and secure the
benefits of unrestrained cyber warfare on its own. To avoid all states from following their private interest and defecting, it
is necessary to monitor compliance, ideally through an institution charged with this task (which generates what Axelrod and Keohane call the
'shadow of the future'). Curiously, although
adherence
to it, as has been noted,
international law has no formal enforcement mechanism , states'
is widespread and consistent . The reasons are likely to be a mixture of
enlightened self-interest in an ordered international community,
compliant state in the eyes of
legitimacy
its population as well as
(both
of international law and of the
the international community ) and the norms of socialisation
that have built up over the past century as international law grew in depth and breadth.47
The main hurdle facing this scheme is that states fear giving up a military advantage -a fear that is nullified if
all states sign up to the treaty - and the worry that regulating a decentralised, non-hierarchical network like cyberspace is antithetical to its
fundamental purpose. Specifically, concerns have been voiced that regulating cyberspace will generate momentum for those states that seek to
exert censorship and state control over the Internet.4*The idea that information is free, with the Internet as the medium to decentralise the
global flow of knowledge and empower citizens across the globe, is indeed appealing to those who believe in freedom of speech as a
fundamental force for good in the world. At the same time, it is easy to romanticise this point. Whether or not citizens enjoy a 'free web' still
depends first and foremost on the domestic legal situation in which they find themselves. A state intent on censoring the Internet can do so
easily, with or without a treaty on cyber war. What advocates for an open Internet seem to miss is that a key ingredient of the web is trust
between the disparate nodes and actors in the network. A gradual militarisation of cyberspace will hamper cyberspace's effectiveness as a tool
for commercial and social exchange. Moreover, the
arms race dynamic that can develop absent a treaty on cyber war is
a boon to cybercriminals , who, if left unchecked , will make e-commerce an increasingly slow, costly and
cumbersome
affair. That
is in nobody's interest.
Treaty solves miscalculated cyber war
Schneier ‘12
Bruce, is the Chief Technology Officer of Co3 Systems, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center, and a
board member of EFF, “Cyberwar Treaties,”
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/cyberwar_treati.html
We're in the early years of a cyberwar arms race . It's expensive, it's destabilizing , and it threatens the
very fabric of the Internet
we use every day. Cyberwar
treaties, as imperfect as they might be, are the only way to
contain the threat.
If you read the press and listen to government leaders, we're already in the middle of a cyberwar. By any normal definition of the word "war,"
this is ridiculous. But the definition of cyberwar
has been expanded to include government-sponsored espionage,
fraud, and even hacker kids attacking government
networks and critical infrastructure. This definition is being pushed both by the military and by government
contractors, who are gaining power and making money on cyberwar fear.
The danger is that military problems beg for military solutions. We're starting to see a power grab in
cyberspace by the world's militaries: large-scale monitoring of networks, military control of Internet
standards, even military takeover of cyberspace. Last year's debate over an "Internet kill switch" is an example of this; it's
potential terrorist attacks in cyberspace, large-scale criminal
the sort of measure that might be deployed in wartime but makes no sense in peacetime. At the same time, countries are engaging in offensive
actions in cyberspace, with tools like Stuxnet and Flame.
Arms races stem from ignorance and fear: ignorance of the other side's capabilities, and fear that their
capabilities are greater than yours. Once cyberweapons exist, there will be an impetus to use them. Both Stuxnet and Flame damaged
networks other than their intended targets. Any military-inserted back doors in Internet systems make us more vulnerable to criminals and
hackers. And it
is only a matter of time before something
big
happens , perhaps by the rash actions of a low-
level military officer , perhaps by a non-state actor , perhaps by accident . And if the target nation retaliates, we could
find ourselves in a real cyberwar.
The cyberwar arms race is destabilizing.
International cooperation and treaties are the only way to reverse this. Banning cyberweapons entirely is a good
goal, but almost certainly unachievable. More likely are treaties that stipulate a no-first-use policy, outlaw unaimed or
broadly targeted weapons, and mandate weapons that self-destruct at the end of hostilities. Treaties that
restrict tactics and limit stockpiles could be a next step. We could prohibit cyberattacks against civilian infrastructure;
international banking, for example, could be declared off-limits.
Yes,
enforcement will be difficult.
Remember how easy it was to hide a chemical weapons facility? Hiding a cyberweapons facility
will be even easier. But we've learned a lot from our Cold War experience in negotiating nuclear, chemical, and biological treaties. The
very
act of negotiating limits the arms race and paves the way to peace . And even if they're breached, the world is
safer because the treaties exist.
Escalates to nuclear war
Fritz, Bond University IR masters, 2009
(Jason, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control”, July,
http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf, ldg)
This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source knowledge to identify the
structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit
within established cyber terrorists’ capabilities, strategies, and tactics. If
access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists
could fake or actually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear
response from another nuclear power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or
dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical
distance, and a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking technologies which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in
establishing an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using
computer networks to manage nuclear weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals . All computers which
are connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers
which operate on a closed network may also
be compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks, wireless access
points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and maintenance entry point s. For example, e-mail spoofing
targeted at individuals who have access to a closed network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open
network. This virus could then be carelessly transported on removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the
internet may also reveal how to access these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to place increasing
reliance on computer networks, including experimental technology such as autonomous systems, and their
desire to have multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad capability, enables multiple entry points for
terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There
is evidence to suggest multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio frequency
once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to
automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory response in the event
that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking communications through
computer network operations in an attempt to engage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through additional computer
network operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to
launch a US nuclear attack against Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China was responsible. Further,
emergency response communications could be disrupted, transportation could be shut down, and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby
Disruptions in communication and the use of disinformation could
also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example, a nuclear strike between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with
hindering the disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction.
Distributed Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so they would have further difficulty in identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly.
Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a
traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war could be falsified in an
attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential, military, and government
websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A
Terrorists could also knock out communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation.
sophisticated and all encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be enough
to launch nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromising command and control centres
directly.
Cartels Adv
Violence is decreasing and doesn’t deter energy investment.
McVey, KKR Head of Global Macro & Asset Allocation, 2014
(Henry, “Mexico: Different Investment Lens Required”, May,
http://www.kkr.com/company/insights/global-macro-trends-24)
While the presidency of Peña Nieto’s predecessor, Felipe Calderon became defined by its bloody and ultimately indecisive struggle with the cartels, Peña Nieto
entered office inclined to deemphasize an overt security agenda, focusing instead on the governance and economic reforms described above. The
government believes that its new low-key approach has yielded dividends as evidenced by an apparent
nationwide reduction in intentional homicides in 2013. In addition, since January 2014, Mexican security forces have
moved forcefully to restore security in Michoacan, where conditions badly deteriorated last year, and
successfully carried out a succession of operations that have resulted in the killing or capture of highlevel cartel leaders. Despite some high profile successes, however, we are less bullish. While security has improved significantly in some parts of the
country (e.g., Ciudad Juarez and Monterrey)—it has remained constant or deteriorated elsewhere, including not only Michoacan and neighboring Guerrero on the
Pacific coast, but also Tamaulipas and Mexico State. What we appear to be seeing is, to some extent, a redistribution of violence—from urban to rural areas, and
from the north to the center and the south. In addition, we fear the calm in some places may be more illusory than real. Several Mexican geopolitical analysts with
whom we spoke suspect the reduction in violence in some areas does not signify the defeat of the cartels there, but rather the domination of the area by a single
criminal network and its tacit agreement not to wage open war. Perhaps most worrisome for investors should be the significant growth of kidnapping—which has
quadrupled since 200732— and of extortion, even as the number of murders may be decreasing. Ultimately, Mexico’s criminality and security problems are
inseparable from its under-resourced rule of law institutions—courts, police and prisons. There is no quick or easy solution for this. While there have been pockets
of improvement, what is ultimately required is massive, long-term investment in these perennially under-resourced bodies. Although there are signs that some in
the government grasp the scope of the problem and are pushing in the right direction, including passage of the long-delayed penal code this spring, we do not yet
see a comprehensive national strategy commensurate with the challenge. Although
inherently difficult to quantify, Mexico’s
violence carries a heavy economic cost. INEGI, the country’s national statistics office, estimates that
direct material losses from violence are $16.6 billion per year, approximately 1.3% of GDP33. But indirect
costs—in lost productivity, investment and misdirected resources—are clearly far higher; last year, for instance, Mexico’s health minister estimated violent crime
cost between 8-15% in annual economic output34.
Does this mean that high hopes for Mexico are misplaced?
Ultimately we don’t think so. Although violence and weak rule of law in Mexico will remain a
significant drag on growth and could cast a cloud over Peña Nieto’s reform accomplishments, we
think the risk of the country being overwhelmed by these problems is exaggerated.
Equilibrium now
Weinberg, Nation contributor and Native American Journalists Association award winner, 922-14
(Bill, “Mexico: a new Pax Mafiosa?”, http://ww4report.com/node/13553, ldg)
A deeper criticsm is that adding to the police forces merely provides more firepower for the cartels to
co-opt—until the underlying roots of the narco-violence are addressed. Since Peña Nieto took office in
December 2012, there has been speculation that his government could rebuild the Pax Mafiosa that
more or less kept the peace between the rival cartels under Mexico's old one-party state. Ironically, the opening of Mexico to a
multi-party system with the 2000 election of Vicente Fox marked the beginning of the country's descent into its current nightmare of endless cartel warfare. Peña
Nieto's election returned to power the Instituional Revolutionary Party (PRI)—the old political machine from the one-party era, when the Mexican government was
widely believed to have brokered a turf division among the cartels. Now,
reports in the Latin American media (e.g. TeleSur,
Reforma, Proceso) cite anonymous reports from US and Mexican intelligence sources that a high-level
summit of cartel "capos" took place in June in Piedras Negras, Coahuila, just across the Rio Grande from Eagle Pass, Tex. The meeting was
apparently aimed at diving the country up into "plazas," or cartel spheres of operation, and allow business to proceed with a minimum of violence. Those in
attendance apparently included Vicente Carrilo Fuentes AKA "El Viceroy"—sucessor to his late brother Amado "Lord of the Skies" Carrillo Fuentes as top boss of the
Juárez Cartel. One of the Treviño Morales brothers, top commanders of the Zetas, is said to have been on hand, as well as resentatives of the Jalisco New
Generation gang and the Beltran Leyva Organization. Sanho
Tree, a drug polcy expert with the DC-based Institute for
Policy Studies, told TeleSur: " It would be natural to find some sort of equilibrium in terms of plaza
control as this reflects the desires of cartels to avoid turf wars.... From a citizen's point of view, it is
better to have a couple of big players and alliances rather than a checker board of a bunch of smaller
cartels fighting amongst each other. The only thing worse than organized crime is disorganized
crime."
Cartels would focus on disrupting energy companies in response to the plan-that
would deter investment necessary for effective energy reform.
Francis, Fiscal Times editor-at-large, 2014
(David, “Legalizing Pot Makes Mexican Cartels Even More Dangerous”, 1-7,
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/01/07/Legalizing-Pot-Makes-Mexican-Cartels-Even-MoreDangerous, ldg)
Wider decriminalization would push the price of pot down, taking away a key revenue stream for
cartels like Los Zetas and La Familia. It’s pushing them to dive deeper into illegal markets for other drugs. It’s also forcing them
to adopt tactics used by militant groups in Africa, upping the ante with the Mexican government and
putting them at odds with powerful energy interests.
A 2012 study by the Mexican Institute of Competitiveness says legalization in
Colorado will cost cartels $1.425 billion annually, while Washington State’s legalization would cost cartels $1.372 billion. The study also found that legalization in
these two states would push the cartels’ annual revenues down 20 to 30 percent, and cut revenue to the Sinaloa cartel by 50 percent. In two separate reports —
one in 2010 and one from last September — Rand Corp. dismissed these numbers as overstated. These reports found that the biggest domino to fall would be
California, a state where one-seventh of all pot in the United States is consumed. Reuter said he expects California to decriminalize pot in the coming years. He said
the only reason a 2010 referendum to legalize marijuana failed was because it was poorly worded. “These two states account for 5 percent of U.S. pot consumption.
It’s not a big deal. If California legalizes, that changes things,” he said. Reuter added that the lack of pushback from conservative interest groups also makes wider
decriminalization more likely. Just one group — Smart Approaches to Marijuana, headed by former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who has struggled with substance abuse
— is vocally opposed to decriminalization. Other conservative groups have been oddly quiet, Reuter said. “One of the fascinating things is how little real criticism
there’s been from the right,” he said. “Social conservatives have not made much of this.” That could change since a new study from Northwestern University shows
teenagers who smoke marijuana daily may suffer changes in brain structure that resemble schizophrenia. George W. Grayson, an expert on Mexican cartels at The
College of William & Mary in Virginia, said, “Mexican syndicates are diversifying their sources of revenue beyond marijuana, cocaine and heroin. They are heavily
involved in kidnapping — number one in the world — extortion, prostitution, migrant smuggling,” he said. “In addition, the cartels are ever-more active in stealing
and exporting opioids such as Oxycontin and Roxicodone. Even cigarette smuggling is on the rise.” Kidnapping has become so common that some have even been
caught on tape. According to Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography, more than 105,000 people were kidnapped in 2012. Grayson
also
said that the cartels are stealing from energy companies, a practice more common in West Africa than
Latin America. For instance, in 2012, the Mexican Army estimated that 538,000 gallons of fuel were
stolen in May in Veracruz alone. “Los Zetas, in particular, are stealing lots of oil, gas, explosives and
solvents from Pemex, the state oil company. Pemex uses the chemicals for hydraulic fracking; Los
Zetas for cooking methamphetamines.”
The plan leads to cartel diversification in areas that will consolidate formal political
power and turn Mexico into a narco state.
Felbab-Brown, Brookings senior fellow, 2010
(Vanda, “Why Legalization in Mexico is Not a Panacea for Reducing Violence and Suppressing Organized
Crime”, www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2010/09/23-mexico-marijuana-legalizationfelbabbrown, ldg)
Increasingly, voices in Mexico, including some highly influential ones, such as former President Vicente Fox, are calling for legalization, especially of marijuana. Yet
it is doubtful that legalization under the current conditions would necessarily reduce the violence and
weaken the DTOs. In fact, it could exacerbate violence and paradoxically increase the DTOs’ political
power . Proponents of legalization in Mexico make at least two arguments: The DTOs are believed to make 60% of their income from marijuana, so taking this
income away from them via legalization will severely weaken them. Second, legalization of marijuana (and perhaps other drugs) would free Mexico’s law
enforcement to concentrate on murders, kidnappings, and extortion. A country may have good reasons to want to legalize the use and even production of some
addictive substances (many, such as, nicotin and alcohol, are legal) and ride out the consequences of greater use. (It is difficult to estimate how much additional use
would result from legalization since elasticity price-consumption relations and other factors, such as social stigmas and attitude changes, are not fully known.) Such
reasons could include providing better health care to users, reducing the number of users in prison, changing the priority and resource allocation of law
enforcement, and perhaps even generating greater revenues for state and giving jobs to the poor. But, even if
legalization did displace the
DTOs from the marijuana production and distribution market in Mexico, they can hardly be expected
to take such a change lying down. Rather, they may intensify the violent power struggle over remaining
hard-drug smuggling and distribution. (Notably, the shrinkage of the U.S. cocaine market is one of the factors that precipitated the current
DTO wars.) Worse yet, the DTOs could intensify their effort to take over other illegal economies in Mexico,
such as the smuggling of migrants and other illegal commodities, prostitution, extortion, and
kidnapping, and also over Mexico’s informal economy – trying to franchise who sells tortillas, jewelry, clothes on the zócalo -- to
mitigate their financial losses. They are already doing so. If they succeed in franchising the informal economy and organizing
public spaces and street life in the informal sector (40% of Mexico’s economy), their political power over society
will be greater than ever. Nor would law enforcement necessarily become liberated to focus on other
issues or turn less corrupt: The state would have to devote some resources to regulating the legal
economy and enforcing the regulatory system. Corruption could well persist in a legal or decriminalized economy. In Brazil, after drug
possession for personal use was decriminalized, the deeply corrupt police did not clean up. Instead, they often continue to extort users and franchise pushers by
threatening to book users for greater amounts than personal limits unless they pay a bribe or buy from their pushers. Additionally, a
gray marijuana
market would likely emerge. If marijuana became legal, the state would want to tax it – to generate
revenues and to discourage greater use. The higher the tax, the greater the opportunity for the DTOs
to undercut the state by charging less. The narcos could set up their own fields with smaller taxation, snatch
the market and the profits, and the state would be back to combating them and eradicating their
fields. Such gray markets exist alongside a host of legal economies, from cigarettes, to stolen cars, to logging. Often, as in the case of illegal
logging alongside legal concessions, such gray markets are highly violent, dominated by organized
crime, generating corruption, and exploitative of society. Moreover, if the state does not physically control
the territory where marijuana is cultivated – which in Mexico it often does not – the DTOs could continue to
dominate the newly legal marijuana fields, still charge taxes, still structure the life of the growers, and
even find it easier to integrate into the formal political system. Many oil and rubber barons started with shady practices and
eventually became influential (and sometimes responsible) members of the legal political space. But there are good reasons not to want the very bloody Mexican
capos to become legitimized. Legalization
is not a panacea. There are no shortcuts to improving Mexico’s law
enforcement. Without a capable and accountable police that are responsive to the needs of the people from tackling street crime to suppressing organized
crime and that are backed-up by an efficient, accessible, and transparent justice system, neither legal nor illegal economies will be well-managed by the state.
Rather, legalization of marijuana in Mexico would be more viable, if Mexico first got the DTOs under control and pulled off effective law-enforcement and justice
reform.
Causes short term violence as cartels downsize
Kilmer et al., RAND senior policy researcher, 2010
(Beau, “Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico”,
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP325.pdf)
General Principles We consider here the consequences of a decline in the demand for Mexican drug exports from the perspective of economic and organizational
principles. There is nothing about the analysis that is specific to marijuana or to its legalization. This
analysis simply assesses the effects of a
loss of revenue from one of the existing streams of the DTOs resulting from some event over which
they have no control, be it a change in law or in U.S. customer tastes. Our principal focus is on violence.8 The DTOs can be defined as consisting of the
following: (1) a set of hierarchical relationships that allow higher-level members to command their subordinates to commit violent and risky actions, (2) a reputation
for providing above-market earning opportunities to low-skilled workers willing to take particular kinds of risks, (3) a network of relationships with corrupt law
enforcement officials, (4) a network of suppliers and customers for various drugs, and (5) ready access to capital for illegal ventures. Presumably, the
DTO
demand for labor will decline, at least at the aggregate level. Given the lack of specialization, one would think
almost all the individual DTOs will suffer some decline. One question is whether those “reductions in force” can be achieved
through “natural attrition” or whether they will require “layoffs,” to use familiar industrial jargon. Large-scale dismissals might carry a
peculiar risk, both for the organization and for society in general. Those who are fired may try to
create their own organizations , so DTO managers may have to think strategically about whom to dismiss. Also, those leaving have
probably become accustomed to earning levels they cannot attain in legal trade . Since the whole industry would
be affected by the downturn, other DTOs will not be hiring. Thus, the
fired agents might attempt to compete with their
former employers . Hence, in the short run, there could be additional violence resulting from at least three
sources: • conflict between the current leaders and the dismissed labor • within DTOs. Even after the
firing of excess labor, the earnings of the leadership most likely will decline. One way the individual manager might
compensate for this is to eliminate his or her superior, generating systemic internal violence from senior managers who become more suspicious in the face of the
overall decline in earnings. • between
DTOs. The leadership of an individual DTO may try to maintain their
earnings by eliminating close competitors.
Can’t leverage hegemony
Maher, Brown political science professor, 2011
(Richard, “The Paradox of American Unipolarity: Why the United States May Be Better Off in a PostUnipolar World”, Orbis, 55.1, Science Direct, ldg)
At the same time, preeminence creates burdens and facilitates imprudent behavior. Indeed, because of America’s unique political ideology, which sees its own domestic values and ideals as
universal, and the relative openness of the foreign policymaking process, the United States is particularly susceptible to both the temptations and burdens of preponderance. For decades,
perhaps since its very founding, the United States has viewed what is good for itself as good for the world. During its period of preeminence, the United States has both tried to maintain its
position at the top and to transform world politics in fundamental ways, combining elements of realpolitik and liberal universalism (democratic government, free trade, basic human rights). At
The absence of constraints and
America’s overestimation of its own ability to shape outcomes has served to weaken its overall position. And
times, these desires have conflicted with each other but they also capture the enduring tensions of America’s role in the world.
because foreign policy is not the reserved and exclusive domain of the president---who presumably calculates strategy according to the pursuit of the state’s enduring national interests---the
policymaking process is open to special interests and outside influences and, thus, susceptible to the cultivation of misperceptions, miscalculations, and misunderstandings. Five features in
particular, each a consequence of how America has used its power in the unipolar era, have worked to diminish America’s long-term material and strategic position. Overextension. During its
period of preeminence, the United States has found it difficult to stand aloof from threats (real or imagined) to its security, interests, and values. Most states are concerned with what happens
in their immediate neighborhoods. The United States has interests that span virtually the entire globe, from its own Western Hemisphere, to Europe, the Middle East, Persian Gulf, South Asia,
the United States continues to define its interests in increasingly expansive
terms. This has been facilitated by the massive forward presence of the American military, even when
excluding the tens of thousands of troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military has permanent bases in over 30 countries and maintains a
and East Asia. As its preeminence enters its third decade,
troop presence in dozens more.13 There are two logics that lead a preeminent state to overextend, and these logics of overextension lead to goals and policies that exceed even the
considerable capabilities of a superpower. First, by definition, preeminent states face few external constraints. Unlike in bipolar or multipolar systems, there are no other states that can serve
to reliably check or counterbalance the power and influence of a single hegemon. This gives preeminent states a staggering freedom of action and provides a tempting opportunity to shape
world politics in fundamental ways. Rather than pursuing its own narrow interests, preeminence provides an opportunity to mix ideology, values, and normative beliefs with foreign policy. The
United States has been susceptible to this temptation, going to great lengths to slay dragons abroad, and even to remake whole societies in its own (liberal democratic) image.14 The costs and
risks of taking such bold action or pursuing transformative foreign policies often seem manageable or even remote. We know from both theory and history that external powers can impose
important checks on calculated risk-taking and serve as a moderating influence. The bipolar system of the Cold War forced policymakers in both the United States and the Soviet Union to
exercise extreme caution and prudence. One wrong move could have led to a crisis that quickly spiraled out of policymakers’ control. Second, preeminent states have a strong incentive to seek
Being number one has clear strategic, political, and psychological benefits. Preeminent
states may, therefore, overestimate the intensity and immediacy of threats, or to fundamentally redefine what constitutes an
acceptable level of threat to live with. To protect itself from emerging or even future threats, preeminent states may be more likely to take unilateral action, particularly
to maintain their preeminence in the international system.
compared to when power is distributed more evenly in the international system. Preeminence has not only made it possible for the United States to overestimate its power, but also to
overestimate the degree to which other states and societies see American power as legitimate and even as worthy of emulation. There is almost a belief in historical determinism, or the
feeling that one was destined to stand atop world politics as a colossus, and this preeminence gives one a special prerogative for one’s role and purpose in world politics. The security doctrine
that the George W. Bush administration adopted took an aggressive approach to maintaining American preeminence and eliminating threats to American security, including waging preventive
war. The invasion of Iraq, based on claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and had ties to al Qaeda, both of which turned out to be false, produced huge
costs for the United States---in political, material, and human terms. After seven years of war, tens of thousands of American military personnel remain in Iraq. Estimates of its long-term cost
are in the trillions of dollars.15 At the same time, the United States has fought a parallel conflict in Afghanistan. While the Obama administration looks to dramatically reduce the American
military presence in Iraq, President Obama has committed tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Distraction. Preeminent states have a tendency to seek to shape world
politics in fundamental ways, which can lead to conflicting priorities and unnecessary diversions. As resources, attention, and prestige are devoted to one issue or set of issues, others are
necessarily disregarded or given reduced importance. There are always trade-offs and opportunity costs in international politics, even for a state as powerful as the United States. Most states
are required to define their priorities in highly specific terms. Because the preeminent state has such a large stake in world politics, it feels the need to be vigilant against any changes that
result is taking on commitments on an expansive number of issues all
over the globe. The United States has been very active in its ambition to shape the postCold War world. It has expanded
NATO to Russia’s doorstep; waged war in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan; sought to export its own
democratic principles and institutions around the world; assembled an international coalition against transnational terrorism;
imposed sanctions on North Korea and Iran for their nuclear programs; undertaken ‘‘nation building’’ in Iraq and Afghanistan; announced plans
for a missile defense system to be stationed in Poland and the Czech Republic; and, with the United Kingdom, led the response to the recent global
financial and economic crisis. By being so involved in so many parts of the world, there often emerges
could impact its short-, medium-, or longterm interests. The
ambiguity over priorities. The United States defines its interests and obligations in global terms, and defending all of them simultaneously
is beyond the pale even for a superpower like the United States. Issues that may have received benign neglect during the Cold War, for example, when U.S.
attention and resources were almost exclusively devoted to its strategic competition with the Soviet Union, are now viewed as central to U.S. interests. Bearing Disproportionate Costs of
Maintaining the Status Quo. As the preeminent power, the United States has the largest stake in maintaining the status quo. The world the United States took the lead in creating---one based
on open markets and free trade, democratic norms and institutions, private property rights and the rule of law---has created enormous benefits for the United States. This is true both in terms
of reaching unprecedented levels of domestic prosperity and in institutionalizing U.S. preferences, norms, and values globally. But at the same time, this system has proven costly to maintain.
Smaller, less powerful states have a strong incentive to free ride, meaning that preeminent states bear a disproportionate share of the costs of
maintaining the basic rules and institutions that give world politics order, stability, and predictability. While this might be frustrating to U.S. policymakers, it is perfectly understandable. Other
countries know that the United States will continue to provide these goods out of its own self-interest, so there is little incentive for these other states to contribute significant resources to
help maintain these public goods.16 The U.S. Navy patrols the oceans keeping vital sea lanes open. During financial crises around the globe---such as in Asia in 1997-1998, Mexico in 1994, or
the global financial and economic crisis that began in October 2008--- the U.S. Treasury rather than the IMF takes the lead in setting out and implementing a plan to stabilize global financial
markets. The United States has spent massive amounts on defense in part to prevent great power war. The United States, therefore, provides an indisputable collective good---a world,
particularly compared to past eras, that is marked by order, stability, and predictability. A number of countries---in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia---continue to rely on the American
security guarantee for their own security.
Rather than devoting more resources to defense, they are able to finance generous social
welfare programs. To maintain these commitments, the United States has accumulated staggering budget deficits and national debt. As the sole superpower, the United States bears an
additional though different kind of weight. From the Israeli-Palestinian dispute to the India Pakistan rivalry over Kashmir, the United States is
expected to assert leadership to bring these disagreements to a peaceful resolution. The United States puts its
reputation on the line, and as years and decades pass without lasting settlements, U.S. prestige and influence is
further eroded. The only way to get other states to contribute more to the provision of public goods is if the United States
dramatically decreases its share. At the same time, the United States would have to give other states an expanded role and greater responsibility given the proportionate
increase in paying for public goods. This is a political decision for the United States---maintain predominant control over the provision of collective goods or reduce its burden but lose influence
in how these public goods are used. Creation of Feelings of Enmity and Anti-Americanism. It is not necessary that everyone admire the United States or accept its ideals, values, and goals.
Indeed, such dramatic imbalances of power that characterize world politics today almost always produce in others feelings of mistrust, resentment, and outright hostility. At the same time, it
As a result of both its
vast power but also some of the decisions it has made, particularly over the past eight years, feelings of resentment and hostility toward the United States
have grown, and perceptions of the legitimacy of its role and place in the world have correspondingly declined. Multiple factors
give rise toanti-American sentiment, and anti-Americanism takes different shapes and forms.17 It emerges partly as a response to the vast
disparity in power the United States enjoys over other states. Taking satisfaction in themissteps and indiscretions of the imposing Gulliver is a
is easier for the United States to realize its own goals and values when these are shared by others, and are viewed as legitimate and in the common interest.
natural reaction. In societies that globalization (which in many parts of the world is interpreted as equivalent to Americanization) has largely passed over, resentment and alienation are felt
when comparing one’s own impoverished, ill-governed, unstable society with the wealth, stability, and influence enjoyed by the United States.18 Anti-Americanism also emerges as a
consequence of specific American actions and certain values and principles to which the United States ascribes. Opinion polls showed that a dramatic rise in anti-American sentiment followed
the perceived unilateral decision to invade Iraq (under pretences that failed to convince much of the rest of the world) and to depose Saddam Hussein and his government and replace itwith a
governmentmuchmore friendly to the United States. To many, this appeared as an arrogant and completely unilateral decision by a single state to decide for itselfwhen---and under what
A number of other policy decisions by not just the George W. Bush but also the Clinton and Obama
administrations have provoked feelings of anti-American sentiment. However, it seemed that a large portion of theworld had a particular animus for
conditions---military force could be used.
GeorgeW. Bush and a number of policy decisions of his administration, from voiding the U.S. signature on the International Criminal Court (ICC), resisting a global climate change treaty,
detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and what many viewed as a simplistic worldview that declared a ‘‘war’’ on terrorism and the division of theworld
anti-American
sentiment makes it more difficult for the United States to convince other governments that the U.S.’ own preferences and
priorities are legitimate and worthy of emulation. Decreased Allied Dependence. It is counterintuitive to think that America’s unprecedented power decreases its allies’
between goodand evil.Withpopulations around theworld mobilized and politicized to a degree never before seen---let alone barely contemplated---such feelings of
dependence on it. During the Cold War, for example, America’s allies were highly dependent on the United States for their own security. The security relationship that the United States had
Now that the United
States is the sole superpower and the threat posed by the Soviet Union no longer exists, these countries have charted more autonomous
courses in foreign and security policy. A reversion to a bipolar or multipolar system could change that, making
these allies more dependent on the United States for their security. Russia’s reemergence could unnerve America’s
European allies, just as China’s continued ascent could provoke unease in Japan. Either possibility would disrupt the
equilibrium in Europe and East Asia that the United States has cultivated over the past several decades. New geopolitical rivalries could serve to create
incentives for America’s allies to reduce the disagreements they have with Washington and to reinforce
their security relationships with the United States.
with Western Europe and Japan allowed these societies to rebuild and reach a stunning level of economic prosperity in the decades following World War II.
No risk of South China Sea conflict – economic interests, lack of US engagement and
precedent against conflict checks.
Valencia, attending the Boao Forum for Asia, is a visiting senior scholar at the National Institute for
South China Sea Studies, Hainan, Previous Senior Fellow with the East-West Center, M.A. in Marine
Affairs from the University of Rhode Island and a Ph.D in Oceanography from the University of Hawaii,
Fulbright Fellow, an Abe Fellow, a DAAD (German Government) Fellow, an International Institute for
Asian Studies ( Leiden University) Visiting Fellow , an Ocean Policy Research Foundation (Japan) Visiting
Scholar and a U.S. State Department –sponsored international speaker, 4/9/2014 “South China Sea
dispute rolls on with no resolution in sight” http://www.scmp.com/comment/article/1468906/southchina-sea-dispute-rolls-no-resolution-sight
Despite rising tension between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea and alarmists' warnings of
conflagration, war is still well over the horizon - and is not inevitable . There may indeed be potential for
But full-scale conventional war is unlikely . There are just too many negatives
US-China competition seems to fit the "Thucydides trap" the international relations theory that the dominant power and a rising power will inevitably clash. Make no
mistake, China and the US are already "clashing" - over regional dominance and political influence as well as interpretations or
reinterpretations of the world order and international law. But a full-blown conflict is hardly written in stone. Both
miscalculation and violent incidents.
and too much to lose for all concerned. It is true that the
protagonists are
preoccupied with other significant matters - China with its economic development,
internal instability and burgeoning conflict with Japan
in the East China Sea. The
US is focused on its multiple
ongoing international conflicts , that with Russia over Crimea being the latest deflating fiasco. Moreover,
neither are "ready" for war . China is not yet ready technologically for an all-out conflict; the US is at
least
two decades ahead militarily , although China is quickly catching up. The war- fatigued US public and military
are not ready for war , either. The US is working very hard behind the scenes to discourage its allies
from provoking China into the use of force and is thus unlikely to allow smaller countries - allies or
not - to draw it into a wide regional conflict.
at stake
Further, there
- other than pride of place and precedent. In this context, those
not and hopefully
is really no fundamental US security interest
that see weakness in recent US restraint should
will not miscalculate . The US often cites freedom of navigation as a "national interest" in
the South China Sea but
it well knows that China has never threatened freedom of commercial navigation
and is highly unlikely to do so . The US-China incidents at sea and over the sea have stemmed from
purposely provocative US intelligence and reconnaissance probes that China feels threaten its security. China
probably justifies its interference with petroleum exploration and fishing by other countries in areas it claims through
reference to the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea that it has signed with the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations. Through it, the parties agree "to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities
that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability". This provision could, of course, be interpreted for and
against China. But there are also International Court of Justice precedents that urge rival disputants to
refrain from unilateral activities in disputed areas.
Moreover, in
what it views as an exercise of self-
restraint, China almost always uses civilian vessels to enforce what it perceives as its rights . And the
Philippines, presumably under considerable pressure from the US, is demonstrating considerable
restraint as well. However, without an effective military, it really does not have much choice if it wants to physically hold on to its claimed
features. The Philippines hopes its actions vis-à-vis China will be backed by the US. Last week, US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel told the Senate's foreign relations committee that he noted China's "intimidating steps" towards the Philippines and
said "there should be no doubt about the resolve of the United States". Yes, the
US will bluster and bluff . And it may well
deploy more assets to the region and verbally and technologically back up its ally. Yes, the situation is
becoming politically dangerous. There may be a rise in tension, and even a chill in Sino-US relations that
involves a downturn in economic relations. But an incident - even a series of incidents - is not a war.
Pharma Adv
Big pharma’s fine now – new drug innovations
Ward, 9/26/2014 Andrew, Financial Times “Drug development: Big pharma back in the game it made”
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/83bf54da-1bcd-11e4-9db1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3FBV21KiK
Big pharma is back . That, at least, is the impression created by a wave of new cancer drugs rapidly
approaching market. After years of hand-wringing about an innovation drought, there is hope that this month’s US
regulatory approval for a groundbreaking skin cancer medicine from Merck signals a revival in
productivity . Keytruda, shown to extend significantly the lives of some people with advanced melanoma, the most deadly form of skin
cancer, is first among a fresh class of treatments that harness the immune system to kill cancer cells. Bristol-Myers-Squibb, another big
US drugmaker, is hot on Merck’s heels with its own melanoma medicine, while Roche of Switzerland and
AstraZeneca of the UK are also in the mix. Cancer
is not the only area where innovation has picked up. Hepatitis C
has also seen advances that are producing big commercial dividends.
However, whereas Gilead Sciences, the
relatively young Californian biotech company, has so far been the main beneficiary of the hepatitis C windfall, the breakthroughs
in
cancer are breathing fresh life into more established players. Andrew Baum, analyst at Citigroup, predicts that
annual revenues from so-called immuno-oncology drugs could climb as high as $ 35bn – outstripping
the value of previous blockbuster categories such as cholesterol-lowering statins.
Others are more cautious
but few doubt that these products promise a shot in the arm for the industry. This optimism is reflected in Merck’s share price, which has
gained more than a quarter over the past year in large part because of the prospects for Keytruda, which analysts predict will achieve $1.5bn in
annual sales by 2017. The drug is known as a checkpoint inhibitor which works by blocking a protein called programmed death receptor 1, or
PD-1, which cancer cells latch on to in order to avoid detection by the immune system. By targeting this protein, Keytruda and similar drugs aim
to unleash the body’s disease-fighting T-cells against tumours. Most people with advanced melanoma previously died within a year. Recent
data showed that, when treated with Keytruda, 69 per cent of patients were still alive after a year and 62 per cent after 18 months. Rival antiPD-1 drugs have produced similar results but challenges remain. Although highly effective when they work, checkpoint inhibitors so far seem to
benefit only a minority. Researchers are trying to find biomarkers that will identify those patients most likely to be responsive. Meanwhile, the
drugs are being tested in combination with others with the aim of creating more potent and more broadly-effective treatments. Another
priority is to extend the drugs beyond melanoma. Merck, for example, has been testing Keytruda on gastric and bladder cancer, with data
expected in coming days at the annual conference of the European Society of Medical Oncology in Madrid. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche and
AstraZeneca will also issue updates on their progress in various tumour types. While the leading pack battle for early dominance, almost
every big pharmaceutical company and a host of smaller biotech companies are looking for a share of
the expected spoils from immuno-oncology . Pfizer is working with Merck on combination therapies,
while Celgene has teamed up with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Novartis, Johnson & Johnson and others are quietly positioning
themselves for the next generation of checkpoint inhibitors as the science becomes more sophisticated.
Marijuana alone won’t solve the industry – diversification is key
Ahmed, Your Author, 2014 Rizwan, “The Patent Cliff: Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry”,
http://triplehelixblog.com/2014/07/the-patent-cliff-implications-for-the-pharmaceutical-industry/
Another change that pharmaceutical companies will have to face due to the patent cliff is a change in
the development phase, particularly in market segmentation and brand development. The result of the patent cliff on
many significant drugs in the pharmaceutical industry will lead to a decrease in blockbuster drugs, since it is
clear that relying on a single drug for the majority of company revenue can lead to very sudden and
steep losses after the patent expires . As a result, there will be a greater need to create a multitude of
drugs that are specific and differentiable for patenting purposes and portfolio diversity for a
company. Creating a much more detailed drug leads to a more specific group of consumers that the drug must be targeted to, which can
lead to different techniques and marketing strategies to appeal to smaller target groups. [7] This was rarely the case before due
to the blockbuster drugs and the resulting companies’ single-drug portfolios, which required only a
single market to focus onto.
Economic collapse doesn’t cause war
Daniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the
Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on
cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that
the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They
voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—
whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great
power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the
disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The
aggregate data suggest otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that
"the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate
violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures
in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any
increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of
relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence
that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the
crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might
have been expected."43
Legalization causes a marijuana bubble – turns their impact MORE since their evidence
is in the context of a sudden burst
Copeland ‘13
Tripp, is a J.D. from University of Richmond School of Law, analyst for a Washington DC-based defense
company, “Is Marijuana Legalization the Next Bubble Industry http://mic.com/articles/22612/ismarijuana-legalization-the-next-bubble-industry
Trying to determine the next economic bubble is an unfortunate reality in America’s current economic environment. It has become a consideration when deciding
whether or not to enter an industry either in a career or as an investment opportunity. However, this wasn’t always the reality. Although economic bubbles have
always existed, in the last 25 years or so — from the savings and loan crisis to the dotcom bust to the real estate bubble — they have become more commonplace.
Now that this determination is part of any due diligence, it is vital to understand the characteristics of a bubble in order to help identify the next one. I have some of
my own thoughts about the creation of bubbles, including limited barriers to market penetration, perverse federal policy and the speedy entry of financial
resources. But for this analysis let’s turn to an expert, Hyman Minsky, and his Theory of Financial Instability. According to Minsky, there are five elements to any
bubble scenario. First, in the displacement stage, a new entity piques investor interest. Second, the boom stage ensues as prices and participants begin to rise. The
third characteristic is euphoria where investors create justifications for increasingly higher market prices. Forth, the participants see a profit taking opportunity and
money begins to leave the market. And last, the panic sets in when prices fall dramatically and investors sell out to protect against financial ruin. I believe the
emerging pot industry is protected against this phenomenon — for now. The most important factor protecting the marijuana industry from economic bubble status
is a conflict of laws.
Conflict between federal prohibition and state legalization measures will allow the industry to
grow at a reasonable pace, as large scale financial and insurance institutions will hesitate to support investors
in a federally prohibited industry. Although the marijuana industry is not lacking financial resources due to private and venture capital money, creating a
economic bust similar to the dotcom or housing
resources
and participants.
market will
require a much larger influx of financial
Without legalization on a federal level, that
influx
is unlikely.
Legal conflicts impose a scaling
problem on the industry, limiting its growth. However, in the long run, those limitations may be exactly what create a lasting dynamic. Additionally, the incremental
implementation via a state-by-state federalism approach will allow the industry to learn from mistakes and
determine best practices. Moreover, state governments will be able to study different implementation methods, as they already differ on how to
regulate a nascent marijuana industry. Federalism also has the benefit of limiting federal policy intervention. Although the federal government has not yet
determined how to proceed, it seems likely they will leave this issue to the states. And by limiting the invasion of federal policy through true federalism, there is less
of a chance for broad, top-down policies to facilitate a bubble environment. Finally, the American marijuana industry is not new; it is just legal now. For decades an
illegal market has existed, resulting in some of the highest rates of pot smoking in the world. While new rules and regulations will affect the existing market, many
of the early participants will have experience and knowledge to apply to the new, legal pot start-ups. Furthermore, we already have industry models illustrating how
to produce, market and sell vice products. Both the alcohol and cigarette industry are longstanding and thriving examples to those entrepreneurs exploring the
marijuana economic landscape. In fact, the cigarette industry already has thoughts of applying their model to this newly legal substance — although they wont
admit it. Longstanding demand, cultural knowledge and existing
business models will help the marijuana industry develop
sustainably over time. Even though I don’t see the emerging recreational marijuana industry as the next great American bubble, that doesn’t mean the
industry will not experience its share of failures. That is part of American entrepreneurialism. Limited resources, other industry examples and Federalism
can only safeguard an emerging industry so much; investors and other participants will inevitably assume too much risk and make costly mistakes.
However, I do see an increasingly strong industry as more states legalize marijuana. But once this becomes a federal issue and largescale investors get involved all bets are off.
No scenario for superbugs- virulence trades off with transmissibility
Orent, anthropologist specializing in evolutionary epidemiology, 2005
(Wendy, “Bird bug has flown the coop”, 10-23, lexis, ldg)
Transmissibility is the ability of the virus to get out of one host and into another. In order to do so, the virus has to do something to the host to get itself shed.
People act like transmissibility is just some little quirk of the genome, but what it really is, is the ability of the virus to
colonize tissues, say, in the upper airways so that you sneeze or cough, and the virus is shed in large quantities. . . . You might go to work one day not feeling terribly
well. You try not to sneeze all over everywhere. But flu is extraordinarily transmissible. It's these tiny, tiny particles that just fly off in a big cloud [when an infected
person sneezes] and spread very easily. . . . So flu
depends on keeping you out there --- going to work, you know, going to school, sitting on a
bus --- if it's going to spread. It has to keep the host relatively healthy. A host can't keel over and die. Think about
how ebola doesn't spread because it's so lethal that it just kills you right off. And certain forms of plague can
do that, too. They kill you very quickly so there's no chance for the bug to spread. . . . So if transmissibility
increases, the virulence should decrease, because the virus needs to keep you mobile to get you to
transmit it. If you think about it, it's just Darwinian logic. If you're too sick to transmit the disease, it dies with
you.
2NC
***PIC
AT: Perm CP
Prefer our evidence---first, the Court agrees---most recent rulings say Hemp is illegal
under the CSA
Belville 9—Russ, NORML Outreach Coordinator, “8th Circuit Court rules industrial hemp is still
marijuana,” http://blog.norml.org/2009/12/30/8th-circuit-court-rules-industrial-hemp-is-stillmarijuana/
Two North Dakota farmers failed to convince the 8th Circuit that cannabis grown for industrial hemp is
not technically marijuana and should not be regulated under federal law. The court in St. Louis upheld
dismissal of the farmers’ lawsuit seeking a declaration that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not apply
to industrial-use cannabis. The appeals court pointed out that the Act defines marijuana to include
all cannabis plants, regardless of the THC concentration . “The CSA likewise makes no distinction
between cannabis grown for drug use and that grown for industrial use,” Judge Pasco Bowman wrote.
The three-judge panel rejected the notion that industrial hemp is not marijuana under the Act , or that
Congress has no authority to regulate their state-sanctioned cultivation of cannabis. Judge Bowman said Congress had a “rational
basis” for regulating the cultivation of all cannabis plants in order to effectively regulate marijuana.
And, Legalization implies all
Ferner 12 Matt Ferner The Huffington Post 09/04/2012 'Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone
Needs To Know' Authors Discuss Risks And Rewards Of Legal Weed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/marijuana-legalization-research_n_1850470.html
The term legalization without any qualification means that the substance would be treated more or
less like any other article of commerce, with substance-specific regulations seeking only to shape the behavior of producers and
consumers, not to eliminate market activity. So, alcohol is legal even though it can only be purchased by those over the age of 21, and
automobiles are legal even though manufacturers selling in the U.S. have to meet a range of regulatory requirements, including those
pertaining to emissions, fuel economy, and crash safety.
There is also explicit definitional support for all laws:
Fauperl 3 Charles Faupel, Department of Sociology Auburn University 2003 Drug Policy:
Prohibition, Decriminalization, Legalization Lecture 10
http://www.auburn.edu/~faupece/CR501/Powerpoint/lecture10.ppt.
Legalization
A general policy orientation that involves the lifting of all criminal and civil proscriptions and sanctions
Nearly all doesn’t help them---it means near 100 percent---the counterplan only
legalizes 50% of marihuana
LEE 1985 – JUDGE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CENTRAL STATES SOUTHEAST & SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND V B…, 610 F SUPP 1505
In an attempt to ascertain the common [**15] meaning of the term "substantially," the court consulted
several dictionaries. Many define the term as meaning "of ample or considerable amount, size, or
quantity," see e.g., Random House Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1418. Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, p. 2280, defines "substantially" as "being that specified to a large degree or in
the main." Webster's goes on to list "massive" as the synonym of "substantially." These definitions
indicate that the common meaning of the phrase "substantially all" must be something which indicates
"a large degree" or "large amount" of all; the terms "almost all" or "nearly all," though admittedly
imprecise, capture the essence of the phrase. If "substantially" is synonymous with "massive," then
"substantially all" must mean some percentage which is very near 100%.
***DA
Prices High – 2NC
NASDAQ 14 – StreetAuthority, “High Oil Prices Are Here To Stay -- Here's How To Profit,” 6/9/14,
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/high-oil-prices-are-here-to-stay-heres-how-to-profit-cm359902
American oil production is surging. Yet oil prices remain near $100 a barrel. You may be wondering: When will all of this
additional production finally overtake demand and push the price of oil down? You can find one answer in the price of oil futures -which say we can expect oil to fall to closer to $80 in the coming few years and stay there. Is the market
correct? Are oil prices heading south? I think that the answer is no, for several reasons -- especially after I listened to a
recent presentation by Bill Thomas , the CEO and chairman of EOG Resources (NYSE: EOG ) . EOG is, by a considerable margin, the largest horizontal oil producer in
the world. That means the
company has access to the best data available on horizontal oil production and
resources. Put simply, EOG and Thomas believe that the futures market is all wrong about oil prices. The company is
bullish on oil and focused on producing more of it. What EOG sees -- and the market doesn't seem to grasp -- is that for all intents
and purposes, the horizontal oil boom is coming from only two plays: the Bakken Formation in the upper
Midwest and the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas. A slide from EOG's most recent investor presentation
illustrates this clearly: Fully three-quarters of the horizontal oil being produced in the United States comes from the Bakken and Eagle Ford. Without
these plays, the horizontal boom would be barely noticeable. Equally important to note is that production growth in both the Bakken and the Eagle Ford is slowing
significantly. The
growth of production both by rate and absolute amount in both of these plays appears
to have peaked.
Oil will be a $150 – declining US production capacity and longrun ensures rising prices
Wile, Business Insider, 9-3-14
(Rob, “The 'God' Of Oil Trading Warns America's Shale Boom Will Fizzle And That Oil Prices Will Hit
$150”, http://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-john-hall-predicts-150-oil-2014-9, ldg)
One of the most successful oil traders alive thinks
prices will hit $150
America's shale renaissance will prove to be a dud and that crude
within five years. In a coming Bloomberg Markets profile, Andrew John Hall, who according to a 2013 Max Abelson
profile is known to competitors as "God," has been telling subscribers to his investing letters that he has been buying up long-dated crude
contracts in anticipation of a run-up in prices as America's shale oil boom recedes. The British-born Hall (whom you can see above, at right, in a
photo provided by Nancy Smith of ArtLoversNewYork.com — Hall is a huge art collector) was embroiled in a fight during the financial crisis over
access to a $100 million bonus payout he was due for 2009 trades from then-employer Citi. It was ultimately blocked after Citi received a third
bailout. But the year before that, he had netted $98 million. More recently, as oil price growth has stalled, Hall's trades have come up short,
Bloomberg's Bradley Olsen writes. Assets under management at his Astenbeck Capital Management LLC hedge fund firm fell as much as 29% to
$3.4 billion this May from 2013. But Hall, who also remains CEO of Phibro, a trading unit Occidental Petroleum bought from Citi in 2009, is
unfazed by the losses. Despite America's massive shale oil boom, Hall is convinced prices will rise. "'When you
believe something, facts become inconvenient obstacles," Hall wrote in April according to Olsen, taking issue with a Citi's Ed Morse, who has
predicted a shale renaissance could result in $75-a-barrel oil over the next five years. Hall has said Brent
crude prices are likely to
rise to as much as $150 a barrel in five years or less, according to Olsen. The back end of the crude futures curve
already seems to agree with him. While near-term contracts continue to slide on ample supply , longdated ones remain elevated . "In his counterarguments, he digs deep, delving into the minutiae of how Texas discloses oil
production, the tendency of some shale wells to play out quickly and the degree to which the boom has
relied on debt," Olsen says. "The simplest of his reasons, though, is that producers have already drilled in many of the
best areas , or sweet spots. Hall predicts that growth in shale output will begin to moderate this year and U.S.
production will peak as soon as 2016. 'Once those areas have been drilled out, operators will have to move
to more-marginal locations and well productivity will fall ,' Hall wrote in March. 'Far from continuing to grow,
production will start to decline.'”
***Treaty
Impact Calculus – Cyber – 2NC
And, international norms and economic integration prevent conventional/nuclear
escalation – only cyber can cause great power war
Fitzpatrick 14 Christopher, is a graduate of Boston College and a J.D. candidate at Cornell Law
“Wanted: A Mahan for Cyberspace,” RealClear Defense 2/27/14,
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/02/27/wanted_a_mahan_for_cyberspace_107112.htm
l
The 21st century , however, brings new battlefields and new challenges. In the early 2000s, the most
visible of these has been asymmetric engagements with non-state actors. But the continued rise of
China and the resurgence of Russia’s regional ambitions have reopened the door for great power
conflict. Fortunately, international norms and economic integration make conventional warfare
unlikely and Cold War fears of nuclear conflict almost unimaginable .
Nevertheless, incompatible visions of the international order and simmering tensions in the Middle
East and the South China Sea make conflict of some sort a distinct possibility. Though traditional
military forces – including navies – will be essential to deter or respond to such conflict, the great
battlefields of the 21st century may lie on an existential plane where land, sea, or aerial forces cannot
venture – cyberspace .
Cyber-attacks hollow out US deterrence capabilities, encourages aggression and risks
nuclear first use
Colby ‘13
Elbridge, is a principal analyst at CNA, where he focuses on strategic issues and advises a number of U.S.
Government entities. He previously served with the Department of Defense on the New START treaty
negotiation and ratification effort and as an expert advisor with the Congressional Strategic Posture
Commission, “Cyberwar and the Nuclear Option,” June 26, 2013.
http://strategicstudyindia.blogspot.com/2013/06/cyberwar-and-nuclear-option.html
Thus a major cyber attack’s effect on our conventional forces could mean that, without our nuclear forces in the equilibrium,
the U nited S tates might well find itself with no serious riposte to a massive cyber assault, leaving us
exposed to coercion or worse.
Thus, while the Task Force wisely advocated for having more discriminate cyber and other non-
nuclear options to provide steps on the escalatory ladder, it rightly argued that at the top of that ladder resides the U.S. nuclear deterrent—the
ultimate reminder that, even if a major cyber attack could emasculate our conventional forces, our resilient nuclear forces would still pose a
devastating threat that would make such an assault patently foolhardy. (The Task Force also rightly advocated ensuring the absolute
effectiveness of our nuclear forces even under highly sophisticated cyber assault.)
worst cases can happen ,
likely, however, is the danger
that adversaries would derive coercive leverage if both we and they know that they have the upper
Now these kinds of scenarios might seem fantastically remote—and thankfully they are highly unlikely. But
and what else are our most powerful military forces for, if not for warding off the worst cases? More
hand on the escalatory ladder.
Advantages at the top of the escalatory ladder can cast a dark shadow. For instance, during the 1950s, the United
States used its huge advantages at the level of nuclear warfare to try to coerce Maoist China, with at least some success. So, if China or Russia
knows that we would never consider using nuclear weapons in response to even a massive cyber attack, then that gives them a strong incentive
to try to exploit that advantage—even implicitly—by using cyber as a way to deter and even coerce the United States and our allies. Low-level
versions of this problem are apparent today.
But what if the United States and China squared off over one of the territorial maritime disputes in the Western Pacific or South China Sea? Or
if the United States and Russia faced off over instability in a NATO Baltic state? The
U nited S tates does not want to find itself in
a situation in which it has no good options to respond to escalating cyber attacks . Perhaps even worse , it
would not want to find itself in a situation in which it felt itself forced into actually considering nuclear
options when it had loudly declared that it would not.
It’s on par with nuclear war – existential threat
DSB ’12
Defense Science Board, a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent advice to the
Secretary of Defense, “TASK FORCE REPORT:
Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat,” October 10, 2012.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ResilientMilitarySystems.CyberThreat.pdf
The benefits to an attacker using cyber exploits are potentially spectacular . Should the United States find itself in a
full-scale conflict with a peer adversary, attacks would be expected to include denial of service, data corruption, supply
chain corruption, traitorous insiders, kinetic and related non-kinetic attacks at all altitudes from underwater to space.
U.S. guns, missiles, and bombs may not fire, or may be directed against our own troops. Resupply, including
food, water, ammunition, and fuel may not arrive when or where needed . Military Commanders may rapidly
lose trust in the information and ability to control U.S. systems and forces. Once lost, that trust is very
difficult to regain.
The impact of a destructive cyber attack on the civilian population would be even greater with no
electricity, money, communications, TV, radio, or fuel (electrically pumped). In a short time, food and medicine
distribution systems would be ineffective; transportation would fail or become so chaotic as to be useless. Law
enforcement, medical staff, and emergency personnel capabilities could be expected to be barely
functional in the short term and dysfunctional over sustained periods. If the attack’s effects were reversible, damage could be limited to an
impact equivalent to a power outage lasting a few days. If an attack’s effects cause physical damage to control systems, pumps,
engines, generators, controllers, etc., the unavailability of parts and manufacturing capacity could mean months to
years are required to rebuild and reestablish basic infrastructure operation.
The DoD should expect cyber attacks to be part of all conflicts in the future, and should not expect competitors to play by our version of the
rules, but instead apply their rules (e.g. using surrogates for exploitation and offense operations, sharing IP with local industries for economic
gain, etc.).
Based upon the societal dependence on these systems, and the interdependence of the various services and capabilities,
the Task Force believes that the integrated impact of a cyber attack has the potential of existential
consequence. While the manifestation of a nuclear and cyber attack are very different, in the end, the
existential impact
to the United States
is the same.
Link---Legalization---2NC
The plan is an a-la-carte approach to treaties – eviscerates primacy
Lopez 9/12/14
German, writer @ Vox, “How much of the war on drugs is tied to international treaties?,”
http://www.vox.com/cards/war-on-drugs-marijuana-cocaine-heroin-meth/war-on-drugs-internationaltreaties
Still, Martin Jelsma, an international drug policy expert at the Transnational Institute, argued that ignoring or pulling
out of the international drug conventions could seriously damage America's standing around the
world. "Pacta sunt servanda ('agreements must be kept') is the most fundamental principle of international
law and it would be very undermining if countries start to take an 'a-la-carte' approach to treaties they
have signed; they cannot simply comply with some provisions and ignore others without losing the
moral authority to ask other countries to oblige to other treaties," Jelsma wrote in an email. "So our preference
is to acknowledge legal tensions with the treaties and try to resolve them." To resolve such issues, many critics
of the war on drugs hope to reform international drug laws in 2016 during the next General Assembly Special
Session on drugs. "There is tension with the tax-and-regulate approach to marijuana in some
jurisdictions," Malinowska-Sempruch said. "But it's all part of a process and that's why we hope the UN
debate in 2016 is as open as possible, so that we can settle some of these questions and, if necessary,
modernize the system."
Russia and China would veto the move – collapses relations
New York City Bar 12 “The International Drug Control Treaties: How Important Are They
to US Drug Reform?” http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/3_20072283InternationalDrugControlTreaties.pdf
If President Obama is simply against the use of marijuana on ideological grounds, he is right to be
concerned. The parallel between the Bolivian coca leaf and the U.S. marijuana situation is indeed hard to deny: like the coca leaf in Bolivia,
marijuana could be said to be deeply ingrained in the American culture (after all, haven’t three of our presidents admitted to using it?)
At this point, several states have introduced “tax and regulate" legislation. On June 23, 2011, for the first time, a bill was introduced in the
United States House of Representatives, H.R. 2306, the “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011,” which would remove marijuana
from the Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)), allowing the import and export of marijuana into and out of any state
which chooses to allow such import or export.
While it could be argued that the state tax and regulate laws would not technically violate the treaties,
the federal bill is another matter . If enacted, the law would most certainly place the U nited S tates in
violation of its treaty obligations . In the end, Bolivia withdrew from the Convention because it could not
reconcile its domestic law with its international obligations. If a federal law were to pass in the United States that was
irreconcilable with its treaty obligations, could the U.S. find itself in a similar position?
And then what? While it’s easy to see that other countries who are signatories to the treaties (particularly developing nations) would suffer
consequences from “sanctions” imposed by the U.N. and the U.S., it is unclear what the implication would be if the situation were reversed and
the U.S. was the target. Would the U.S. lose its control position in the international drug control system—a position it has painstakingly built
over the last century—and would that loss of control translate to other areas of foreign policy? Who would be the “pariah” then?
According to John Collins, Ph.D candidate in the Department of International History at the London School of Economics and an expert on the
history of post-war drug control, the
1961 Single Convention itself was “the product of an extremely complex
interplay offorces: geopolitical, economic, cultural, diplomatic, and personal. One thing that is evident is that
U.S. drug control is intertwined in some very complex ways with the international system as a whole.
Indeed, when we asked Melvyn Levitsky whether the U.S. could ever truly become the “pariah” of the international community, he said, "We
signed the International Crime Convention, hat we’re not members of the International Criminal Court... We’re not members of the
international anti-mining convention, which has been signed by virtually every country in the world. Why, because of Korea. We don "t want to
take the mines out of Korea because the North Koreans could come down with their million-man army and invade. Are we a pariah? ’’ In other
words, probably not—but, it's complicated.
Viewed in this context, there may be some very real reasons why President Obama is staunchly
opposed to even the most informal discussion about marijuana legalization —it certainly tends to
place his extreme about-face with respect to the issue in a new light.
Indeed, if marijuana is legalized, what will become of the treaties and the international system as a
whole?
The options for reform under the treaties as they stand today are severely limited. On the other hand, one could say that revision
of the treaties, or even entry into a new treaty system, is inevitable given the eroding of the system by the “soft” challenges, and now the
blatant “hard” challenges posed by the Bolivian coca leaf reservation and—especially—pending marijuana legalization laws in the U.S. After all,
if the system stops working, isn’t it best to change the system? According to Melvyn Levitsky, “It’s perfectly legal within the international
system to not sign a convention because you don’t agree with it, or withdraw from the convention if there's a way to do it. ’’
But if
international drug control is
such
a bedrock of i nternational r elations, what else might change if those
laws are reformed? To what extent would it affect the U.S.’s relationship with other countries—for
example, the Russian Federation , currently a major influence in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs
and staunchly opposed to legalization? What about China?
We may be about to find out. At the 55th Session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs held in Vienna this past March, high level member
country delegates sat side by side with NGO representatives at a luncheon and, for the first time, politely debated the future of the
Conventions. Mike Trace speculates that “quiet diplomacy” surrounding the marijuana issue may already be underway. Even Gustavo de Greiff
said of the recent Summit of Americas meeting that he “had some dose of optimism ... because it was the first time that the drug problem was
publicly discussed by the highest public functionaries of the region and that the public became aware that the matter merits to be examined. ”
At its glacial pace, the international system may at last be unraveling - and with it, possibly the end to the “standoff" between the
Administration and the drug reform community. What other changes are close behind?
China/Russia are key to cyber agreement (obviously)
Muir 8/22/14 Lawrence L. is an adjunct professor of law at Washington & Lee University School of
Law, where he teaches cybercrime law, “Triangulating Cyberespionage for Better US Diplomacy,”
http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/triangulating-cyberespionage-for-better-us-diplomacy/
American relations with both countries are failing, while relations between China and Russia are
strengthening. China has reached an agreement with Russia to supply it with discounted energy at bargain prices, bolstering the
economies of both nations going forward. The American government is too fractured to reach consensus on what a grand bargain with either
nation should contemplate, and American
diplomatic capital is too bankrupt to achieve the grand bargain even if
the U.S. could frame it. Instead of negotiating separate grand bargains with each country, the United States should negotiate a small
but important agreement between the three nations. By forming a trilateral agreement on cyber issues, specifically cybercrime,
cyberespionage and cyberwarfare, American diplomats could resolve an important geopolitical issue, while
strategically pulling Russia and China closer to America and further apart from each other. By opening
diplomatic talks with a smaller issue, the cyberattack treaty would allow for a linkage of issues that
could ultimately lead to stabilization.
The U nited S tates is on the brink of both a trade war and a cyberwar with each country . Chinese
cyberespionage, for which China accepts no responsibility, has contributed to America’s economic malaise. McAfee estimates cybercrime
reduces U.S. GDP growth by up to 0.8 percent. In response to Chinese hacking, the FBI indicted five officers of the Chinese People’s Liberation
Army on cybercrime charges. This unilateral American effort, undertaken because bilateral diplomatic efforts failed to reach an accord on
cyber-issues, has proven to be a foreign policy blunder. American companies have faced retribution from the Chinese government. The
U.S.
has retaliated with trade sanctions against Chinese solar companies. The Chinese, in turn, have stated that a promising
bilateral investment treaty now faces serious difficulties. The two nations, so dependent upon each other for economic
growth through exports, stand on the precipice of a trade war exacerbated by a cyberwar, due in no small
part to the foolishness of an indictment that will never produce convictions.
While the Dragon receives the lion’s share of attention for illicit cyberactivity, one must not overlook the Bear. More specifically, the “Energetic
Bear,” a Russian-linked form of malware that infected energy companies in the United States and Europe. The malware allowed the controllers
to monitor energy consumption, another form of economic espionage directed against the United States. Moreover, Russian hackers recently
stole 1.2 billion passwords from websites, further demonstrating Russia’s offensive cyber-capabilities. As with China, American bilateral
diplomatic efforts with Russia have failed to achieve desired American outcomes. American sanctions
against Russia over Ukraine have not only failed to retard Putin’s ambitions in the region, but they have led
to Russian sanctions against American agricultural imports. These sanctions have pushed the two nations
towards a trade war, with cyberthreats looming in the background.
Perhaps the simplest explanation for these bilateral failures is that both Russia and China pursue national interest diplomacy (the best interest
of its nation) compared to America’s preference for collective security diplomacy (seeking multinational moral responsibilities). Russian
Deputy Foreign
Minister Sergei Ryabkov, responding to the American sanctions against Russia, taunted the United States. He chided
the Americans for not appreciating that the Russians have a national interest in how they conduct
foreign affairs, and proclaimed that the American foreign policy arsenal is not very rich. As to the cyber-issue with China, U.S. President
Barack Obama wants to work with China to set rules that all nations can agree upon, language that rings hollow with Chinese diplomats in
theory, and in practice has stalemated negotiations on the issue.
In light of these bilateral failures, triangulation may provide the United States with an opening to achieve diplomatic success with both nations.
Though the cyberattack issue is significant, cyberattacks are less threatening to geopolitical stability
than the events in Ukraine and the South China Sea have been. The reduction in significance enables
open discourse on a less volatile subject , thereby allowing the U nited S tates to find areas of
cooperation and agreement between the three nations, while also exploring potential diplomatic fault
lines between Russia and China.
Despite the energy deal, Russia must have concerns about Chinese interests toward Russia, and must worry about becoming the junior partner
in their blossoming geopolitical romance. Russia and China have a long-standing historic rivalry, including skirmishes in the Border Conflict of
1969. Russia has significant energy resources in Siberia, a region over which China has staked historic claims. As China makes investments in
Russia, while populating Siberia with ethnic Chinese immigrants, Russia must watch its partner closely for signs of assertiveness in that region.
Moreover, as Russian energy fuels Chinese economic expansion, it reduces the Russian share of the balance of power between the two nations,
which is a significant problem for Russia’s bid for greater Asian influence.
The cyber-issue highlights the growing economic disparities between Russia and China. The United States invests 2.9 percent of its GDP in
research & development. China invests 1.7 percent of its GDP in the same way. This gap is partially explained by the fact that China has been
stealing American intellectual property, skipping the expensive costs of economic growth and heading straight to production. As
stolen
American intellectual property fuels Chinese economic growth, Russia becomes more subordinate to
China, thus providing Russia with a national interest in preventing Chinese cybertheft of American
intellectual property. If Chinese economic growth falls below 7 percent, it cannot maintain full
employment, which would create internal problems for the Chinese government; problems that could work to
Russia’s favor in pursuing its Asian strategy.
Cyberattacks emanating from Russia provide America with an opening for rapprochement with Russia,
wherein they may realize their mutual national interests in reducing Chinese cyberespionage, thereby
drawing America and Russia closer. The outcome of the discussions should be inviting China to negotiate
a trilateral treaty on cyberactivity, setting ground rules for cybercrime, cyberespionage, and
cyberwarfare amongst the three nations.
China would seemingly have no interest in curtailing cyberattacks against the United States, but there are two reasons China
should come to the negotiating table. First, as China has leveled reciprocal accusations at the United
States, entering into a treaty on cyberattacks would seemingly vindicate Chinese feelings of
victimization. Moreover, as the U.S. has produced damning evidence of Chinese cyberespionage, China
must either join the treaty for its own protection from foreign cyberattack, or risk signaling to the rest of
the world that its cries of American cyberespionage ring hollow. Second, as roughly five percent of Chinese
GDP comes from exports to the United States, China cannot afford a trade war with America. China will not
be able to hit its economic growth targets or full employment measures without continuing to maintain a robust trading partnership with the
United States. America
must make China aware that if it wishes to continue its upward economic trajectory,
it must maintain a close relationship with the United States. That relationship should hinge upon China entering into the
cyber treaty with Russia and the United States. Should China refuse to negotiate, it risks escalating the trade war with
the United States, and risks American support of an Asian balance of power that includes stronger
Russian influence, as well as continued support for America’s long-standing regional allies.
Some experts believe the Russian economy is near collapse , with Ukraine-related sanctions expediting
the decline. If true, then a prolonged trade war with the U nited S tates and Europe could threaten
Putin’s regime. Russia could use rapprochement on the cyber-issue to provide the diplomatic room to
extract itself from its expedition into Ukraine. The cybertreaty enables Russia to use a legitimate issue
between the two nations to mask the more important discussions of Russia’s economic relationship with
Europe and the United States. For the present good of the Putin regime, and for Russia’s long-term goal to
be an Asian power rivaling China, Russia should work with the United States on cyber issues.
The U.S. must be prepared to stake out its national interest in reducing both the volume of cyberattacks and the resultant damage. By approaching
Russia and demonstrating why it is in Russia’s national interest to work with the United States on the
cyber-issue, America will demonstrate its foreign policy arsenal is indeed rich. As the United States
warms its frosty relationship with Russia on this issue, it puts pressure on the Chinese to work with
America. If the United States finds agreement with China on the cybertreaty, the cooperation may
flow over to the bilateral investment treaty and other foreign policy initiatives, such as reversing the
course of the U.S.-China trade war. But if those days are to come, they will come only if America leads .
American leadership begins with a meaningful trilateral treaty on the cyber-issue,
negotiated only after American diplomatic capital has been fully replenished.
leaving grand bargains to be
The plan is hypocritical – undermines US credibility
Reid 14—Melanie, Associate Professor of Law, Lincoln Memorial University-Duncan School of Law,
“ARTICLE: THE QUAGMIRE THAT NOBODY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TALK ABOUT:
MARIJUANA,” 44 N.M.L. Rev. 169, lexis
Legalizing marijuana at an international level could be problematic . In 1961, 170 countries, including the United
States, signed the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. 111 This convention required signatory nations to make the production,
trade, and possession of marijuana for non-medical reasons a punishable offense. 112 The United States is also a participant in the United
Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic of 1988. According to these
conventions, possession of any prohibited substance for non-medicinal or nonscientific use was to be made a criminal offense under domestic
law. 113 The International Narcotics Control Board monitors adherence to these Conventions. 114 According to Caulkins et al.:
The United States imposes economic sanctions against countries that have illegal drug production
and/or trafficking issues within their countries and are not making progress combating drugs and
cooperating with the U nited S tates (including Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico). Those who are not
cooperating with the U nited S tates to combat drugs 115 are "decertified" and ineligible for certain types of
bilateral assistance from the United States to include removal of U.S. trade preferences.
116
The United States has given millions of dollars to Plan Colombia and the Merida Initiative in Mexico to combat the trafficking of cocaine, heroin,
and marijuana. 117
[*187]
If the U nited S tates chooses to legalize marijuana production and use, it runs the risk of appearing
hypocritical in the face of its international treaty obligations.
In addition, legalizing marijuana in the United States
would be in conflict with its current practice of giving aid to Mexico and Colombia. On the other hand, other countries such as the Netherlands
have overlooked treaty obligations without penalty or international condemnation.
Enforcement – Solvency – 2NC
Low threshold for enforcement – the process of the counterplan leads to effective
norm creation that makes peace more likely by creating consensus on what is
acceptable behavior – only a risk the permutation throws a wrench in the process by
having the US break one norm while it’s trying to enforce another – that’s Shiener
No-first use is effective – the costs of initiating a conflict outweigh the benefits once
norms are created
Moore ’13
Stephen, J.D. Candidate 2014, University of North Carolina School of Law, “Cyber Attacks and the
Beginnings of an International Cyber Treaty,” N.C. J. INT’L L. & COM. REG. Vol. 39.
http://www.law.unc.edu/components/handlers/document.ashx?category=24&subcategory=52&cid=12
36
A variety of practical arguments against a cyber treaty exist. For instance, a cyber treaty would likely limit the
offensive and defensive options available to a state.50 Military academies and think tanks alike might oppose the creation of a
cyber treaty as “cyber weapons are inexpensive (compared to fighter jets, tanks, and aircraft carriers) and could reduce the overall level of
force required to achieve an end goal.”51 Cyber tools also may not be
sufficiently developed to merit the creation of a
cyber treaty, especially as “such technologies are fundamentally dual use, widely available, and easy to conceal” making
inspection and verification of such tools “virtually impossible.”52 This raises the serious concern that “a nation could move from a state of
compliance to a gross violation in seconds and without warning.”53
However , an international agreement would “make it more difficult for some kinds of cyber war
attacks, while establishing norms of international behavior , providing international legal cover for
nations to assist, and creating an international community of cooperating experts in fighting cyber
war.”54 For instance, a cyber treaty would be beneficial if it were to create a “no-first-use agreement.” 55
Such an agreement would not only have great diplomatic appeal but “might make it less likely that
another nation would initiate cyber weapons use because to do so would violate an international norm
that employing cyber weapons crosses a line, is escalatory, and potentially destabilizing.”56 The nation that goes first
and violates an agreement has added a degree of international opprobrium to its actions and created in
the global community a presumption of misconduct . International support for that nation’s underlying
position in the conflict might thus be undermined and the potential for international sanctions
increased .57
An international cyber treaty could also address the elusive concepts of attribution, self-defense, and
enforcement .58
The counterplan creates the International Cyber Forensics and Compliance Staff –
their expertise can attribute who did the cyber-attack – and the laws of state
responsibility guarantee punishment for unlawful action which will deter abuse
Moore ’13
Stephen, J.D. Candidate 2014, University of North Carolina School of Law, “Cyber Attacks and the
Beginnings of an International Cyber Treaty,” N.C. J. INT’L L. & COM. REG. Vol. 39.
http://www.law.unc.edu/components/handlers/document.ashx?category=24&subcategory=52&cid=12
36
Ensuring enforcement of an international cyber treaty is complicated by the nature of cyber attacks as well as the
lack of a clear definition. The
law of state responsibility, codified in 2001 by the International Law Commission,202 provides
the basic framework for understanding state obligations and remedies for cyber attack. If a state is found to be
responsible for an illegal international act, it is “under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury
caused.”203 Reparation can include restitution, compensation, or satisfaction.204 Restitution is an obligation to “re-establish the situation
which existed before the wrongful act was committed” as long as it is not materially impossible or overly burdensome to do so.205
Compensation includes repayment of “any financially assessable damage” caused by the wrongful act.206 Satisfaction is an obligation that
exists where restitution or compensation are unable to make whole the victim-state and can include, inter alia, acknowledgment of the wrong
caused, expression of regret, or a formal apology.207
While the law of state responsibilities provides initial answers as to what a responsible state might be
asked to do, true enforcement must also include compliance . Under customary international law, the U.N. stands as
the enforcer of international laws.208 However, in terms of cyber attacks, the U.N. will undoubtedly need to rely upon member states to
enforce any reparations.209
Clarke argues “[t]o
judge whether a nation is actively complying or is just being passive-aggressive, it may be
useful if a cyber war agreement created an ‘International Cyber Forensics and Compliance Staff .’”210
According to Clarke, a staff of experts would be used to report on compliance with the international
agreement, including an international inspection team similar to those used for nuc lear non prolif eration
agreements.211 “Nations that were found to be scofflaws could be subject to a range of sanctions.”212 Still,
he notes, “high-confidence verification of compliance with a cyber war limitation agreement will not be possible.”213
***Cartels
Uniqueness – 2NC
Violence is happening now but it is decreasing and not sufficient to deter energy
investment.
McVey, KKR Head of Global Macro & Asset Allocation, 2014
(Henry, “Mexico: Different Investment Lens Required”, May,
http://www.kkr.com/company/insights/global-macro-trends-24)
Investment in Mexico is increasing now despite cartels
Kriel, Houston Chronicle reporter, 2014
(Lomi, “Mexican diplomat reassures potential energy investors about security”, 5-15,
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/05/15/mexican-diplomat-reassures-potential-energy-investors-aboutsecurity/, ldg)
Direct foreign investment in Mexico doubled last year to $35.2 billion — a vote of confidence that
should reassure companies worried about violence as they consider investing in the nation’s newly
opened energy sector, its top diplomat said Wednesday in Houston. Foreign Minister said the
investment reflects the potential of Latin America’s second-largest economy behind Brazil, and a
perception that the Mexican government is tackling its security problems, Meade said in an interview with the Houston
Chronicle before speaking at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “These countries, these economies, these firms, they’re looking at Mexico and they’re
seeing the potential, and that’s why they’re investing,” he said. Many of Houston’s big energy companies are watching closely as Mexico hammers out details on
opening up its vast energy resources to foreign investment for the first time in decades. With untapped oil reserves estimated to be worth at least $11 trillion,
Mexico has more oil than any country in Latin America after Venezuela and Brazil. Under constitutional amendments enacted last year, foreign companies will be
able to bid on finding and producing that oil – controlled since 1938 by the state-run Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex. But
many of the areas richest
in hydrocarbons are also those most plagued by organized crime, drug cartels and corruption, posing
risks for companies seeking to invest, according to a report last week by the Mexico Center at the Baker
Institute. This week the Mexican government once again dispatched federal troops to the Texas border state of Tamaulipas, which makes up part of the
energy-rich Burgos Basin, after battles between rival drug gangs killed dozens of people in the past month. Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila border the Eagle
Ford Shale that has fueled a drilling boom in South Texas, and exploring its prospects south of the border is likely to be among the most enticing opportunities for
international oil companies. But those states are also among Mexico’s most violent, accounting for about a fifth of the nation’s killings in 2012, according to
government statistics. They’re important and contested turf for drug cartels seeking to get their product to the world’s biggest consumer, the U.S. Mexican
government officials have said little about security challenges in promoting the potential of the nation’s energy overhaul – never mentioning the problem at all, for
example, in appearances at last week’s Offshore Technology Conference in Houston. But Meade addressed it head-on. “We recognize there is a challenge, and the
challenge is not just in Mexico but regional in nature,” Meade said. “But Mexico has been doing what it needs to do in order to recover these conditions, we will be
successful in doing that, and that has not resulted in less investment.” He
noted overall violence has ebbed, with the total number
of homicides dropping about 15 percent in the year after President Enrique Pena Nieto took office in
2012. Efforts to curb kidnapping and extortion have seen mixed results in different regions, he said. As
evidence that the security strategy is taking hold, he cited the recent capture of top cartel leader Chapo
Guzman. And he said Ciudad Juarez is now relatively peaceful, although the city across the border from
El Paso once was among the world’s most violent. Meade said the strategy – which includes increasing the numbers of federal police,
raising their pay, improving the process of vetting recruits and centralizing intelligence operations at a federal level – will work in Tamaulipas just as it worked in
Juarez. “We have been dealing with the challenges we have with security for some time now, with actually good results,” Meade said. “We still have some issues
pending, like the case of Tamaulipas, but within the border we’ve had some successes.” In
its report last week, the Baker Institute said
that besides drug trafficking, the powerful Zetas criminal organization has been involved in theft of
crude oil and natural gas in the Burgos Basin. “The government is very well aware that it’s going to have
to clean that out if it wants to attract investment,” said Tony Payan, director of the institute’s Mexico
Center. He said at least four top executives from major oil and gas companies have contacted him about security risks. “There’s opportunity in Montana,
Colorado and Tamaulipas,” he quoted one executive as observing. “Why would I go to Tamaulipas if I can just safely drill in Montana or Colorado?” But Payan
said investors shouldn’t dismiss the potential in Mexico. “It would be a mistake to stay away from
there,” he said. “There’s opportunity to make a lot of money.
Legalization Fails – 2NC
Even if cartels were dependent on drug money they could flourish in legal markets.
Morris, Belfer Center International Security Program research fellow, 2013
(Evelyn, “Think Again: Mexican Drug Cartels”, 12-3,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/03/think_again_mexican_drug_cartels, ldg)
"The Problem Is the War on Drugs. Legalization Would Help." Hardly. Legalization has become an increasingly popular, if still controversial, proposal among those
who think that the costs of the war on drugs have overwhelmed the benefits, including some Central and South American leaders, like Guatemalan President Otto
Pérez Molina. But
because DTOs are dealing in far more than just illegal drugs, the disappearance of one
revenue stream would not eradicate the cartels or decisively erode their power. Even if the cartels
were dependent on drug money, which they aren't, the idea that legalization is a binary switch that
would cut off profits from the drug trade is fundamentally flawed . In the context of drugs like marijuana, "legalization"
implies wide availability and fairly easy access, but it is highly unlikely that the U.S. government would remove all, or even
many, restrictions on drugs like ecstasy or heroin, leaving the cartels' business in those narcotics intact.
What's more, even legitimate drugs can spur illicit trade if they are in high demand but the supply is tightly
controlled. Drugs like oxycodone, a highly addictive painkiller, are legally manufactured and sold in the
United States, but "oxy" is strictly regulated under Schedule II of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act.
Those restrictions gave rise to a thriving black market in the drug, with prices reaching as high as $150 per pill. Licit drugs
can also create highly profitable arbitrage opportunities for enterprising criminals if the laws that govern
their distribution differ from state to state, as would likely be the case if marijuana or other drugs were widely
legalized. Cigarettes are legal, yet interstate cigarette smuggling makes a great deal of money for organized
crime; because of differing state tax rates, the opportunity for profit is substantial. Virginia, for example, which has among the lowest
cigarette taxes in the nation, is grappling with increased criminal activity, because of trafficking to high-tax states like New York and New Jersey. (And Virginia's
hardly the only one; other states, like Texas, have even seen armed hijackings of cigarette trucks.)
Legalization just shifts the violence to other industires and different parts of the
country—the root cause is the unjust judicial system.
Smith, Warwick Latin America history professor, 2013
(Benjamin, “Legalising marijuana is no easy fix for Mexico’s drug problem”, 8-27,
http://theconversation.com/legalising-marijuana-is-no-easy-fix-for-mexicos-drug-problem-17146, ldg)
In fact, it is even open to debate as to whether US legalisation would improve the situation. Economists argue that up to
60% of the cartels’ money comes from the sale of marijuana. Mexico’s most important criminal organisation, the Sinaloa cartel, probably gains an even greater
proportion of its wealth from the drug. Yet, would cutting off the cash from cannabis change much? Some
into cocaine transportation and methamphetamine production. And
traffickers would move more heavily
conflicts over routes would
continue . Others might shift into the legal marijuana trade, building on their contacts with peasant growers to dominate the new
Yet, this could cause its own problems. For centuries , the introduction of commercial crops into
rural Mexico has caused bloody disputes. High profits not only lead to increased tension over land and
commercial control, but also the breakdown of traditional systems of conflict resolution and social balance. In
the 1950s, conflicts over the cultivation and commercial monopoly of coffee production caused what observers described as “civil
wars” in coffee growing regions like Oaxaca, Guerrero and Veracruz. In southern Oaxaca, family blood feuds and inter-village fire fights pushed the homicide rate
up to over 300 murders per 100,000. (In comparison, the murder rate in Ciudad Juarez in 2009 was 130 per 100,000.) Legalising marijuana then
industry.
might simply shift the battlefield from the desert-bound cities of the north to the poor rural villages
of the south.
As Alfredo Corchado, one of the leading journalists on the war on drugs and author of the devastating portrait of the country’s decline,
Midnight in Mexico, has recently argued, debate about legalisation is a little more than a sideshow. Mexico’s
fundamental problem is still
the complete lack of a functioning judicial system. In Mexico there are no open hearings and no juries.
Judges remain subservient to politicians and the system determines one guilty until proven innocent. It
is these legal problems, and not the drug trade itself, that add up to a structure where murderers
regularly walk free . The jails, meanwhile, remain full of the innocent, the poor, and the indigenous. Only when this is resolved will
the real murder rates - and not the heavily massaged official figures - truly fall.
Mexico won’t become a failed state – their ev is biased
Nava ‘10
Major Juan P Nava, US Army, “Narco-Crime in Mexico: Indication of State Failure or Symptoms of an
Emerging Democracy?” online pdf.
The Mexican military and security forces, branches of the executive branch of government with a long tradition of
domestic stabilization and an early history of political power, enjoy the respect of the people,
institutionally professionalize, and respond to the constituted authority of elected civilian leaders. Outresourced and underequipped, these forces struggle to establish control and achieve the delicate balance between policing a state and a police
state. The
Mexican economy demonstrates durability, diversity and resiliency as the second largest
trading partner to the United States. Largely due to the ongoing continued efforts at globalization and in
no small part due to previous free trade status with the US, the Mexican economy will achieve growth
on pace or ahead of the US. Wealth distribution inequities with Mexican society will continue to produce
internal tensions, but do not represent a threat to national economic progress.
With increased enrollment in education, increased life expectancy, decreased infant mortality, and
modern public transportation, energy, and medical care systems, Mexico provides essential services to
its citizens . Other characteristics identified by Rotberg also provided by Mexico for its citizens include: roads, railways, harbors, arteries of
commerce, communications networks, and a banking system. The overwhelming
empirical evidence supports the
finding that Mexico will not fail and that the narco-criminal violence evidenced within Mexico reflects a
reformist government’s attempts to exert strength by establishing sovereignty and governance with a
monopoly on the use of violence.
Mexico has a complex criminal problem. The drug cartel organizations evolved and currently permeate legitimate elements of Mexican society
with expanded international networks. Though
the cartels operate among the Mexican people, the people still
regard the cartel organizations negatively. Though overwhelmingly poor, the people continue to try to achieve
altruistic reform and achieve a society void of opportunistic and greedy criminals. Drug crime in Mexico,
and the violence associated with it, does not reflect an insurgency movement.
As the aggressive tactics of a reformist President stir the proverbial hornets nests within certain regions of Mexico, the increase in violence will
likely increase. Calderon's clear-hold-build strategy continues to achieve results on both sides of the border, both in terms of captured or
eliminated cartel members, and in increased and successful prosecutions of narco-criminals, especially in the United States. Metrics of
Calderon's success or failure do not include the number of those killed in drug related crime. Rather, more appropriately, President Calderon
measurement of success centers on his ability to convince and maintain credibility with both the Mexican people and the international
community that his aggressive efforts will achieve a stable and secure environment within a highly competitive new media information
environment rife with counter-messaging of instability, violence, and potential state failure.
The close election of Calderon represented the exertion of the cartel political power as they strove to re-acquire positions of power within
government. Calderon, however, prevailed and decided to exert even more pressure on the cartels to the eventual tune of approximately
50,000 troops and police to combat the drug networks. This
pressure caused cartels to react with both increased
number and ferocity of attacks on all elements, the citizens, police, military, judiciary and politicians.
With the increased focus on the problem of cartel organizations and their violent reactions, US media,
especially those from the border regions, leverage the spectacular nature of the deaths to agitate the US
citizenry to the point of contemplating Mexico as a failed state.
Mexico exhibits all the necessary traits of a young and struggling democracy that, without significant support, could easily fall back into
previous semi-authoritarian practices that would embolden and further enable cartels to operate beyond the influence of the Mexican
government. However,
a return to a semi-authoritarian, or even an authoritarian government does not
mean the state will fail .
The 400+ cases of corruption within US agencies emerged from within the US system. These officials,
possibly beholden to Mexican cartels, stand accountable for their own actions. They operated within our systems.
Likewise, the market for illegal drugs stems from a prevalent US hunger for the substances. Most of the weapons used in the narco-violence
originate from the US. Still, American citizens living in Washington D.C., statistically and proportionately, are more likely to die from murder
than will a Mexican citizen. While
the Mexican economy, about the size of California, shows more promise of
emerging from the global recession .
The ongoing drug-related violence in the northern regions of Mexico and the Southwest border regions
of the United States indicate Mexican state weakness in the area of security, but falls well short of
indicating that Mexico will fail. The violence epitomizes the will of the people carried out by a duly and truly democratically elected
government against a powerful system of opposition. Lacking any desire to replace the current government, the cartel
organizations respond to the deliberate pressures of the Mexican government with coercive
intimidation and heightened violence in an effort to outlast the will of the government and continue to
engage in lucrative illegal activity. As the democratic government continues to conduct aggressive counterdrug operations on
behalf of the Mexican people, this violence will also continue.
The current security conditions in Mexico, rather then representing a fragile or failing state, provide an
opportunity for Mexico’s full emergence as a strong democracy, a strategic regional partner, and an
important economic ally to the US. The amount of violence indicates the amount of neglect and
disregard for cartel proliferation during previous administrations. The criminal problem appears to have penetrated
both licit and illicit systems within Mexican society.
Mexico has gradually democratized since the Mexican Revolution of 1910. Evolving
from military authoritarianism to reform
minded single-party rule and finally to a multi-party free election, the evolution has not been without
struggle, turmoil, or violence. The current struggle for power and influence between the Mexican
government and criminal entities or organizations will test the power of the current system. The resolve
of the Mexican people, reflective in free and fair elections will determine the viability of the
government. That Mexico could fail would require the unlikely deterioration of several currently strong
elements of government to include the military, economy and judiciary. If the government remains able to maintain
the support of the population and with increased indirect assistance from the US, Mexico will emerge from the current
security struggle stronger and better from it . To believe otherwise either reflects a myopic and
biased view of the facts, or a lack of understanding of the complex system that is Mexico .
1NR
***Pharma
Can’t patent it and its super expensive
Alliance for Natural Health, 2013 “Big Pharma and FDA: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven” http://www.anh-usa.org/bigpharma-and-fda-a-marriage-not-made-in-heaven/
The drug industry at one time was called the patent medicine industry. This is still the more revealing name. Drug
companies devote themselves to inventing non-natural molecules for use in medicine. Why non-natural?
Because molecules previously occurring in nature cannot, as a rule, be patented. It is essential to
develop a patentable medicine; only a medicine protected by a government patent can hope to recoup
the enormous cost of taking a new drug through the government’s approval process. Getting a new drug
through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not just expensive ($1 billion on average). It also requires having the
right people on your side. Drug companies know that they must hire former FDA employees to assist with the process. They also hire
leading experts as consultants, some of the same experts who may be called on by the FDA to serve on its screening panels. Direct payments
must also be made to support the FDA’s budget. All these financial
ties encourage a “ wink and a nod ” relationship
between researchers working for drug companies and regulators, who are often the same people, thanks to the
revolving door. As the Economist magazine writes:
No company can get into the industry
Ruth C. Stern, M.S.W., attorney at law, and DiFonzo, J. Herbie J.D., Ph.D., Professor of Law, Hofstra University, 2009 “The End of
the Red Queen's Race: Medical Marijuana in the New Century,” 27 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 673
The federal government has grossly impeded research efforts by stringently limiting access to marijuana
for experimental purposes. n571 Further, government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health [*756] have repeatedly
refused to finance medicinal marijuana studies. n572 Typically, pharmaceutical companies assume the cost of researching
and demonstrating the therapeutic benefits of new drugs. Once they receive FDA approval of a drug for
which they hold a patent, pharmaceutical companies stand to benefit in a very big way. As a natural
substance, however, marijuana is not patentable , n573 and drug companies have little incentive to expend
energies and resources studying it.
Big pharma can’t capitalize on legalization
Jackson, 2012 Lee, “Will National Legalized Marijuana Help or Hurt Big Pharma, Tobacco and Alcohol?”
http://247wallst.com/investing/2012/12/11/will-national-legalized-marijuana-help-or-hurt-big-pharma-tobacco-and-alcohol/
One other big and powerful industry might have something to lose: Big Pharma. It is estimated that the global
pharmaceutical market will be worth more than $1 trillion by 2014. Industry giants Merck & Co. (NYSE: MRK), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ),
Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) have warded off patent cliffs for years using their large cash reserves to acquire
smaller companies with robust product pipelines. The
last thing these companies want see is current product lines
that are producing dependable revenue flow to be dented by legal marijuana . The big pharmaceutical firms
have a lot of money to spread around, so when it comes to lobbying efforts, very few have this group’s clout. One thing it wants is for marijuana
to remain illegal. There
are countless maladies where the ingestion of marijuana has been believed to help
alleviate or control the symptoms. These include glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, AIDS-related complications, Crohn’s disease,
fibromyalgia, chemotherapy complications and others. Big pharma has tried to come up with their own pot pill. There are
more than 400 chemicals in marijuana, 80 of which are called “cannabinoids.” Drug companies have tried reducing it to one chemical and
results have been poor.
Researchers find that when you reduce cannabis to just tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), you lose efficacy and
gain side effects. In a book critical of the pharmaceutical industry called “Our Daily Meds,” author Melody Petersen offers a statistic showing
more than 100,000 people die each year from prescription drugs. This includes death from abuse and overdose, side effects, misdiagnosis and
interaction error. Many physicians may currently be reluctant to prescribe legalized marijuana. A national mandate would provide many
physicians with the moral and ethical cover they need to be more aggressive if they feel medical marijuana may help their patients. Then
it is
very possible that medical marijuana prescriptions will put a dent in many currently prescribed drugs .
This is not an outcome that big pharma is likely to tolerate well, unless they get in on the action themselves.
***Midterms
Impact Ov
Trade solves econ
Bhagwati 2007, Professor of Economics and Law at Columbia University and Senior Fellow for
International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations (Jagdish, “Why the Critics of Globalization
are Mistaken” De Economist, Vol 155, p 1-21)
3.1 Prosperity from Trade First, my colleague Professor Arvind Panagariya has noted that, if one exam¬ines the growth and trade record (where
available) of rich and poor countries for nearly forty years in the postwar period, you see a remarkable phenome¬non. The
"economic
miracle" countries which averaged a high annual growth rate of per capita income at about 3%, also showed similar growth in
their trade; and the "economic debacle" countries that experienced negligible or even negative growth rates were also
characterized by similarly dismal trade performance.4 Now, this does not necessarily imply that trade led to growth
instead of the other way around. But anyone who has studied the experience of developing countries in depth knows, and I know because I
have participated in two major projects (one where I was a country co-author and one which I co-directed) in 1960s and 1970s of trade and
development policies of several countries, the
argu¬ment that growth happened independently of trade, which
simply followed as a "trickle-down" effect of growth, is little short of crazy.5 But this area does invite entry by
crazy people. Or it attracts people who are not crazy but act as if they were because the market incentives are such today that they reward
craziness. It is tempting to think that the few dissenters on the efficacy of trade in promoting prosperity are like the dissenters such as Vaclav
Havel who were persecuted in the erst¬while communist countries. But our trade and globalization dissenters lead very comfortable lives
instead because their dissent gets amply rewarded. The answer lies in the economics of value. If there are only two of you (say Stiglitz and
Rodrik) and all economists are on the other side, your scarcity value is immense. You are on the plane to Oslo, Mumbai, Tokyo, indeed every
exotic place that is holding a Conference on Globalization and is looking for an anti-Globalization voice! Second, note that it is possible to
observe periods, which may last over almost two decades in rare cases, where autarky
and high growth rates may be
observed together. But it is impossible to find cases where this has been a "sustainable" relationship
over very long periods. The Soviet Union collapsed after making many economists, including me at one stage, believe that its autarky was no
barrier. Well, just look at a chart on Soviet Russia's steadily declining growth rate in the face of huge investment rates6 after a huge spurt in
1920s and 1930s, and you
see that declining productivity that must partly be attributed to a virtually closed
economy and additionally to the rigidity of central planning laced with massive restrictions on
production and investment that finally caught up with those folks.
Trade key to american military hegemony
Fitzgerald, Heritage Foundation, ‘3 (Sara, March 12, “America is Strengthened by Trade”
Washington Times, lexis)
The result? As the president's national security strategy notes, free trade "provides new avenues for
growth and fosters the diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and
opportunity." That's why America promotes it. Good thing, too, because free trade, far from
weakening a country, actually strengthens it. The relationship between America and its trading
partners is stronger because of trade. That's because trade encourages countries to iron out
differences through diplomatic - not military - avenues. So there's no need to fear a trade deficit. The
United States imports products from many countries, but our military wouldn't grind to a halt if these
imported components were no longer available. Yes, we can get by without trade. But there's no
question we're stronger –financially and militarily - because of it.
TTP is key to US Asian heg
Miller, the Scholl Chair in International Business at CSIS, and Goodman, Simon Chair in
Political Economy at CSIS, 12-10-13
(Scott and Matthew, “TPP Trade Ministers Get Close, but No Deal in Singapore,”
http://csis.org/publication/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-ministers-meeting, accessed 1-22-14, CMM)
Q3: How important is TPP to the Obama administration’s strategy of “rebalancing” to Asia, and what
happens if it fails?¶ A3: TPP is at the heart of the rebalancing strategy, which is a multifaceted effort to
highlight and reinforce the United States’ enduring interests in the critical Asia-Pacific region. In
addition to its economic benefits of expanded growth and jobs, a TPP agreement would more firmly
anchor the United States in the region and underscore U.S. leadership as a Pacific power. Asians are
looking to the United States not only to uphold peace and security in the region through its strong
military presence, but also to promote shared prosperity through deeper trade and investment ties.¶ A
modest delay in concluding the TPP negotiations beyond the end of 2013 is not fatal, but failure to
reach an eventual deal would be a serious blow to the rebalancing strategy. Beyond the lost
economic opportunities, lack of a TPP agreement would feed perceptions in Asia that the rebalance is
mainly about military positioning. It would also raise questions about the U.S. ability to champion the
rules of the road in economic affairs. For these reasons, it is likely that the administration will redouble
its efforts to conclude a successful TPP agreement in the first half of 2014 and to spend an increasing
amount of political capital trying to win congressional approval of TPA and TPP itself.
ME War
Middle East war draws in great powers – no checks on escalation.
RUSSELL, Department of National Security Affairs senior lecturer at NPS, 9
[James A., , focused on Middle East security affairs, terrorism, and national security strategy. “Strategic
Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Nuclear War and Escalation in the Middle East” Spring
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fw
ww.nps.edu%2FAcademics%2Fcenters%2FCCC%2Ffaculty%2Fbiolinks%2Frussell%2FPP26_Russell_2009.
pdf&rct=j&q=Strategic%20Stability%20Reconsidered%3A%20Prospects%20for%20Nuclear%20War%20a
nd%20Escalation%20in%20the%20Middle%20East%22&ei=y_dbTcmfD4K0lQeY7cTkCQ&usg=AFQjCNGB
gAt5-o6WwVPg7b503iUYltj2nw&sig2=9rGfIq5oVZNvgR8pn8vhvA, page 41, accessed 2-16-11, CMM]
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in
the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the
presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the
antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that
makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United
States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a
preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to pre-emptive attacks could involve
unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6)
the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework
participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that
escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or
the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine
scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would
consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the
nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of
an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain
increase in the probability of war – a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a
variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their
own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The
international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its
disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples
of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.
UQ
GOP win – consensus
Barone, 10/2 Michael, Washington Examiner, “It looks like a GOP wave; the question is how far it goes”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/it-looks-like-a-gop-wave-the-question-is-how-far-it-goes/article/2554246
Republicans seem to be pulling away in the race to win a majority in the U.S. Senate . At least this week. In
mid-September, several polls seemed to be going the other way. The well-informed Washington Post analyst Chris Cillizza wrote that for the
first time in this election cycle odds favored the Democrats keeping their majority. Two weeks later he was singing another
tune. Analysts at the Post, the New York Times and FiveThirtyEight, in addition to psephologists Charlie
Cook, Stuart Rothenberg and Larry Sabato, all agreed. What may have happened is this: Over the summer Democrats used their
money advantage to savage Republican opponents. When spending got equalized in September,
Republicans’ numbers rose. So Republicans retain big leads to pick up three open seats in states
carried by Mitt Romney —West Virginia, Montana and South Dakota. Republican nominees have moved ahead of
three Democratic incumbents in Romney states (Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana) and in two target states carried by
President Obama (Colorado and Iowa). Only in North Carolina, which Romney narrowly carried, has the Republican not yet
overtaken the incumbent Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan — and her edge is narrowing in the most recent polls.
Psephologists used to have a rule that incumbents running below 50 percent against lesser known
challengers would inevitably lose. Everyone knows them, the logic went, and half aren’t voting for them. That rule doesn’t seem
to apply anymore, but perhaps another one does. The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls puts Democratic
incumbents in these five states at 41 to 44 percent of the vote. In seriously contested races in the last six Senate
cycles, starting with 2002, only two incumbents polling at that level in September ended up winning. One was appointed to an open seat and
thus probably not widely known. Both ended up with less than 50 percent and won by plurality. Psephological
rules are made to
be broken, sooner or later. Polls can fluctuate. Events or campaigning can change attitudes. Democrats now trailing might win Republican
seats in Kentucky or Georgia. Or the former Democrat running as an Independent in Kansas could win and cast the deciding vote for Democrats.
There are ways they can hold their Senate majority. But most likely they won’t . That should settle the ongoing
argument in psephological circles about whether this is a “wave” year. Some argued that since Republicans were expected to gain only a few
seats in the House — something the insiders pretty much agree on — and since they were by no means certain of winning a Senate majority, it
might not be a wave at all. But it depends on what your benchmark is. In 2012 Republicans won 234 House seats — the second most they’ve
won since 1946, just behind the 242 in 2010. Expecting them to gain anything like the 63 seats they did in 2010 or the 52 in 1994 was always
unrealistic. As for
Senate elections, the Republicans entered this cycle down 55 to 45. It’s noteworthy
when well-informed analysts give a party a better than even chance of making a net gain of six
Senate seats, as they have throughout this cycle . I can’t remember consensus predictions of six-Senate-seat
gains in 1974, 1980, 1994 or 2006 — all now regarded as wave years . All of which is to say that focusing too closely
on fluctuations in the polls risks losing sight of the bigger picture. Rewind back five years: The Obama Democrats expected their major policies
to be popular. They expected that most voters would be grateful for the stimulus package, for Obamacare, for raising the tax rate on high
earners. They aren’t. Democrats expected that running for re-election they’d be running ads touting these genuine accomplishments. They
aren’t. Instead you get personal attacks on Republican nominees and oldie-but-supposedly-goodie reprises of the “war on women” theme. Out
in Colorado about half of Democrat Mark Udall’s TV spots have been on abortion. Even liberal commentators are questioning whether that’s
smart. But maybe the Udall consultants sitting around the table can’t come up with anything better. Early in the 2010 cycle, Barack Obama told
an Arkansas House Democrat that he needn’t worry about voters because “you’ve got me.” Today all four Arkansas House seats are held by
Republicans. Democratic Senate candidates in multiple states have been shunning Obama campaign appearances. We’re
wave come in. We just can’t be sure how far it goes.
Republicans are closing the spending gap
Blake, Washington Post, 10-1-14
watching a
(Aaron, “Everything you need to know about the Senate ad-spending battle — in 3 maps,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/01/everything-you-need-to-know-aboutthe-senate-ad-spending-battle-in-2-maps/, accessed 10-1-14, CMM)
We're now less than five weeks from the 2014 election, which means it's crunch time -- both for
winning races and for expectation-setting.¶ Part of that expectation-setting game is pointing out, early and often,
how your candidates are being overwhelmed by outside spending with little ammunition to fight
back. The benefits are two-fold: 1) Offering a preemptive excuse in case you lose, and 2) Sending a message to moneyed outside groups (with whom campaigns can't directly coordinate) that maybe they should pitch in a
little. Think of it as a smoke signal.¶ We've already seen a healthy dose of this. Republicans have pointed to advertising deficits in states, such as
Iowa and North Carolina -- states that could very well decide the Senate majority. In those very same
states, of course, Democrats are crying foul about how they are the ones being inundated by negative ads
from nefarious outside groups run by the Koch brothers.¶ As is often the case in political campaigns, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.¶ Yes,
Republicans were getting outspent for a while there. In the first two weeks of September, in fact, Democratic outside groups ran more ads than GOP groups in nine
of 10 key Senate races tracked by the Wesleyan Media Project. Among the states where Democratic groups ran more ads: North Carolina and Iowa (although barely in the latter). ¶ But that's changing .¶
Here's the before (Aug. 29-Sept. 11), with the bluer states featuring more ad spending by Democratic outside groups, and the red states featuring more ad spending by Republican outside groups:¶ EarlySept¶ ¶ And here's the
GOP groups closed the gap or asserted a lead on ads running in eight of the 10
states tracked by Wesleyan. And today, they're at parity in North Carolina and actually ran 57 percent of the
outside-group ads in Iowa.¶ Of course, the number of ads isn't a great indicator of overall ad-spending. That's because some ads are much cheaper or more expensive to run, depending on when
after (Sept. 12-25):¶ LateSept¶ As the maps show,
they air and in what market and on what channel.¶ Wesleyan also tracked the money spent over the second two-week span, by state. Here's that breakdown:¶ DollarsAds¶ So case closed, right? Republicans can't complain about
Democratic groups have reserved more airtime in several
key states over the final weeks of the campaign, and the gap in North Carolina is especially big in Sen. Kay Hagan's (D-N.C.) favor (here's the breakdown, as of a few days
ago). Unless GOP groups step up, there is indeed a possibility that Republicans will be outspent in some of the most important races down the stretch.¶ But those are just reservations,
and the last couple of weeks suggest the money will go to the races where it's needed, one way or
another. GOP groups have started to step forward to even the playing field, and with the majority at
stake, it's hard to see why they wouldn't continue to do so.
the amount of help they're getting in their quest for the Senate majority anymore?¶ Well, not quite.
GOP ad spending is up – that bolsters their chances
Bump, Washington Post, 10-1-14
(Phlip, “The GOP is gaining in the polls and on the airwaves. Coincidence?,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/01/the-gop-is-gaining-in-the-polls-and-onthe-airwaves-coincidence/, accessed 10-1-14, CMM)
Money is starting to flow more freely into contested Senate races for TV ads on behalf of Republican
candidates, according to data from the Wesleyan Media Project. In Iowa alone, where Republican Joni Ernst leads in the
race to replace retiring Sen. Tom Harkin (D), the two sides bought over 11,000 ads for the two weeks from
Sept. 12-25 -- 57 percent of which were for Ernst.¶ Why does that matter? Because ad dollars
translate into votes .¶ In fact, in seven of the eight most tightly contested races, the advantage in adbuying correlated to a shift in polling averages toward the benefiting candidate.¶ Wesleyan broke down the
advertising by race into pro-Democratic and pro-Republican ads, including ads from campaigns and outside groups. Iowa, as the graph shows,
had both the most ads and the biggest gap between the two sides. At least in terms of ad count. In
Georgia, Democrat Michelle Nunn had
far more ads than Republican David Perdue -- but there were far fewer ads shown in the race.¶ It's hard to put a finger
on how that spending affects voters. At least, it's hard without doing detailed and regular polling -which, of course, the campaigns do. Lots of things play a role in shifting the course of campaigns, and it's easy to overestimate
one particular thing.¶ Regardless, it's interesting to note how the ad spending compares to the polling averages
tracked by Real Clear Politics. We pulled data from Sept. 1 and Oct. 1 to see how much the gap
between candidates changed over the month when the ads were running. This is imprecise for many reasons,
including that RCP includes polling that use a range of methodologies.¶ This is the result. The regions in red and blue are
where candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties (respectively) enjoyed an advantage in ads
and a positive shift in the polling average.¶ Again, this is a correlation, not proof of a link. People were surprised
when a poll put Ernst in the lead on Sept. 17 -- a poll conducted before the period analyzed by the
Wesleyan Media Project. But the group still felt there was enough connection between ad spending
and polling to declare that Republicans groups were "keeping Senate races close."¶ At the very least,
Republicans are doing a better job of keeping the ad-spending game close. In the meantime, several of
their candidates have improved their lots.
Econ=Win
Obama’s focusing on the economy now but it’s not enough – the plan gives the
democrats a message to rally behind.
Simendinger, 10/3 Alexis, Realclear politics reporter, “Obama Returns to Economic Focus Ahead of Midterms”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/03/obama_returns_to_economic_focus_ahead_of_midterms_124168.html
With about a month to go before voters head to the polls, President Obama didn’t say those exact words, but he wandered close. This week
he returned
to Democrats’ conviction that the country’s economic momentum will surge or stall
depending on the policies adopted or blocked in the next year or two. In other words, elections matter. Momentum may seem
glacial to many businesses and employees, the president conceded during a speech Thursday at a business school in Illinois. But inch by inch,
economic indicators, which he called “facts,” are yardsticks measuring progress, recovery and new opportunities. On Friday morning, the
government reported the national unemployment rate in September dropped to 5.9 percent from 6.1 percent, after 248,000 jobs were added.
The number of unemployed dropped to 9.3 million, and average hourly earnings for the year have risen 2.0 percent, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Friday’s
data won’t be the last economic information to emerge before Election Day in November,
but the jobs report could impact voter impressions as the two parties make their final drives to
persuade their constituents that upcoming elections portend serious risks and offer measurable
rewards. Obama did not directly appeal to his audience to turn out and vote. Instead, he encouraged Democrats and
independents to see the economic glass as half full,
and to fear the GOP. “When push came to shove this year and
Republicans in Congress actually had to take a stand on policies that would help the middle class and working Americans, like raising the
minimum wage, enacting fair pay, refinancing student loans, or extending insurance for the unemployed, the answer was no,” he said. “The one
thing they did vote `yes’ on was another massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.” Later Friday, the president is scheduled to champion
America’s reviving manufacturing sector during his first stop since 2011 in Indiana, a state he lost by more than 10 points in 2012 but won by a
nose in 2008. Obama plans to speak at Millennium Steel, a processing firm in Princeton, Ind., to mark National Manufacturing Day, known by its
industry sponsors as MfgDay14. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker is expected to be with the president. Some 1,600 similar events are
planned nationwide.
The president has not yet campaigned with any Democratic candidates on the trail , and
Indiana is not a state where he will begin.
But he is raising money for his party’s candidates and offering shout-
outs to congressional and gubernatorial incumbents during official events. At 41 percent job approval, Obama
recognizes he’s an anchor hooked to Democrats’ sails. Seizing two days in a row in the Midwest to return to his economic
message is a rarity for the president. For months, he’s been in the White House or abroad, wrestling with dire international events, a new terror
war against the Islamic State, an Ebola epidemic, security and management errors at the Secret Service, a border crisis and stalled immigration
legislation, plus energized Republican critics. Meanwhile, economy indicators overall are brightening, apart from wage growth. Democrats
had hoped their endorsement of a national minimum wage over $10 would be a political shield, of sorts.
It is unclear whether the mix of minimum wage, pay equity and the benefits of the Affordable Care
Act are enough to excite women, young people and minorities , who are the bedrock of the Democratic Party but the
least likely to turn out in midterm elections. Likely voters tell pollsters they are concerned stalemates will persist in
Washington, no matter which party gains control next year. Obama this week offered no rejoinder on that point. But
he expressed optimism that tax reform accomplished with Republican partners could pay for federal infrastructure investments he says will
mean plenty of new jobs. For years, the GOP has deep-sixed Obama’s bridges-and-roads agenda, but the GOP is keen to slash corporate taxes
under a Republican-controlled House and Senate, if possible after January. The
president can never quite utter an
economic sound bite that declares America’s storms have passed . His sentences require qualifiers,
which in political terms mean his policy arguments cannot soar; no rhetorical champagne corks for Obama.
The confidence gap is
the result of the nation’s lingering anxieties following a financial meltdown
in 2008, a housing crisis, and a
painful recession that left Americans believing prosperity would not return. “Today, American manufacturing has added more than 700,000
new jobs,” the president enthused Thursday. Correct, but during the recession, the economy lost nearly 2 million manufacturing jobs, and many
of those positions in traditional industries are gone for good. “Across the board, the trend lines have moved in the right direction,” the
president added. But in the next breath, he underscored how long that time horizon may be -- another decade. “Over the next 10 years, we’ll
build an economy where wage growth is stronger than it was in the past three decades. It is achievable,” Obama said in Illinois. House
Republican candidates are campaigning in the final stretch to November touting a five-point economic
plan they say is poll-tested, positive and doable. It’s also gauzy and well-worn, including new tax cuts; smaller government; legal reforms;
regulatory relief; and education reforms. In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put himself and Senate GOP
candidates firmly in the camp with Americans who might otherwise be considered Democrats’
traditional base. And he appeared to dismiss upper-income Americans, customarily seen as a key building block of the Republican Party.
“We all know the stock market’s been doing great and that the top 1 percent are doing just fine, but what about the poor and middle class, who
can’t find jobs or whose wages have barely budged during the Obama administration?” he asked in reaction to the president’s address on
Thursday. “ This
administration has thrown a wet blanket over the economy with its focus on spending,
borrowing, taxing and regulating, and those things clearly haven’t worked . We need to move in a different
direction,” McConnell said, echoing House Republican themes.
Link
Marihuana is seen as an economic issue – that propels Dems to victory
Appelbaum, Contributing Writer at The Suffolk Resolves, 14 (Josh, 3-4-14, “Let’s Weed Out
Republicans in 2014,” http://suffolkresolves.com/2014/03/04/lets-weed-out-republicans-in-2014/,
accessed 8-29-14, CMM)
THE TIME IS NOW When engaging in a fiscal debate, our two political parties get hung up on pledges.
Republicans refuse to increase taxes while Democrats refuse to make cuts to entitlements . As a result,
methods of addressing our debt and improving our economy are almost impossible to find in
Washington. Legalizing marijuana is the perfect bipartisan solution: it doesn’t raise taxes or cut Social
Security. It allows us to bring in much-needed revenue that we can use to invest in education and infrastructure
without violating either party’s economic pledge. It’s time for the Democrats to step up and make pot
legalization a central issue in the Midterm Elections. They can look to Colorado and tout its success,
and in doing so they’ll motivate young people to reject apathy and turn out at the polls for them. As
crazy as it sounds, pot legalization just might be the issue that propels the Democrats to victory in 2014,
ensuring that the final two years of Obama’s presidency will be marked by action and achievements,
not gridlock. All the Democrats need to do is find the courage to inhale.
Second – it’s popular with young voters – they’re key to the election.
Deng, Slate, 14 (Boer, 4-29-14 “Even Young Voters Are Turning Away from Democrats in 2014,”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/29/young_voters_are_disillusioned_with_politics_and_w
on_t_be_voting_in_the.html, accessed 8-16-14, CMM)
A new poll from the Institute of Politics at Harvard released today offers more bad news for
Democrats in 2014. Only 23 percent of 18 to 29 year olds surveyed said they will definitely vote in this
year’s midterm elections, and more of them identified as conservatives (32 percent) than liberals (22 percent).
The pollsters found that 44 percent of young people who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 said they would vote this year. Just 35 percent of
those who voted for Obama said the same. In recent years,
youth turnout in elections has been low compared to
older voters, even during presidential election years. A report from the U.S. Census Bureau this month points out that only
38 percent of eligible 18 to 24 year-olds bothered in 2012 (in 1964, it was 51 percent), while nearly 70 percent of those above retirement age
voted (The Census Bureau does not look at 25 to 29 year olds alone, or group them with the younger cohort.) Disengagement
among
young voters is even worse in midterm years. A college student or young professional may not even be in the same state in
four years’ time, so why should she care who its senator will be? But young voters , despite casting ballots in limited numbers, can
make a difference in tight races . In 2012, they showed up to vote in key swing states; turnout for 18 to 29
year-olds in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado were above 50 percent, helping to tip them for Obama. Last year
in Virginia, then candidate, now Gov. Terry McAuliffe did his share of college campus stops and beer drinking with students to plug his
education and jobs platform. It worked: 26 percent of them showed up to the polls (and this was an off-off year state election!), with a plurality
voting for him. (Stumping by his friend, Bill Clinton, a surprising millennial favorite, might have helped a little bit, too). Compare that to the
2009 state gubernatorial election, where only 17 percent of young people cast votes (mostly for Republican Bob McDonnell). Tight
races
abound this year, especially in the Senate , where Democrats have more seats to lose. History says
that the president’s party is set for a drubbing during a midterm year. So it is worrying for Democrats
that fewer of their young supporters seem to care. In fact, they are disillusioned with politics all
together. The Harvard poll found that trust in political institutions has fallen to a historic low of 31
percent. Young people, no matter their political philosophy, are cynical about American democracy
today: 62 percent think elected officials enter politics for a “selfish reason,” and few would run for office themselves. They can be hardly
expected to canvass for votes, if that’s the case.
Third – winning on a liberal issue is key to the Democratic narrative
The Economist, 9-1-14 (“Why the Democrats will probably lose,”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/09/senate-midterms, accessed 9-11-14,
CMM) *Modified ableist language
NOT all the major polling models give Republicans a clear edge to capture the Senate this autumn, but most do. The New York Times’ “The
Upshot” puts the chances at 65%, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight most recently called it “in the neighborhood of 60-40” and the Washington
Post’s “Election Lab” gives the GOP a 51% shot. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium is the outlier, giving the Democrats a 70%
chance of holding the majority. The
obvious reasons for the GOP’s advantage are technical, as we wrote earlier this
vulnerable Democrats are up for re-election this year than vulnerable Republicans. The
GOP needs to take away six seats from the Democrats, and is already nearly assured of winning three;
of the six or seven competitive races (depending on who’s counting), Republicans must win just three to gain a
majority. Add in Barack Obama’s low approval ratings and the fact that the out-of-power party generally
does better in midterm elections, and you have a nice bloodless political-science description of the
Republican advantage. Yet the technical factors don't quite explain why Democrats feel so listless this
autumn. Democratic spin doctors trying to get upbeat media coverage are resorting to state-by-state
descriptions of specifics that play in their favour. It is true that things look better for Democrats at a granular level, which is
month. More
why Mr Wang thinks they will hold the Senate. And the Democrats’ technology-driven ground game, which added a percentage point or so to
Barack Obama’s vote total in 2012, may do so again this year. But when
Democratic flacks promote these sorts of insidebaseball stories, it only highlights their lack of a persuasive overarching political narrative . This
autumn, it is simply not clear what the Democrats want, or what they are promising to do for the
people they want to vote for them. It is not that people do not know, in general, what Republicans and
Democrats stand for. Americans know that Republicans believe in lower taxes, less regulation of business, fewer government
benefits and tighter immigration rules, and that they want to repeal Obamacare and oppose action on climate change. They know
Democrats believe in more generous public benefits, action on climate change and the environment,
looser immigration rules, and preserving or expanding Obamacare and raising taxes on the rich.
Voters identify Democrats with minority and women’s concerns, and Republicans with the concerns of whites and
men. But Democrats aren’t running strong campaigns that tie in coherently to any of those themes.
There is no clear national vision of what Democrats would actually do if they manage to hold the
Senate. In Iowa, for example, Bruce Braley, a Democratic congressman, is locked in a dead heat with the
Republican candidate, Joni Ernst, a state senator. Mr Braley is generally described as the most left-wing
of the new Democratic Senate candidates this year. Yet his chief campaign issue is only modestly
liberal: preserving the government’s system of subsidised student aid for college. Mr Braley notes that
Ms Ernst supports privatising the federal government’s low-interest Direct Loan programme, and calls
this a “reckless, Tea Party plan”. Ms Ernst’s campaign responds that privatisation could be “backstopped” by the federal
government, sparing students any increase in interest rates. Mr Braley’s selection of this issue seems reasonably smart, and was clearly guided
by the fact that Ms Ernst herself received federal aid to get through college. It allows him to tie her to the increasingly unpopular Tea Party
movement, and plays to the established perception that Democrats are more likely to defend public benefits for the poor and middle class. But
this is a small-bore issue, and the pitch is defensive: Mr Braley
is warning that the Republican candidate will eliminate
existing programmes, rather than promising any new ones. It isn’t surprising that Democrats aren’t
promising much, since they lack the capacity to deliver anything . Whether or not the Democrats
retain the Senate, the past two years have demonstrated that legislation on any major issue will die in
the Republican-controlled House. Pragmatic Republicans have been entirely stymied by their party’s Tea Party wing, which will not
countenance any compromise with Democrats. Democrats’ hopes for progress on key issues such as immigration
and climate change have come to rest on executive action by the president, but that prospect is so
politically risky that Mr Obama may decide to delay any major initiatives until after the elections. The
pivotal condition here is the impossibility of getting Tea-party Republicans to vote for any new
legislation that has been approved by Democrats, and the inability of more pragmatic Republicans to
bypass the extremists. In the 2012 elections, the Obama administration had a theory of change: what was needed was to “break the
Republican fever” over taxes. The Republicans’ rigid opposition to raising any form of taxes, ever, was what made any form of new government
programme impossible, went the theory; using the expiration of the Bush tax cuts to force them to abandon that pledge would open the
possibility of negotiation and compromise on other issues. This theory turned out to be wrong. The
tea-party Republicans’
resistance to compromise has rendered the House incapable of passing even legislation to address an
urgent humanitarian border crisis, with tens of thousands of children trapped in immigration limbo. In the face of the far
right’s effective veto over the congressional GOP, Democrats have given up on passing any significant
legislation either until they regain control of the House, an impossibly remote prospect, or until the
Tea Party somehow withers away, which shows no signs of happening. The Democrats’ acceptance of
their inability to accomplish anything significant has left them unable to campaign on big themes .
The party feels exhausted, still convinced of the need for immigration reform, climate change legislation and
expanded benefits for the middle class, but unable to imagine a political pathway to get there. If the Democrats
lose the Senate this fall , it may be technically due to an unlucky roster of elections and the traditional midterm setback for the party
in power. But
it will
also
face of the political
be a verdict on the party’s inability to conjure a sense of élan or vision in the
paralysis [ gridlock ]
tea-party Republicans have induced.
GOP k2 Trade
GOP senate is key to TPP and TPA.
Barfield 2014
Claude, former consultant to the office of the US Trade Representative and a resident scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute, It’s do or die for the TPP 13 August 2014
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/08/13/its-do-or-die-for-the-tpp/
Heading into the fifth year of intense negotiations (with twenty-odd formal sessions and countless informal side meetings),
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement will almost certainly succeed — or fail — over the next six
months. President Obama has set the November APEC leaders’ meeting as his personal deadline for the broad outlines of a deal
encompassing and overcoming the major challenges in this purported ‘twenty-first century’ trade pact. The 12 TPP member nations have
previously blown past similar deadlines in 2012 and 2013; but this time the
political calendar and negotiating weariness
dictate that a continuing stalemate at year’s end will deal a crippling blow to a successful outcome.
With regard to the negotiating dynamic, failure to achieve major substantive breakthroughs by early
2015 will evoke the dreaded ‘Doha syndrome’ image. The WTO’s multilateral Doha Round of trade negotiations has dragged
on for 12 years. Currently, a desperate search for compromise on a small fraction of negotiating issues seems to have failed. Whatever the
outcome of this tail-end effort, the WTO experience will provide ammunition for TPP sceptics who will cite Doha as the rueful model for ‘biting
off more than you can chew’ in trade negotiations with predictable results. Turning
to the political calendar and a shifting
political balance of forces, as is often the case, the United States remains the central factor to any
agreement on the TPP. First, though it is less an iron rule than sometimes portrayed, the 2016 presidential campaign will
increasingly intrude upon all policy issues — and particularly upon the divisive trade agenda. This
reality dictates a push for at least broad agreement on key TPP compromises by January or February.
Assuming solid advances in the TPP negotiating framework, what are the political pathways — and political snares — to US ratification of the
agreement? The
Democratic Party remains deeply divided on trade policy in general and on the TPP
specifically. President Obama, on the other hand, has elevated the TPP as a single goal for his second term; and
while there are signs of lame-duck erosion, having a Democratic president solidly behind a trade negotiation still will make, at least, a marginal
difference. The
House of Representatives will be key. House Republicans can still deliver at least threequarters of the Republican majority in favour of the TPP. The Tea Party’s 2011 votes on the Panama,
Colombia and South Korea FTAs suggest that they will also support the TPP — despite any animosity toward President Obama.
As for the Senate, once again it is likely that the basics will prevail: a sizeable majority of Republicans
will combine with a minority of Democrats to produce a TPP majority. Beyond these basics, the near-term
political calendar is dicey. First, there is the problem of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the authority granted by Congress to
expedite an up-or-down vote on trade agreements within a certain time. Major political complications have stymied efforts to pass a bipartisan
bill. Last week, Republicans
on the Ways and Means Committee notified the administration that they would
demand a vote on a TPA bill before TPP negotiations were completed. Looking to the future, there are a
number of possible scenarios that could play out. But most will depend on the outcome of the
midterm election and who holds the majority in Congress. If Republicans win the senate, they may put
off TPA until January and the new congress. The role that the US Congress could play is premised on the assumption that the
substantive negotiations produce an acceptable set of compromises by year’s end. What are the dynamics of such a result? First, the TPP has
been touted as a ‘twenty-first century agreement’, meaning that it will stake out new territory in liberalising ‘behind-border’ barriers to trade in
service sectors, state-owned enterprises, health and safety measures, meaningful regulatory reform and convergence, intellectual property,
and investment arbitration, among others. But alongside these new issues loom old fights on twentieth century issues relating to industrial and
agricultural tariffs and subsidies in sectors such as textiles, clothing shoes, sugar, cotton, rice and grains. Japan is demanding special treatment
(that is, protection) for five ‘sacred’ items — rice, wheat and barley, pork and beef, dairy and sugar — and it is locked in a line-by-line battle
with the United States to thwart liberalisation in these sectors. Currently, it looks as if Japan will concede something in each sector —
particularly pork, beef and dairy — but will not be forced to go to zero tariffs in all five areas. Both sides have promised key announcements in
October at the latest. An acceptable compromise on the old, twentieth century issues is tied directly to other negotiations on inside-the-border
issues. For instance, Vietnam has told the US that it is not prepared to make concessions in investment without concessions on textiles and
shoes. Australia’s trade minister openly stated that Australia’s opposition to an independent investor arbitration body and some US demands
on intellectual property might ease if a better deal emerged on lamb and beef products. Other TPP
countries have signalled
openness to similar trade-offs. It is going to take both luck and skill to bring off this high-wire act over
the next six months. But much is riding on a successful outcome for the US: the TPP has become the
single most important symbol of future US leadership in Asia. Failure will have not only economic but
also debilitating diplomatic and security consequences. Within the United States, two are imperatives:
hands-on presidential leadership (admittedly not a normal Obama strength) and responsible initiatives from
congressional Republicans — who have provided the bedrock majorities for FTAs for the past two
decades.
Republican congress would allow trade deals
Joseph 2014
Jufi, Global Risk Insight Analyst, Why a GOP takeover of the US Senate will not cause political deadlock,
5/17/2014 http://globalriskinsights.com/2014/05/17/why-a-gop-takeover-of-the-us-senate-will-notcause-political-deadlock/
Broadly speaking, a Republican takeover of the Senate could break the policy deadlock between the
Obama Administration and Congress, which has defined the U.S. political system since 2011. Ironically,
once Republicans assume full control of the Congress, their leadership will come under greater
pressure to demonstrate concrete results – they will no longer be able to get by through simply blaming
Reid and Obama. At the same time, as President Obama enters the lame duck stretch of his presidency,
he and his senior staff will be increasingly focused on specific policy accomplishments that can add to
his historical legacy. These parallel sets of conditions will create unique incentives for both sides to put
aside some of their ideological rigidity and devise compromises in pursuit of shared victories. What
might constitute some common ground for an Obama White House and a GOP-controlled Congress?
First, look to international trade as a potential venue for a breakthrough. The White House has been
stymied in its efforts to rejuvenate global free trade talks as Congress has refused White House
requests to provide fast track authority for parallel sets of negotiations – the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks with the European Union and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP)
talks with Asian partners. The primary source of Congressional opposition lies in the Senate
Democratic caucus, where Majority Leader Reid is unwilling to subject some of his more vulnerable
Members to tough votes that cross labor constituencies. With a Senate under GOP control, the
prospects for the granting of free-trade authority, and the likely boost that will provide to both sets of
talks, immediately brightens. The Republican Party, especially its internationalist wing, remains a
strong supporter of free trade and would find common cause with the White House there.
2NR
Midterms
GOP will win now but sinking Obama popularity is key
Cillizza, 10/2 Chris, WaPo, “28 words that Democrats really wish President Obama didn’t say
today” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/02/28-words-that-democrats-really-wish-president-obama-didntsay-today/
President Obama was at Northwestern University on Thursday to deliver an economic speech that, he and his team
hoped, would lay out the case for why the public is better off today than they were six years ago -- even if they didn't feel it in their
everday lives. Instead,
Obama just gave every Republican ad-maker in the country more fodder for
negative ads linking Democratic candidates to him. Here are the four sentences that will draw all of the attention
am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about
that. But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them." Boil those four
(they come more than two thirds of the way through the speech): " I
sentences down even further and here's what you are left with: "Make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one
of them." You can imagine Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas or Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina or Alison
Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky grimacing when they heard those 28 words. That trio has spent much of the
campaign insisting that this election is NOT about Barack Obama , that it is instead about a choice between
themselves and their opponents. The reason for this distancing strategy is obvious: President
Obama is deeply
unpopular in many of the states that will decide which party controls the majority in 2015. Of the seven seats rated "toss
ups" by the non-partisan Cook Political Report, Obama lost four of them (Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North
Carolina) in 2012. He also lost in three Democratic-held open seats -- Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia -now viewed as sure-thing pickups for Republicans . If Republicans only won Democratic-held seats
where Obama lost in 2012, they would pick up 7 seats -- one more than they need to recapture the majority. In many
of these states, Obama's numbers are in a (much) worse place today than in November 2012. Just four in
ten Louisiana voters approve of how President Obama is doing his job in a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll. In Arkansas,
Obama's approval rating is at 31 percent, according to an NBC/Marist poll. Even in Colorado, a state Obama won in 2008 and 2012,
his approval rating sat at just 39 percent in another NBC/Marist survey. It doesn't take a political mastermind to realize
that an ad in which the President of the United States says "Make no mistake: These policies are on the
ballot. Every single one of them" might not be helpful to the Democratic candidates trying to run away from
him this November. So, why did Obama say it? My guess is that he wanted to make the stakes clear to a Democratic base that, by
virtually every polling measure I've seen, is less enthusiastic to turn out and vote on Nov. 4 than Republicans. The idea being that if
you like Obama and his policies -- which his base, especially African Americans, still do -- then you need to show it by going out and
voting. The Obama political team is working under the assumption that if you dislike President Obama, nothing he says or does is
going to change that reality. So, why not show the Democratic base that this election is worth fighting for? I think that
underestimates the impact of an unpopular president (on video no less!)bluntly insisting that an election in 33 days is
indeed a referendum on his policies. Republicans couldn't have written a better script than that.
Support for legalization drowns out opposition
Milligan, US News and World Report, 8-13-14 (Susan, “Pro-Pot Push: The Next Gay Marriage,”
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/13/push-to-legalize-marijuana-echoes-same-sexmarriage-efforts, accessed 8-19-14, CMM)
The image makes supporters of marijuana legalization cringe: a zoned-out-looking, T-shirt-wearing Grateful Dead slacker, his hair long and
unwashed and his brain cleansed of any ambition or coherent thought. The caricature is not dissimilar to the distorted images and stereotypes
once attached to gay couples. Within the space of just a decade, those unrealistic images of same-sex partnerships quickly disappeared as more
Americans embraced their gay colleagues and family members. And with startling alacrity, the law has followed with states adopting same-sex
marriage statutes and courts across the country striking down bans on same-sex unions. Marijuana
legalization, its backers say, is
the new gay marriage, on an unstoppable path to social and legal acceptance . "It's turned quite
quickly," says Erik Altieri, communications director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "More and more
Americans are waking up to the failure of marijuana prohibition." Just as gay marriage is becoming the norm,
decriminalization and legalization of marijuana is likely to be the law in a majority of states in the near
future, Altieri predicts. Decades ago, such a statement would have been laughable. In past years, the so-called war on drugs dictated that
almost no politician or civic leader would dare to advocate loosening laws on pot, which was (and in some quarters still is) seen as a "gateway
drug" to other, more damaging substances as well as a source of potentially dangerous impairment on its own. Now, both
Colorado
and Washington state have legalized recreational use. Nearly two dozen states (and the District of Columbia)
have laws either in effect or that will take effect allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes .
The district also recently moved another step closer to legalizing marijuana use: Last week, the D.C. Board of Elections ruled that enough
signatures had been gathered to put full legalization of pot on the ballot in November. Alaskans will vote on a similar referendum in November
as well. An
October Gallup poll showed that 58 percent of Americans believe the drug should be
legalized, an increase of 10 percentage points over the previous year and the first time Gallup has ever
reported majority public support for legalization. The New York Times recently carried, for the first time, pro-marijuana ads,
and ran an editorial calling for marijuana legalization. The trend has concerned some who are worried that looser
laws will increase use by youngsters and abuse by people of all ages. But that worry is being drowned out by
other factors: growing public opinion that the drug is no worse than alcohol, and a sense among both
taxpayers and state budget writers that the cost of prosecuting marijuana-related infractions is a
waste of money and time that could be better spent on other priorities. Colorado has already brought in more
than $25 million in tax revenues from pot sales. "They're realizing it's a lifestyle issue. It's not worth getting agitated about," says Robert Calkin,
founder and president of the Cannabis Career Institute, a California-based group focused on the business of marijuana. "Pot is something that
can be incorporated [into one's life] just like any other herb or supplement. It's not something we need to be alarmed about," he adds. "You
need to be just as careful with aspirin."
Legalization support is soaring
CNN, 1-6-14 (“CNN Poll: Support for legal marijuana soaring,”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/06/cnn-poll-support-for-legal-marijuana-soaring/,
accessed 8-17-14, CMM)
In a major turnaround from past decades, a majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana, according to a new poll.
The CNN/ORC International survey released Monday also indicated that the number of people who say smoking pot is
morally wrong has plunged. Fifty-five percent of those questioned nationally said marijuana should be
made legal, with 44% disagreeing. The CNN/ORC findings are similar to a Gallup poll conducted in
October. According to the CNN poll and numbers from General Social Survey polling, support for legalizing marijuana has steadily soared
over the past quarter century - from 16% in 1987 to 26% in 1996, 34% in 2002, and 43% two years ago. The survey found interesting divides on
the issue. "There are big differences on age, region, party ID, and gender, with senior citizens, Republicans, and Southerners the only major
demographic groups who still oppose the legal use of pot," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. Two-thirds of those 18 to 34 said
marijuana should be legal, with 64% of those 34 to 49 in agreement. Half of those 50 to 64 believe marijuana should be legal, but that number
dropped to 39% for those age 65 and older. Support stood at 60% in the Northeast, 58% in the West, 57% in the Midwest, but just 48% in the
South. Sixty-two percent of Democrats and 59% of Independents, but just 36% of Republicans, backed legalizing marijuana. Fifty-nine percent
of men but just 51% of women supported making pot legal. Attitudes have dramatically changed Why
has support for legalizing
marijuana tripled since the 1970s and 1980s? "Attitudes toward the effects of marijuana and whether
it is morally wrong to smoke pot have changed dramatically over time," said Holland. "That also means that
marijuana use is just not all that important to Americans any longer." In 1972, about a year after President Richard
Nixon declared drugs "public enemy Number One," 65% said the use of marijuana was a very serious problem for the United States. Now that is
down to 19%. The
number who said marijuana is a gateway drug (47%), is down 23 points since 1972. The
number who said marijuana is addictive (50%), is down 10 points. And the number who said marijuana
is physically harmful (43%) is down 23 points. "Clearly there are some reservations about marijuana, but not the widespread
fear that existed during the original War on Drugs in the 1970s," added Holland. The biggest change indicated by the poll reflected the number
of people who said smoking pot is morally wrong. In 1987, 70% said it was, making it a sin in the minds of more Americans than abortion or
pornography. Now, that number has been halved - just 35% today said smoking marijuana is morally wrong. Widespread
agreement
that it is not morally wrong may be one of the bigger drivers of the pro-legalization movement.