T:
– The Canna Law Group™ is a five-attorney dedicated practice group of Harris Moure, focusing on cannabis corporate, compliance, intellectual property, litigation, and consumer product issues
“Marijuana Decriminalization Versus Legalization: A Difference That Matters”
[http://www.cannalawblog.com/marijuana-decriminalization-versus-legalization-cause-itmatters/] July 1 //
Many people use decriminalization and legalization synonymously and interchangeably, and that’s not correct.
¶
Decriminalization essentially means that a given activity no longer qualifies as criminal conduct and can only be treated as a civil infraction , but that activity is unregulated . Legalization ultimately means the ability to lawfully regulate a given activity, as well as the fact that that activity is no longer considered criminal conduct.
3. Predictability – we need to be able to predict what they will do

Erwin
, Jolene
, Allen
Sam
March 19,
20
"Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411707 Erwin Chemerinsky is a professor at the University of California and Irvine School of Law. Jolene Forman works for the American
Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Allen Hopper works for the ACLU of Northern
California. Sam Kamin is a professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Importantly, modifying the CSA to allow cooperative agreements between the states and the federal government would allow the federal government to guide state policy without commandeering the state legislatures, while giving states freedom to develop the best
approach for regulating marijuana. Furthermore, variations among the state laws and regulations would allow for experimentation short of full legalization. While some states would maintain their current marijuana prohibitions, others would likely test out different regulatory schemes permitting more or less marijuana activity. The relative successes and failures of the various marijuana legalization models would help inform other states – and possibly, eventually the federal government – about the best practices for legalizing marijuana
for adults while maintaining public safety. Moreover, this model mitigates the impact of
marijuana legalization on states choosing to maintain the status quo.
NeoLib K
Neoliberalism disproportionately oppresses the margins of society - rendering entire populations disposable
Giroux 12 -
Global TV Network chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University (Henry, The Disappearance of Public
Intellectuals, OCTOBER 08, 2012, http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/08/the-disappearance-of-public-intellectuals/)
With
the advent of
Neoliberalism, we have
witnessed the production and widespread adoption within many countries of what I want to call the politics of economic Darwinsim.
As a theater of cruelty and
mode of public pedagogy
, economic Darwinism removes economics and markets from
the discourse of social obligations and social costs
.
The results are
all around us ranging from ecological devastation and
widespread economic impoverishment to
the increasing incarceration of
large segments of the population marginalized by race and class
.
Economics
now drives politics
, transforming citizens into consumers and compassion into
an object of scorn
. The language of rabid individualism and harsh competition
now replaces
the notion of the public and
all forms of solidarity
not aligned with market values. As public considerations
and issues collapse into the morally vacant pit of private
visions and narrow selfinterests
, the bridges between private and public life are dismantled making it almost impossible to determine how private troubles are connected to broader public issues. Long term investments are now replaced by short term profits while compassion and concern for others are viewed as a weakness
. As public visions fall into disrepair, the concept of the public good is eradicated
in favor of Democratic public values are scorned because they subordinate market considerations to the common good.
Morality
in this instance simply dissolves
, as humans are stripped of any obligations to each other. How else to explain Mitt Romney’s gaffe caught on video in which he derided “47 percent of the people
[who] will vote for the president no matter what”?[i] There was more at work here than what some have called a cynical political admission by Romney that some voting blocs do not matter.[ii] Romney’s dismissive comments about those 47 percent of adult

Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes for one reason or another, whom he described as “people who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it,”[iii] makes clear that the logic disposability is now a central feature of American politics. As
the language of privatization, deregulation
, and commodification replaces the
discourse of the public good
, all things public, including public schools
, libraries
, transportation
systems, crucial infrastructures
, and public services, are viewed
either as a drain on the market
or as a pathology.[iv] The corrupting influence of money and concentrated power not only supports the mad violence of the defense industry, but turns politics itself into mode of sovereignty in which sovereignty now becomes identical with policies that benefit the rich, corporations, and the defense industry.”[v] Thomas Frank is on target when he argues that “Over the course of the past few decades, the power of concentrated money has subverted professions, destroyed small investors, wrecked the regulatory state, corrupted legislators en masse and repeatedly put the economy through he wringer. Now it has come for our democracy itself.”[vi] Individual prosperity becomes the greatest of social achievements because it allegedly drives innovation and creates jobs. At the same time, massive disparities in income and wealth are celebrated as a justification for a survival of the fittest ethic and homage to
a ruthless mode of unbridled individualism
.
Vulnerable populations
once protected by the
social state are
now considered a liability
because they are viewed as either flawed consumers or present a threat to a right-wing Christian view of America as a white, protestant public sphere.
The elderly
, young people, the unemployed, immigrants
, and poor whites and minorities of
color now constitute
a form of human waste and are considered disposable
, unworthy of
sharing in the rights
, benefits, and protections of a substantive democracy. Clearly, this new
politics of disposability
and culture of cruelty represents more than an economic crisis
, it
is also speaks to a deeply rooted crisis of education, agency, and social responsibility.
Legalizing weed is a tactic of the state to carve out a new neoliberal market - this marginalizes racialized and impoverished groups. This Turns Case
Calhoun 2014 -
SUNY Buffalo, published in The Center for a Stateless Society, an anarchist think-tank and media center w/ over 1600 citations of their articles in mainstream news (Ryan, Weed Legalization As Privatization, Disempowerment, January 12th,
2014, http://c4ss.org/content/23632)
The beginning of this year saw the first fully-fledged legal weed
markets open in America in nearly a century. Lines formed, similar those for a midnight movie premiere. Giddy stoners stood in shops in amazement at the ease, variety and quality of the shopping experience. Of course, this is not the introduction of a free market in marijuana. Rather, it is the state-controlled dream of
political progressives who have been pushing for a government overhaul of the weed market for quite some time. At the root of this movement is an ethos of paternalism and extortion
.
Weed must only be legal
under the condition that the government can act as “partner” and that it be put in the hands of
“responsible” retailers.
And thus,
Big Marijuana is born. Marijuana’s legalization seems
much more like neoliberal privatization of markets than true liberation
of them. While I do not question the decency of these first major marijuana retailers, there are legitimate concerns.
Those most victimized by the state’s rabid oppression of marijuana markets will find themselves
very often out of luck
, as extensive background checks are required by law, and any drug felony charge is enough to exclude individuals from operating as vendors. TakePart magazine notes in an article that even as weed is legalized
, those in prison for
the crime of possessing or selling marijuana will remain there
. While new businesses boom with customers, those who formerly tried to compete in this market remain locked up in cages. The drug war has affected millions during its hellish tear through Americans’ lives and culture, but
it has always been particularly racialized and classist.
This leaves many black, Hispanic and poor individuals with a permanent hex affixed to them
that these laws do not address.
Like
with the
beltway libertarian conception of privatization
, legalization picks the winners of the weed market
from those who were lucky enough to not find themselves on the wrong side of the law and who already have access to the capital to invest into this expensive business. Legalization, at its best, functions as an opposition to continued state violence against drug users and possessors. It is therefore troubling that we find even after
this so-called legalization
, many remain shackled
both by
the pre-existing landscape of the market and by
new regulations
which prohibit them from participating in it.
It is never by the political means we realize our freedom, but only a hold-back of even worse oppression.
We fight an uphill battle against the
incredible damage the state
does. And now facing the age of
Big Marijuana, we might be shocked to find the sorts of restrictions many established pot shops favor. In order to delegitimize street dealers, we have to treat them as inherently dangerous and volatile. This is the current direction of
the marijuana

movement in this country. It is towards centralization and exclusion, as are all white markets to some extent or another. This can be changed. It can be changed by fully humanizing and recognizing as innocent anyone and everyone accused of a drug crime. It can be changed by recognizing all individuals as legitimate self-owners, whose purchases and consumption are not the business of bureaucrats, cops, jailers or regulatory agencies.
We must confront myths about
the dangers of drugs
and how they need to be controlled by those the state deems responsible
.
Legalization of marijuana is just another concession by the neoliberal state to appease the masses from rebellion - we need to destroy the entire system to resolve the structural issues.
Wilson No Date -
Peter Wilson is an American post-anarchist author who goes by pseudonym Hakim Bey, dropped out of
Columbia (Peter, AGAINST “LEGALIZATION”, http://hermetic.com/bey/legalization.html)
Once processed as commodity, all rebellion is reduced to the image of rebellion, first as spectacle, and last as simulation
. (See Debord, Baudrillard, etc.) The more powerful the dissent as art (or “discourse”) the more powerless it becomes as commodity.
In a world of Global Capital,
where all media function collectively as the perfect mirror of Capital, we can recognize a global Image
or universal imaginaire, universally mediated, lacking any outside or margin.
All Image has undergone Enclosure, and as a result it seems that all art is rendered powerless in the sphere of the social. In fact, we can no longer even assume the existence of any “sphere of the social.
All human relations
can be—and are
—expressed as commodity relations.
In this situation, it would seem “ reform” has also become an impossibility
, since all partial ameliorizations of society will be transformed
(by the same paradox that determines the global Image) into means of sustaining and enhancing the power of the commodity
. For example, “ reform” and “democracy” have now become code-words for the forcible imposition of commodity relations on the former Second and Third Worlds
. “
Freedom” means freedom of corporations, not of human societies.
From this point of view,
I have grave reservations about the reform program of the anti-Drug-Warriors and legalizationists.
I would even go so far as to say that
I am “against legalization.”
Needless to add that I consider the Drug War an abomination, and that I would demand immediate unconditional amnesty for all “prisoners of consciousness”—assuming that I had any power to make demands! But in a world where all reform can be instantaneously turned into new means of control
, according to the “paradox” sketched in the above paragraphs
, it makes no sense to go on demanding legalization simply because it seems rational and humane.
For example, consider what might result from the legalization of
“medical marijuana
”—clearly the will of the people in at least six states.
The herb would instantly fall under drastic new regulations from “Above”
(the AMA, the courts, insurance companies, etc.).
Monsanto would
probably acquire the DNA patents and “intellectual ownership
” of the plant’s genetic structure.
Laws would probably be tightened against illegal marijuana for
“recreational uses
.”
Smokers would be defined (by law) as “sick.” As a commodity, Cannabis would soon be denatured like other legal psychotropics such as coffee, tobacco, or chocolate.
Terence McKenna once pointed out that virtually all useful research on psychotropics is carried out illegally and is often largely funded from underground.
Legalization would make possible a much tighter control from above over all drug research.
The valuable contributions of the entheogenic underground would probably diminish or cease altogether.
Terence suggested that we stop wasting time and energy petitioning the authorities for permission to do what we’re doing, and simply get on with it. Yes, the Drug War is evil and irrational. Let us not forget, however, that as an economic activity, the War makes quite good sense. I’m not even going to mention the booming “corrections industry,” the bloated police and intelligence budgets, or the interests of the pharmaceutical cartels. Economists estimate that some ten percent of circulating capital in the world is “gray money” derived from illegal activity (largely drug and weapon sales). This gray area is actually a kind of free-floating frontier for
Global Capital itself, a small wave that precedes the big wave and provides its “sense of direction.” (For example gray money or
“offshore” capital is always the first to migrate from depressed markets to thriving markets.) “War is the health of the State” as
Randolph Bourne once said—but war is no longer so profitable as in the old days of booty, tribute and chattel slavery. Economic war increasingly takes its place, and the Drug War is an almost “pure” form of economic war. And since the Neo-liberal State has given up so much power to corporations and “markets” since 1989, it might justly be said that the War on Drugs constitutes the “health” of Capital itself. From this perspective, reform and legalization would clearly be doomed to failure for deep “infrastructural” reasons
, and therefore all agitation for reform would constitute wasted effort—a tragedy of misdirected idealism
.
Global Capital cannot be “reformed” because all reformation is deformed when the form itself is distorted in its very essence.
Agitation for reform is allowed so that an image of free speech and permitted dissidence can be

maintained, but reform itself is never permitted.
Anarchists and Marxists were right to maintain that the structure itself must be changed, not merely its secondary characteristics. Unfortunately the “movement of the social” itself seems to have failed
, and even its deep underlying structures must now be “re-invented” almost from scratch
. The War on Drugs is going to go on. Perhaps we should consider how to act as warriors rather than reformers. Nietzsche says somewhere that he has no interest in overthrowing the stupidity of the law, since such reform would leave nothing for the “free spirit” to accomplish—nothing to “overcome.” I wouldn’t go so far as to recommend such an “immoral” and starkly existentialist position. But I do think we could do with a dose of stoicism.
Two impacts:
1.
Extinction and
2.
Increased Racism leading to dehumanization
Inundated by apocalyptic threats of casino capitalism, the public becomes desensitized to violence and suffering. This legitimizes all intervention and consumption, culminating in extinction.
Giroux 14 -
Global TV Network chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University (Henry, Protesting Youth in an Age of
Neoliberal Savagery, MAY 21, 2014, http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/21/protesting-youth-in-an-age-of-neoliberal-savagery/)
Fred Jameson has argued that “that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.” He goes on to say that “
We can
now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way of imagining the end of the world
” (Jameson 2003). One way of understanding Jameson’s comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized, there are new waves of resistance, especially
among young people
, who are insisting that casino capitalism is driven by
a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage
, and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience
, in all probability, is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. Certainly, more recent scientific reports
on the threat of ecological disaster from
researchers at the University of Washington
,
NASA
, and the I ntergovernmental
P anel on
C limate
C hange reinforce this dystopian possibility
. [1] As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism
is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital (Giroux 2008; 2014). As a political project, it includes “the deregulation of finance, privatization of public services, elimination and curtailment of social welfare programs, open attacks on unions, and routine violations of labor laws” (Yates 2013). As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market
rationality
, construes profit-making as
the arbiter and essence of democracy
, consuming
as the only operable form of citizenship
, and upholds the irrational belief that the market
can both solve all problems
and serve as a model for structuring all social relations. As a mode of governance, it produces identities, subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of ruling groups and institutions to exercise power removed from matters of ethics and social costs. As a policy and political project, it is wedded to the privatization of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state and unions, and the endless marketization and commodification of society. Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers
, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one’s individual needs and self-interests. Matters of mutual caring, respect, and compassion
for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization and unrestrained self-interest
, just as it has become increasingly difficult to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations.
As the
democratic
public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught of neoliberal
regimes of austerity
, the social contract has been either greatly weakened or replaced by savage
forms of casino capitalism
, a culture of fear
, and
the increasing use of state violence
. One consequence is that it has become more difficult
for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and
the widespread misery it produces for young people
, the poor, middle class, workers, and other segments of society who “disposable” and thus now subject to warfare – perhaps even nuclear – and resulting extinction — now considered disposable
under neoliberal regimes which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed

by the ruling economic and political elite. That t hey are unable to make their voices heard and lack any
viable representation in the process
makes clear the degree to which young people
and others are suffering
under a democratic deficit
, producing what Chantal Mouffe calls “a profound dissatisfaction with a number of existing societies” under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This is one reason why so many youth
, along with workers, the unemployed, and students, have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico, Egypt, the United States, and England.
The Rise of Disposable Youth What is particularly distinctive about the current historical conjuncture is the way in which young people, particularly low-income and poor minority youth across the globe, have been increasingly denied any place in an already weakened social order and the degree to which they are no longer seen as central to how a number of countries across the globe define their future. The plight of youth as disposable populations is evident in the fact that millions of them in countries such as
England, Greece, and the United States have been unemployed and denied long term benefits. The unemployment rate for young people in many countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50 per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States, young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food stamps.
Suffering under
huge debts
, a jobs crisis
, state violence
, a
growing surveillance state
, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a rage that seems to deepen their resignation
, despair, and withdrawal from the political arena. This is the first generation, as sociologist
Zygmunt Bauman argues, in which the “plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation.” (Bauman 2012a; 2012b;
2012c) He rightly insists that today’s youth have been “cast in a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory or permanent” (Bauman 2004:76).
Youth
no longer occupy the hope of a privileged place that was offered to previous generations. They now inhabit a neoliberal
notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith
in progress along with
the emergence of apocalyptic narratives
in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak, and insecure.
Heightened expectations and progressive visions
pale and are smashed next to
the normalization of marketdriven
government policies
that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military. Students, in particular, found themselves in a world in which unrealized aspirations have been replaced by dashed hopes
and a world of onerous debt (Fraser 2013; On the history of debt, see Graeber 2012).
Impact: Colonialism
Professor of Literature at Rutgers University (Nelson, ON THE COLONIALITY OF BEING, Cultural
Studies, 21:2, 240 - 270 http://www.decolonialtranslation.com/english/maldonado-on-the-coloniality-of-being.pdf)
Coloniality
, I am suggesting here, can be understood as a radicalization and naturalization of the non-ethics of war. This non-ethics included the practices of eliminating and slaving certain subjects - e.g., indigenous and black - as part of the enterprise of colonization. The hyperbolic expression of coloniality includes genocide, which is the paroxysm of the ego cogito - a world in which the ego cogito exists alone
. War, however, is not only about killing or enslaving.
War includes a particular treatment of sexuality and of feminity: rape. Coloniality is an order of things that put people of color under the murderous and rapist sight of a vigilant ego. And the primary targets of rape are women. But men of color are also seeing through these lenses. Men of color are feminized and become for the ego conquiro fundamentally penetrable subjects
.34 I will expand more on the several dimensions of murder and rape when I elaborate the existential aspect of the analytics of the coloniality of Being. The point that I want to make here is that racialization works through gender and sex and that the ego conquiro is constitutively a phallic ego
Paul, “21 Drugs –Legalization, Marijuana, and Cartels.” Yale Globalist, 2014, http://tyglobalist.org/onlinecontent/blogs/21-drugs-legalization-marijuana-and-cartels/

An article from The Washington Post about “How marijuana legalization will affect Mexico’s
cartels, in charts” is also a useful resource on the subject, especially if one is seeking evidence downplaying the effect on cartels. The article cites a Stanford expert’s pie chart that shows marijuana representing 17% of cartel revenues. The chart makes it evident that cartels don’t live on pot alone, so cocaine, methamphetamines, and non-drug activities (e.g. human smuggling and kidnapping) could help them weather legalization. What’s more, Colorado and Washington
hardly put a dent in marijuana cash flow compared to “bigger” places like Texas. Ultimately, the wait-and-see approach appears to be the order of the day with reference to the consequences of legalizing pot in the U.S. and abroad, and with reference to the changing dynamics of the War on Drugs. At the moment, things generally seem to be on the up-and-up.
Mexican President Peña Nieto is triumphantly tweeting about the capture of El Chapo and
resulting possibilities for smaller-scale cartels, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is getting psyched about extra dough rolling in from pot taxes, and I’m contenting myself with my unquestionably legal, questionably advisable escapades in New Haven’s bar scene. Even so, I, along with many policy-makers, will be interested to see what we’re saying on the subject of drug reform in the near and distant future.
David “Legalizing Pot Makes Mexican Cartels Even More Dangerous” January 7, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/01/07/Legalizing-Pot-Makes-Mexican-Cartels-
Even-More-Dangerous
Legalizing Pot Makes Mexican Cartels Even More Dangerous.
The growing movement to legalize marijuana is radically altering the way Mexican drug cartels do business, forcing them to seek
other revenue streams through increased illegal activity. Right now, only Washington State and Colorado have decriminalized pot.
Taken together, they account for just a small portion of the American marijuana market. But that’s just the start of a trend that’s growing like a weed. Peter Reuter, a professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy and Department of
Criminology, said he expects the decriminalization movement to grow rapidly in the coming years. “I’ve always been quite skeptical that anything would come of these movements” to decriminalize pot, he said. “I think now that in five years half the country will be living in states that have decriminalized marijuana.”
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. Related: Why Legalizing Marijuana Is a Smart Fiscal Move 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
would diversify
their sources of revenue beyond marijuana, cocaine and heroin
.
They are already 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.”
Addressing The Border Crisis,” http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-immigration-
20140706-story.html, July 6, 2014
Tens of thousands of Central American children, some accompanied by adults but most traveling alone, have surged across the U.S.-
Mexican border in recent months. The flood has swamped the border security infrastructure as well as the youth housing facilities maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services. Under federal law, HHS must take charge of unaccompanied and undocumented minors 72 hours after they are detained by immigration agents. Now the Obama administration is asking Congress — which can't agree on what day it is, let alone enact a law — to spend an additional $2 billion to improve the government's ability to handle the growing problem. The president also wants Congress to change the 2008 federal law that automatically routes minors to immigration court; instead, he wants to let border agents quickly deport those children who can't make a prima facie case for why they should be let in, a move designed to both lessen the burden on the system and serve as a deterrent to those still hoping to enter. This humanitarian crisis, which is how President Obama has described it, is both divisive and frustrating, and finding long-term solutions will require a broad and nuanced understanding of the problem. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has argued, this is a regional crisis that demands regional solutions — not just more guards at the border or more lawyers in the immigration courts. The United States should be involved in those solutions because it is more than just a wealthy country that attracts illegal immigrants; it bears some responsibility of its own for the violence and instability in Central America. According to a recent report by the independent, nonprofit International Crisis Group, rivalries between drug traffickers and an absence of governmental control along the Guatemala-Honduras border have made the area among the most violent in the world. Where are the drugs heading? Primarily to the U.S., where most of the demand for marijuana and cocaine comes from. Similarly, the most powerful street gangs in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are transnational and have their roots in U.S. cities, including Los
Angeles. And while drugs are being smuggled north, guns are being smuggled south. More than a quarter-million guns are slipped across the U.S.-Mexico border each year, according to a 2013 study by the University of San Diego's Trans-Border Institute. Why does this matter? Because those who have spent time interviewing the unaccompanied minors showing up at the U.S. border report that the vast majority of them say they are fleeing violence and instability in their home countries
— primarily Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
The children have described the conscriptions of boys by gangs, and retaliation against the families of those who refuse,
including, in some cases, rape. Ironically, U.S. deportations of foreign-born criminals help feed the gangs that are prompting the flow of minors north. It's important to distinguish between why someone flees a city and his or her decision on where to go. Once fear of gangs and violence seals the decision to run, the vast majority are choosing the U.S. as a destination, often hoping to reunite with family members who are already there. Many also are lured by misinformation spread by coyotes and traffickers suggesting that children, and mothers with children, can get permisos — permits — to stay. Some misinterpret the June 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which offers temporary status to some children who arrived before 2007, thinking that they too will be allowed to stay. But in fact, new arrivals are not eligible for the program. And insufficient space in detention centers and youth housing facilities has led immigration authorities to release some young detainees into the custody of relatives or other sponsors, with an appearance ticket for a later court hearing. Thus the rumors of permisos spread.
Significantly, it's not just children fleeing the instability
. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reported last week that there has been a sevenfold increase since 2009 in undocumented migrants of all ages seeking entry because they face a "credible fear" of being the victim of violence
if returned to their home countries, most of them from Mexico and Central America
. So violence as a catalyst for migration has been a long-unfolding problem. The Obama administration is right to seek humane ways of dealing with the influx, including adding immigration judges, lawyers and others crucial to a speedier deportation process. Sending people back more quickly would also help blunt the rumors of permisos for children. But in addition, the government needs to consider the connections between
the American drug users who create the demand that feeds the violent drug cartels, the multinational street gangs and the free flow of illicit weapons across the border.
What can be done? Reducing drug demand and the southward flow of guns would help, as would an increase in U.S. assistance designed to

stimulate economic development in Central America, and thus job prospects. The U.S. could expand its work with gang-intervention programs in the Central American barrios. Homeland Security recently moved 60 additional investigators to its anti-smuggling efforts along the Texas border, efforts that should continue and, if needed, increase to break up the human trafficking networks. Everard
Meade,
director of the Trans-Border Institute, suggests treating the violence surrounding the drug traffickers and street gangs "like the regional armed conflict that it actually is" rather than as a
U.S. immigration problem.
Washington can, and should, try to stop illegal immigration at the border, but it would be wiser, and more humane, to find ways to stabilize the communities from which immigrants are running. Any solutions must come with the full involvement and engagement of the governments of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico, a challenge given the endemic corruption in those governments. But the U.S. is in the best position to bring the players together and forge the strategic, regional approach to ending this humanitarian crisis.
Ronald, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via
InformaWorld)
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism
, would precipitate
a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons
between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and
American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible
(or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors
. Ruling out
Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled
out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst?
Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the
United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the
United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?
Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack
on its own soil might
also raise the possibility of
an unwanted (and nuclear
aided) confrontation with Russia and/or

China
. For example, in the
noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath
of the terrorist nuclear attack, the
U.S. president might
be expected to place the country’s
armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert
.
In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against
the friction of reality, it is
just possible that Moscow and
/or
China might
mistakenly read this as a sign of
U.S. intentions to use force
(and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt
such actions might grow
, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier)
Washington would decide to order
a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory
or disarming attack against
the leadership of the terrorist group
and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets,
Russia and/ or
China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty
. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in
Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and
China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security
Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory?
If
, for some reason,
Washington found the responses of Russia and China
deeply underwhelming
, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing
(again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange
.
If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them
, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability
? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold.
It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor
, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so.
If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the U nited
S tates from such action
: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation
. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure?
If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur?
In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind?
The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do”
immediately springs to mind
.
Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear
restraint

(Martin D., PhD, Associate Professor of Political Science @ San Francisco State
University "Obama, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Drug War."Akron L. Rev. 44 (2011):
303., TF)
Beyond its economic, social, and other constitutional difficulties, I have argued, marijuana prohibition is subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment . I have supported this primarily by showing that (1) bodily autonomy, which is directly burdened by marijuana prohibition, is plausibly a fundamental right, and (2) the Court’s leading relevant case law has established a presumption in its favor. I have endeavored to reinforce my thesis , further, by arguing that (1) marijuana prohibition violates “justice as regularity, ”157 (2) its racist origins satisfy the suspect classification trigger of strict scrutiny, and (3) given the analogy between free speech and bodily autonomy, the strong presumption in favor of free speech should apply to bodily autonomy .
¶
As noted, the application of strict scrutiny to marijuana prohibition is the subject of another article, and indeed, complex litigation. Yet I submit that Obama would have grave doubts that this prohibition could pass an honest application of that rule. As a stark matter of precedent, an adult woman has a limited right to expel a fetus from her body158 and an adult man has a right in his home to have another man’s penis inside his body.159 Both, moreover, have the right to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, even in public, contributing to serious social problems like drunken driving, second hand smoke, and burdens on the health care system. In this light alone, the President would find it hard to identify a principled basis in equality or liberty for denying those adults the right to consume marijuana in their homes.
¶
Beyond constitutional law, finally, three key ideas in Rawls— legitimate expectations, public reason, and overlapping consensus— provide the President an even broader foundation for challenging Congress to end this war. I conclude with them.
¶
As for the first, Rawls writes that it is not the satisfaction of moral desert, but rather legitimate expectations, that characterize a just distributive scheme under a sound contract theory.160 From his viewpoint as a citizen, then, while knowing he cannot expect perfection from human institutions like government, the average person can legitimately expect that the law will not be so irrational and inconsistent as to criminalize the exercise of one liberty while other liberties, far more harmful, are merely regulated for reasons widely understood.161 From their viewpoints as citizens (and not merely economic agents), those who profit from or are employed by the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical, and prison industries have no legitimate expectation that private adult marijuana use will forever remain a crime simply so that their profits and employment will be maintained. The social contract of a reasonably just society, one worth passing onto their grandchildren, would never include such a provision.
¶
As for public reason, we have seen that Obama can give powerful justifications for ending marijuana prohibition, justifications which those in a constitutional democracy can accept in their capacity as citizens.162 We have seen, that is, that the President has support not only in policy terms of cost/benefit analysis but also on constitutional grounds.
To be sure, authoritarian conservatives like William Bennett, 163 George Will,164
Lou Dobbs165 and John Walters166 may never change their minds, having declared the war on marijuana one in which we can never surrender. Yet some are incapable of public reason. As Freeman writes, “there is no presumption that Social Darwinists, fundamentalists, neo- Nazis, or Southern slaveholders would be amenable to public reason, nor should any effort be made to accommodate their views.”167 Moreover, these drug warriors do not speak for all conservatives. Beyond such persistent voices as those of William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman, for example, the heroic dissents of Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas in Gonzales v. Raich show that some conservatives’ principled commitment to federalism overcomes any misgivings they have about liberal social policy.168
¶
Yet let us even assume that all social conservatives are strongly inclined toward marijuana prohibition. Unanimity is not needed for reform, and whatever their differences, the hard left, moderate left, and moderate right all value individual liberty, particularly autonomy in the privacy of the home . In Rawlsian terms, there is substantial overlapping consensus here, building by the day.169 It will be even stronger if any of the states with current plans for Proposition 19-like initiatives in 2012 enact them into law, and if the President can use his political skills and capital in his second term to convince those conservatives who respect cost/benefit analysis and constitutional principle. As the President knows, some of them do.
¶
By 2013, I conclude, support for ending

federal marijuana prohibition will have reached a tipping point . Since Congress will not lead on this issue, it will have to follow
Mark A.R. Kleiman 10/3/12
(Professor of Public Policy, UCLA; “LEGAL MARIJUANA? NEW DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
INITIATIVES CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO,” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2012/10/03%20legal%20marijuana/20121003_lega l_marijuana.pdf)
In some ways, it would constitute a massive change in drug policy.
A good share of the 30 million Americans who break the law every year by using cannabis use no other illicit drug and commit no predatory crime. That’s a large number of people to be moving back on to the right side of the law. And the 800,000 arrests a year for simple possession of marijuana outnumber all other drug law arrests combined.
For some of these people -- we actually don’t know how many -- that possession arrest is their first arrest, their first experience of handcuffs and a jail cell. The cannabis market at approximately $15 billion a year isn’t as large as the cocaine market, but it’s larger than the heroin market or the methamphetamine market. That’s a lot of money to be able to take away from criminals simply by moving something from the illegal to the legal side of the ledger.
In other ways legalization of marijuana would be a smaller change than legalization of other drugs. Cannabis plays a small role in predatory crime by users, a small role in violence against and among dealers, and a small role in drug-related incarceration. If marijuana had always been legal, 90 percent of the people behind American bars for drug law violations would still be there because they’re being punished for some other drug.
(University of Wisconsin- Madison News, Study by Randy Fortenberry, “Hemp wont replace other crops: study,” October 9, 2001. http://www.news.wisc.edu/6644, LG)
Even if industrial hemp production became legal, few U.S. farmers would find the crop profitable, according to a university study.
¶
The Puritans brought hemp to New England in 1645 to grow for fiber. George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp. However, American farmers have not grown industrial hemp for more than 50 years because of its ties to marijuana.
¶
"If the crop were legal, the methods used to harvest and process industrial hemp along with limited markets would keep U.S. farmers from growing the crop on any significant scale, at least in the near future," says Randy Fortenbery.
¶
Fortenbery, the study's lead author and a expert on agricultural markets and international trade, presented his findings Oct. 3 to the Wisconsin Assembly's
Agriculture Committee.
¶ Hemp was domesticated in China more than 4,000 years ago. China is the largest producer of industrial hemp, which is also grown in North Korea and Europe. Canada recently approved the crop on a limited scale.
¶ The Wisconsin study is less than encouraging to advocates of industrial hemp who cite the many products that can be made from the crop. Fibers from plant stems are used in textiles, pulp and paper, while oil from the seeds is used in foods and lotions.
¶ Low grain prices have farmers looking for alternative crops, and industrial hemp has generated a great deal of interest. The crop grows under a wide variety of soil and climatic conditions, and requires few pesticides. When grown as part of a crop rotation, industrial hemp can break up pest cycles and help growers reduce the pesticides they apply to traditional crops.
¶
In the most comprehensive overview to date, Fortenbery and his research colleague Michael Bennett, both with the College of
Agricultural and Life Sciences, reviewed more than 75 studies, articles and reports about

industrial hemp.
¶
"We tried to bring together all the knowledge that has been accumulated over the last 100 years," Fortenbery says. The study also identified areas where research is needed if American farmers are to grow the crop profitably.
¶
"If growing industrial hemp became legal overnight, it would be a useful crop for a few growers. However, it is not likely to improve farm revenue for at least four or five years,
" Fortenbery says.
"Studies indicate that it would be slightly more profitable than traditional row crops but less profitable than specialty crops such as tobacco, fruits and vegetables."
[Renee, Specialist in Ag Policy, CRS, Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity, July 24, 2013,, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf]
Other studies focused on the total U.S. market differ from the various state reports and provide a ¶ less favorable aggregate view of the potential market for hemp growers in the United
States. Two ¶ studies
, conducted by researchers at USDA and University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-M), ¶ highlight some of the continued challenges facing U.S. hemp producers
. ¶ For example,
USDA’s study projected that U.S. hemp markets “are
, and will l ikely remain, small, ¶ thin markets” and also cited “uncertainty about long-run demand
for hemp products and the ¶ potential for oversupply
” among possible downsides of potential future hemp production.32
¶
Similarly, the
UW-M study concluded that hemp production “is not likely to generate sizeable ¶ profits” and although hemp may be “slightly more profitable than traditional row crops” it is ¶ likely “less profitable than other specialty crops” due to the “current state of harvesting and ¶ processing technologies, which are quite labor intensive, and result in relatively high per unit ¶ costs.”
33 The study highlights that
U.S. hemp growers could be affected by competition from ¶ other world producers as well as by certain production limitations in the U nited
S tates, i ncluding ¶ yield variability and lack of harvesting innovations and processing facilities in the United States, ¶ as well as difficulty transporting bulk hemp.
The study further claims that most estimates of ¶ profitability
from hemp production are highly speculative
, and often do not include additional ¶ costs of growing hemp in a regulated market, such as the cost associated with “licensing, ¶ monitoring, and verification of commercial hemp.”
34
[72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 882 (1997), BORDERS (EN)GENDERED:
NORMATIVITIES, LATINAS, AND A LATCRIT PARADIGM]
Latinas/os do a lot of world traveling, with Latinas additionally journeying through the mundos of gender inequality.4 We travel be- tween our various and varied multiple worlds, psychic and physicalfrom casa y familia to calle y trabajo; from espafiol to ingles to espanglish; from tta to lawyer; from hija to profesora; from normadva to outsider. We weave our way, as we weave our hair, in and out of passages that we inhabit, being a little alien everywhere.5 As a Latina law professor,6 I am used to traversing mundos, yet rarely do they so visually, physically, intellectually, and emotionally converge/collide as they did at a recent meeting of Latina/o lawyers, students, and law professors that took place in Miami, Florida-iome to much of my familia, including mami y papi. My multidimensional identity, the complicated pathway

between/among my mundos-pathways that constantly intersect, flow, and clash-is the channel for this Essay. Such world traveling is not unique to me. Rather, it is a common daily experience for all Latinas/os in the United States by virtue of our status as Latinas/os. We are the interdependent intersections of our race, gender, color, ethnicity, nationality, ancestry,
culture, and language. Our multilingualism is defined not by the languages we literally speak
(in fact, many of us speak only Spanish or only English) but instead by virtue of the worlds we inhabit, the journeys we take. This multidimensionality of Latinas/os is in tension with the dominant legal paradigms that take a single-attribute, analytical approach to identity. The dominant model, for example, presupposes a monolithic racial or sexual identity "that can be
described independent of other facets of experience."'7 Such essentializing of identity is inap-
propriate for Latinas/os whose multidimensionality is central to their personhood. Because
this existing methodology vivisects and atomizes the Latina/ o identity, it is necessary for
Latinas/os to deconstruct the normative paradigm/rule of law, expose its limitations in re/presenting Latinas/os, and reject it for its flawed foundation that misapprehends the
Latina/o. Latinas/os must also create nuevas teorfas (new theories) that understand, penetrate, define, and elucidate the content and meaning of our multidimensional identities and develop, expand, and transform the construct in such a way that translates, incorporates, and realizes
Latinas'/os' worldviews. The promise of a LatCrit theoretical model lies in its ability to debunk the ineffectual dominant model, as applied specifically to the Latina/o position and condition under "American" 9 law and within "American" society, and to create nuevas teor(as. This Essay, developed in a prologue and three parts, adopts Latinas'/ os' world traveling as a metaphor for
Latina/o multidimensionality and as a springboard for LatCrit theorizing. The Prologue is a brief diary entry of unfin de semana viajando mundos-a weekend of actual traveling between New
York and Miami; law and familia; profesora and learner; colleague and hija; espafiol and English; norte y sur; normativa and other; indigenous and alien. This abbreviated record of a Latina's life reveals, exposes, and unveils Latinas'/os' daily crossdressing simply by virtue of their
latinidad. This Prologue thus serves as a concrete backdrop for the analytical, political, and theoretical points addressed in the remaining parts of this Essay which explores two sets of relationships vis-A-vis their significance to and impact on the development of LatCrit theory. The first link is the external relationship of Latinas/os to NLW10 normativity; the second is the
internal relationship of Latinas to Latino normativity. Both of these relationships are central to a LatCrit paradigm, as the "othering" effects of NLW normativity on all of La- tinas/os and of
Latino normativity on Latinas must be confronted, deconstructed, and eliminated before a
nonessentialist, inclusive theoretical model can be advanced. Part I uses narrative to compare and contrast NLW and Latina/o normativities of race, ethnicity, nationhood, and language. It exposes the race, color, ethnicity, gender, nationality, culture, and language fronteras Latinas/os must cross-the "othering" we experience-while traversing the world as defined by the dominant culture. This comparing and contrasting of Latina/o and "American" normativities in Part I defines the need for a LatCrit theoretical model that does not subordinate the Latina/o experience. In Part II this Essay exposes how Latinas' assorted deviations from the normative male prototype, combined with gendered Latino norms, including the gendered nature of the
Spanish language adding to these internal boundaries and confines, multiplies their fronteras and complicates their journeys. The borderlands created for Latinas by the overlapping gender biases of the external "American" and internal Latino normativities, exacerbated by gendered cultural norms, underscore the need for the development of teortas that specifically will recognize, embrace, and espouse Latinas' identities, interests, and issues. LatCrit is a teoria that can address the concerns of Latinas in light of both our internal and external relationships
in and with the worlds that have marginalized us. Finally, in Part II this Essay proposes a LatCrit

theoretical model that uses Latina/o panethnicity, representative of race, gender, nationality, color, language, ethnicity, and cultural diversity, to stimulate and inspire the construction of a
LatCrit matrix that places multidimensionality at the center of paradigm formation by plaiting a multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic fabric into its philosophy, construction, and logic. This model is important because it will recognize the multidimensionality of Latinas/os and the particular position of Latinas' dual relationship with the internal comunidad Latina and the external "American" culture in developing a discourse which incorporates our realities and identities. This proposal suggests that LatCrit theory adopt a construct based on indivisibility, inviolability, and interdependence of rights and identities. This model rejects the identity-asatomized approach, adopting instead an approach that re/constructs, develops, expands, and transforms the existing dominant legal paradigm in an interpretation that accepts, incorporates, embraces, and enables Latina/o multidimensionality. This Essay concludes that such an aspirational LatCrit paradigm can transfigure the status of Latinas/os in the United
States from marginal actors to protagonists in legal theorizing.
[Kimberly (PhD and Professor at the University of Kansas) and Sharon (MD at Boston Children’s
Hospital), “Big Marijuana — Lessons from Big Tobacco”, The New England Journal of Medicine,
Perspectives, 6-14-14, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1406074?query=featured_home&, RSR]
In its current form, smoked marijuana is less deadly than tobacco.
Although case–control studies have found increased mortality associated with heavy marijuana use — attributable to vehicle crashes from driving while high, suicide, respiratory cancers, and brain cancers1 — the nonfatal adverse effects of marijuana use are much more prevalent.
These include respiratory damage, cardiovascular disease, impaired cognitive development, and mental illness. These harms are very real, though they pale in comparison with those of tobacco, which causes almost 500,000 U.S. deaths annually. Marijuana is also less addictive than tobacco.
About 9% of cannabis users meet the criteria for dependence (according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders) at some time in their lives, as compared with 32% of tobacco users.2 But tobacco was not always as lethal or addictive as it is today
. In the 1880s, few people used tobacco products, only 1% of tobacco was consumed in the form of manufactured cigarettes,3 and few deaths were attributed to tobacco use. By the 1950s, nearly half the population used tobacco, and 80% of tobacco use entailed cigarette smoking; several decades later, lung cancer became the top cause of cancer-related deaths.3 This transformation was achieved through tobacco-industry innovations in product development, marketing, and lobbying.
The deadliness of modern-day tobacco stems from product developments of the early 1900s
.
Milder tobacco blends and new curing processes enabled smokers to inhale more deeply, facilitated absorption by lung epithelia, and boosted delivery of nicotine to the brain. Synergistically, these changes enhanced tobacco's addictive potential and increased intake of toxins. In addition, the industry added other ingredients, including toxic substances that enhanced taste and sped absorption — without regard for safety
. When tobacco was a cottage industry, cigarettes were either “roll-your-own” or expensive hand-rolled products with limited market reach; after industrialization, machines rolled as many as 120,000 low-cost, perfectly packaged cylinders daily.
The burgeoning marijuana industry is already following the same successful business strategy by increasing potency and creating new delivery devices.
The concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana's principal psychoactive constituent, has more than doubled over the past 40 years.
4 Producers are manufacturing strains that they claim are less addictive or less harmful to mental health, but no supporting scientific evidence has been published. New vaporizer delivery systems developed by some manufacturers may reduce lung irritation from smoking but may also allow users to consume more THC (the component most closely associated with euphoria, addictive potential, and mental health side effects) by enabling them to inhale more often and more deeply. The business community recognizes these innovations' economic potential: a recent joint venture between a medical-marijuana provider and an electronic-cigarette maker sent stock

prices soaring. Marketing strategies go hand in hand with product innovation.
The market for marijuana is currently small , amounting to 7% of Americans 12 years of age or older, just as the tobacco market was small in the early 20th century
. Once machines began mass-producing cigarettes, marketing campaigns targeted women, children, and vulnerable groups by associating smoking with images of freedom, sex appeal, cartoon characters, and — in the early days — health benefits. There is reasonable evidence that marijuana reduces nausea and vomiting during cancer treatment, reverses AIDS-related wasting, and holds promise as an antispasmodic and analgesic agent.5 However, marijuana manufacturers and advocates are attributing
numerous other health benefits to marijuana use — for example, effectiveness against anxiety — with no supporting evidence
. Furthermore, the marijuana industry will have unprecedented opportunities for marketing on the Internet, where regulation is minimal and third-party tracking and direct-to-consumer marketing have become extremely lucrative
. When applied to a harmful, addictive commodity, these marketing innovations could be disastrous.
This strategy poses a particular threat to young people
.
Adolescents are more likely than adults to seek novelty and try new products
.
The developing adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable to the development of addiction
. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), children who use marijuana are up to four times as likely as adults to become chronic, heavy users — the type that would generate consistent sales for the marijuana industry.
Today, nearly one in five U.S. adults still smokes, despite extensive public health campaigns focused on reducing uptake and increasing cessation
.
The tobacco industry has provided a detailed road map for marijuana: deny addiction potential, downplay known adverse health effects, create as large a market as possible as quickly as possible, and protect that market through lobbying, campaign contributions, and other advocacy efforts
. The tobacco industry, bolstered by enormous profits, successfully lobbied to be exempted from every major piece of consumer-protection legislation even after the deadly consequences of tobacco were established. With nothing to sell or profit from, health advocates had difficulty fighting a battle that was clearly in the best interest of the public.
The marijuana industry has already formed its own advocacy organization — the National Cannabis Industry
Association — to protect and advance its corporate interests
. It took the medical and public health communities 50 years, millions of lives, and billions of dollars to identify the wake of illness and death left by legal, industrialized cigarettes.
The free-market approach to tobacco clearly failed to protect the public's welfare and the common good: in spite of recent federal regulation, tobacco use remains the leading cause of death in the United States
.
Addictive substances with known harms may merit completely new policy approaches
. For example, the government of Uruguay's marijuana program will restrict sales to government-produced strains, limit prices in order to undercut illicit markets, and closely monitor individual consumption
. The effects and side effects of this approach, however, remain to be seen. At present, we should accelerate collaboration among the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health,
SAMHSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other agencies to fully understand current harms and forecast the effects of industrialization. In theory, any revenues from sales of marijuana products should pay for all regulation and harms so that society will not have to pick up the tab for damage done by the product. However, we know from the history of tobacco that this is hard to implement in practice.
History and current evidence suggest that simply legalizing marijuana, and giving free rein to the resulting industry, is not the answer
.
To do so would be to once again entrust private industry with safeguarding the health of the public — a role that it is
not designed to handle .
,
[“Legalizing Marijuana Not Worth the Costs”, 4-20-10, http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267217#, RSR]

With the U nited S tates still struggling through the recession, state governments are exploring convenient fixes for overcoming massive debts burdening their states. After years of heavy spending, California, for example, is facing a $42 billion deficit. To address this staggering shortfall, some legislators are proposing the legalization of marijuana to boost tax revenue
. Certainly some states are in dire economic straits; however, we cannot allow social and law enforcement policy to be determined simply by revenue needs. Put plainly, marijuana was made illegal because it is harmful; citing revenue gain as reason to legalize the drug emphasizes money over health and ignores the significant cost burdens that will inevitably arise as a result
. As former head of theU.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, I am intimately familiar with the many challenges marijuana legalization poses, and from my experience, the best economic policy for dealing with marijuana is to discourage use by enforcement and education rather than legalization and taxation
.
Legalizing the drug will swell societal ills, and this outweighs the monetary benefits that might be achieved from its lawful sale
. This is not the first time legalization has come to the fore.
In the 1970s, Alaska legalized the drug—only to recriminalize it in 1990 after Alaskan teen marijuana use jumped to twice the national average
. This is clear evidence that if legalized, marijuana use will increase (even among children).
There are significant cost burdens that come along with increased marijuana use
. For example, there will be a greater social cost from decline in worker productivity and school performance
.
Legalization will also lead to a greater need for drug education, rehabilitation and treatment. And there will be costs associated with selling the drug
. Do we really want our governments to sell substances known to betoxic to the body, and which has no medical value that is recognized by the medical community, for the sake of sheer profit? If this were a corporation proposing such a thing, it would be taken to court. Consider these findings from a white paper by the California Police Chiefs Association’s Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries: California legalized “medical” marijuana in 1996, and dispensaries where the drug is handed out – to pretty much whoever comes in with a doctor’s note – have become catalysts for serious crime. According to the white paper, dispensary operators have been attacked, robbed and murdered
. Also, “drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy vehicle and foot traffic in retail areas, increased noise and robberies of customers just outside dispensaries” are all criminal byproducts resulting from California’s medical marijuana distribution
. We can expect similar problems—but on a far grander scale—from full legalization. Given these cost burdens—not to mention health and societal burdens—we should continue to focus efforts to discourage drug use. We can do this in a variety of ways. On alcohol and cigarettes, we require warnings and education. With methamphetamine, cocaine and other harmful drugs, we prohibit and criminalize their sale and use.
While marijuana may not be as harmful and addictive as methamphetamine, it is harmful nonetheless, and the best economic policy is to make its sale and use illegal .
The additional costs of drug education and rehabilitation combined with the increased social costs associated with increased marijuana use and sale are all greater than the potential revenue gained through legalization. Even with the U.S. economy struggling, we should not buy into the argument that vices should be legalized, taxed and regulated—no matter how much revenue we think it may generate. Some things just aren’t worth the costs.

The role of normativity is of particular importance in leading to such anomalous legal analysis.
Any consideration of equality in these terms incorporates
the
"equal to what?"
question. The point of departure -
- the "what" -- is entrenched in traditional legal thought -- purportedly objective, rational, and neutral. This "what" is then constructed
(embellished) around the aspirational, normal
(but really mythical)
"reasonable man" -- the accepted normative model.
This "reasonable man" was made in the image of the heroic
"founding fathers," and resulted in a skewed model.
This archetype of normalcy is
gendered ( male
), racialized ( white
), ethnicized (
Western European/Anglo
), classed ( formally educated and propertied
), sexualized
( heterosexual
), religious-based (
Judeo-Christian
), and ability-defined (physically and mentally). Each of the indicia of normativity becomes part of a rite of passage and each individual's divergent traits represents a deviation from the norm, a degree of separation from the aspirational paragon, a mark of a deficiency or defect. Such deviation from the norm is both a symptom of inequality and its justification. This static model is anathema to a heterogeneous, democratic, and ever-changing society.
Thus it is not surprising that the unprincipled normative intransigence of this model and its concomitant social/cultural/political inertia (of rest
, not motion) has been subjected to serious challenge. LatCrit
, it is my hope and vision, will be a forceful, multi-dimensional challenge to the hegemonic conservatism
(backlash) that normativity has imposed on the law. LatCrit will allow for attainable aspirations
, not false norms, for equality in our heterogeneous society. Two
recent equality conundrums
in the context of which LatCrit can have immense impact are the recent erosion of affirmative action programs and the new anti-immigration laws.
Nowhere in our jurisprudence does the issue of equality create more polarity than in the area of "affirmative action." Narrowly defined, affirmative action
consists of race-, ethnicity-, and even sex-based "preferences." The concept, coined in the height of the [*219] civil rights era, was intended to make equality a reality for those who for essentially the entire history of this country had been excluded and marginalized from enjoying the fruits of social, technical, employment, and educational progress.
The Civil Rights Acts, barring discrimination in employment, education, housing, and even immigration on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, and religion, were the vehicles that would make the dream of equality come true.
n44 Recently, with the affirmative action debate, this dream has become a nightmare.
n45 Ironically, although affirmative action takes many forms, the only models under attack are those models that grant
"preferences"
(read: unfair advantages) to all persons of color and majority women. Sometimes the opposition to these programs take the paternalistic view that the programs "stigmatize" those they seek to protect. The Hopwood
n46 decision
, with its extensive references to Adarand, n47 City of Richmond, n48 and
Metro Broadcasting n49 -- all decisions taking away those "unfair preferences" from undeserving and less qualified (by normative standards, mind you) minorities n50 -- is replete with allusions to how demeaning such preferences are to
[*220] those who are consequently stigmatized by obtaining a seat in law school or a job, simply because of their race.
Paul Rockwell in his article Angry White Guys for Affirmative Action n51 describes the duplicity of this "stigma" argument. First, he notes that "we hear a lot about the so-called stigma of affirmative action for minorities and women [and] we are told that affirmative action harms the psyches of African-Americans, Latinos[/as], and women." n52 Then he unearths the disingenuousness of such an assertion. It is a strange argument.
Veterans are not stigmatized by the GI Bill. Europeans are not stigmatized by the Marshall Plan. Corporate farmers are not stigmatized by huge water giveaways and million-dollar price supports. The citizens of Orange County, a Republican stronghold, seeking a bailout to cover their bankers' gambling losses, are not holding their heads in shame. The $ 500 billion federal bailout of the savings and loan industry, a fiasco of deregulation, is the biggest financial set-aside program in U.S. history. Its beneficiaries feel no stigma. Only when the beneficiaries of affirmative action are women and people of color is there a stigma. Where there is no racism, or sexism, there is no stigma. Affirmative action is already part of the fabric of American life. We are all bound together in a vast network of affirmative action . . . . n53 Notwithstanding the patent infirmity of this "stigma" rationale, the Supreme Court has embraced it as an appropriate basis to [*221] dismantle racial preferences. n54 Yet, veterans' preferences n55 and alumni preference n56 remain constitutionally in place. The irony of these results is inescapable. For example, in Hopwood the court rejected any consideration of race even in instances in which, as was the case at the University of Texas, historic de jure discrimination had been confessed. The Hopwood court plainly stated that "while the use of race per se is proscribed . . . [a] university may properly favor one applicant over another because of his[/her] . . . relationship to school alumni." n57 Only in a very confused construct of equality can this be considered, as the court expressly declared, color-blind. n58 How in a system in which, because of its conceded discrimination throughout history, the alumni body is overwhelmingly racially homogeneous (white), can an alumni preference be color-blind? This is as perplexing a premise as pregnancy not being sex-related n59 and Spanish language ability not being national-origin related n60 -- two concepts that under our neutral jurisprudence have been confirmed as constitutionally sound. In the name of equality, the Supreme Court now requires colorblindness -- a concept that declares the constitutional irrelevancy of race. I find this an interesting concept at the eve of the twenty-first century. Where was this fair and neutral concept of color-blindness in the last few illustrious decades, decades during which women and [*222] men of color could not speak, could not vote, could not work, could not own a home, could not ride in the front of the

NLWs buses, go to their schools, play on their teams, use their bathrooms, eat at their counters, or drink from their water fountains. The eve of the twenty-first century is some interesting time to call upon a notion of color-blindness.
It is noteworthy that this chaotic notion of justice is replaying itself in the anti-immigrant initiatives.
Justice Scalia justifies colorblindness based upon the notion that we are all simply human beings constituting an
"American" race.
n61
At the same time, Congress apparently is seeking to re-define the
American race.
Notwithstanding our constitutional provision that "all persons born . . . in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . ."
elected Senators and
Representatives are contemplating a
movement that would effectively repeal this constitutional right. The proposal would deny citizenship to persons born in the
United States if their mother is not in the country legally.
n62
A constitutional amendment to deny citizenship to one born in the United States would defile the very basis of the foundation of this country as new home for those seeking freedom and prosperity in this land of opportunity.
Nonetheless, federal initiatives
, like local counterparts, target the presence of so-called "illegal aliens" -- a telling moniker in itself as the people are not illegal, although their presence within
United States borders may well be, and the people are not "alien" they are simply foreign nationals -- for wreaking havoc with our economy by taking jobs away from deserving
Americans
(although there is ample proof that "they" take jobs that Americans will not perform), n63 [*223] by depleting our coffers by virtue of using our health facilities and educating their children in our schools
(although it is well established that the targeted immigrants -- Mejicanas/os, Salvadorenas/os, and Guatemaltecas/os who enter California without documentation -- every year give more to national, state, and local economies than they receive in services), n64 and
just their general and overall criminality, ironically proven by their very undocumented entry into and presence within our borders. That outsiderness/otherness plays a role in these nativistic trends is made patent by a review of how other non-U.S. nationals are treated. Lack of papers alone as a symbol of criminality is very limited as such documentation is not even necessary for many other foreigners to enter into the U.S. legally.
n65 For example, the visa waiver program allows persons who are residents of twenty-two selected countries, largely from Western Europe, to stay in the United States for up to ninety days simply by purchasing a round-trip ticket. n66 These "undocumenteds" are "significant abusers of the system" with the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimating they constitute between five and ten percent of the "illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas." n67 Further, visa overstays constitute over fifty percent of the illegal presence in the United States. n68 With these figures, nativism and xenophobia, and a disdain, dislike, and fear of certain others/outsiders are clear
[*224] justifications and pretexts for such differential treatments of non-nationals. However, such differential treatment follows the pattern of the confused notions of equality in our jurisprudence.
IV. REALITY CHECK So any self-preserving, if by now admittedly not sane, person must ask herself, what difference can LatCrit make? With the jurisprudential notions of equality being as chaotic, disconcerting, and befuddled as they are, with the Latina/o communities being as diverse as they are, is there any possibility, remote or attenuated as it may be, that we can go somewhere with this pan-ethnic movement? I think so. I hope so. I dream so. So there are glitches. If I were to let that bother me I would not be able to continue teaching and writing and I would return to the safe haven of the practice of law where, as a commercial litigator, my soul was seldom at issue. However, the project (and its process) is not going to be easy. Al contrario, tenemos un tremendo reto frente nosotros/as. Pero unidos, conscientes de, pero aceptando, nuestras diferencias y multiples dimensiones, no hay obstaculo que no podamos sobreponer. n69 But the foundation must lie on the recognition of the indivisibility construct and our acceptance that although we may not like, understand, or agree with all our neighbors and their issues, well, we have to love them. This commitment, of course, is a difficult one, for we must commit to asking questions we do not want to ask, hear answers we do not want to hear, and embrace people we might be afraid to embrace. But if not now when? If not us, who? We have the diversity to give us the strength to carry out this challenge. In our "us" we can include persons of every size, shape, form, gender, sexuality, race, color, religion, class, and ability. We have engaged [*225] with our familias for years -- abuelas/os from the "old country," whichever one that may be, and hermanas/os from the new one, often speaking a different tongue; we have supported each other for years, writing tenure letters and reviewing articles; we have fought for our causes for years, writing briefs, attending rallies. It is time we join our intellectual strengths and make sense out of the nonsense that surrounds us calling itself law. We have to keep our diversity in the foreground because, and some might see this as ironic, that is where our strength lies. Both Linda Chavez and Cesar Chavez want to educate our kids. And if those two can share a goal, who knows, we might be able to eat grapes in the near future. Here are the questions to always ask: The ethnicity question -- what are the implications of a practice/action/law to our ethnic group? The gender question -- are there particularized implications of the practice/action to Latinas? And so, following this pattern we must ask the alienage question; the race question; the language question; the sexuality question; the class question; the ability question. We have to own up to the reality check that we are all those groups. Thus, we have to be willing to work together to further ourselves, in spite of ourselves. We have to purge ourselves of our internalized racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, ethnicism, elitism. I am going to step forward and face the challenge. I will start by doing an unpopular thing:
I am going to "out" us as imperfect, be a little critical of us. This exercise is intended in the constructive vein in which Angela Harris has presented the venture: so that we can recognize our past successes and stresses and mistakes, learn from them, and not repeat them.
With respect to our achievements as well as our failings let us be neither unduly elated nor foolishly self-deprecatory.
While we continue to focus on the positive, we must not overlook the blunders/exclusions that we effect ourselves, probably by virtue of the internalization of that normative hierarchy which

we then echo, lest we then replicate those mistakes.
So I say to the Latinos in our midst, do not make
Latinas the truly
[*226] olvidadas
; n70 to the sexual normativos/as, do not marginalize the gays and lesbians
; to the mas blancas/os n71 do not exclude the indias/os, mestizas/os, morenas/os. Let us be the first movement that can pride itself in not being gender/race/class/religion/sexuality/ethnicity essentialists.
We have seen what it has done to the Crits.
Women's feeling of exclusion engendered the FemCrits. Ironically, the FemCrits failed to learn from their own exclusion and the movement was overwhelmingly racially essentialized.
Similarly, persons of color who felt excluded from the critical movement formed the RaceCrits who, while more inclusive, still felt the strain of the emerging
Critical Race Feminism.
In addition, the RaceCrit discourse so centered in the black/white paradigm that it overlooked issues related to ethnicity and sexuality.
(Francisco, Visiting Prof. of Law, University of Miami, California Law Review,
October, p.1105- 1109)
The predominance of this paradigm in legal and social thought thus must be well understood and fully voiced; the savage institutionalization of the enslavement of Blacks by Whites, and the continuing resonance of that unique institution and its racial ideology, pull critical attention toward Black/White frames and foci
. The complaint pressed here, however, is that an "exclusive focus" or framing of race issues on Black/White terms marginalizes "other people of color" and prevents understanding of other racisms:
"An exclusive focus on the Black/White relationship, and the concomitant marginalization of "other people of color,' can operate to prevent understanding of other racisms and to obscure their particular operation," Professor Perea writes.
This critique consequently is not meant to cause a displacement or contraction of Black/White discourse,
but an expansion of it that is both quantitative and qualitative.