1AC
Plan:
The United States should legalize nearly all marihuana in the United States.
Cartels: 1AC
Drug violence is escalating and causing massive instability in Mexico
Saenz 4-2-15 (Charlotte, Media & Education Coordinator for Other Worlds, 20 years experience
working globally in schools, streets, universities, refugee camps, autonomous zones and traveling
programs, "The 'Other' Politics of Ayotzinapa" Huffington Post) www.huffingtonpost.com/beverlybell/the-other-politics-of-ayo_b_6990272.html
It comes at a crucial time, as Mexico seems to be sinking into an even more severe political and
economic crisis: the peso keeps falling while disappearances and assassinations keep rising. the peso
keeps falling[6] while disappearances[7] and assassinations[8] keep rising. Meanwhile civilian social
protests are violently repressed by the state, while a daily theater of death is delivered by the various
drug cartels terrorizing the nation with uncountable disappearances, beheadings and hanging corpses.
Such gruesome spectacles are meant to intimidate the populace into fearful denial, complacency and
silence. Official estimates state that over 100,000 people have been killed and approximately 25,000
disappeared since former President Calderon declared war on the drug lords in 2006. Many believe the
actual numbers are much higher. The Ayotzinapa case confirmed the suspected link between murderous
drug cartels and the governments of ruling political parties as both municipal police and federal army
were involved in detaining the student-teachers that fateful 26th of September, resulting in 3 dead and
43 disappeared. The federal government has completely failed to provide explanations for the army's
role in the students' disappearance, denying access to the army barracks from where came the last
signal of their cellular phones. The resulting outrage expressed on both a national as well as global scale
accompanies and supports the determination and leadership of the disappeared students' colleagues
and .family members trying to find out what happened to their loved ones. Their collective intelligence
manifests in an ability to organize and act swiftly. They have formed various civilian caravans composed
of parents, student, teachers, human rights workers and legal advisors to tour the north, south, and
center of the country to meet with other families of the disappeared. Their hope is to make more visible
their plight and connect with others like them, striking a deep chord with the Mexican public; they
mirror the reality of an entire nation at the mercy of murderous cartels complicit with an inept
government. The strength and persistence of what has now become a wide-reaching movement far
surpasses that of a President and Attorney General who have merely tried to sweep the whole pesky
affair under the proverbial rug. Not only has the Mexican federal government failed to provide plausible
explanations or competent actions, they have not been able to even express credible empathy.
Federal legalization of marijuana is a game-changer for stopping violence in Mexico—takes a
huge chunk out of cartel profits and frees up police resources
Hesson 14 -- immigration editor, covers immigration and drug policy from Washington D.C.
[Ted, "Will Mexican Cartels Survive Marijuana Legalization?" Fusion, fusion.net/justice/story/mexicancartels-survive-marijuana-legalization-450519, accessed 6-2-14]
1. Mexico is the top marijuana exporter to the U.S. A 2008 study by the RAND Corporation estimated
that Mexican marijuana accounted for somewhere between 40 and 67 percent of the drug in the U.S.
The cartel grip on the U.S. market may not last for long. Pot can now be grown for recreational use in
Colorado and Washington, and for medical use in 20 states. For the first time, American consumers can
choose a legal product over the black market counterpart. Beau Kilmer, the co-director of the RAND
Drug Policy Research Center, says that a few states legalizing marijuana won’t eliminate the flow of the
drug from down south, but a change in policy from the federal government would be a game changer.
“Our research also suggests that legalizing commercial marijuana production at the national level could
drive out most of the marijuana imported from Mexico,” he wrote in a 2013 op-ed. 2. Marijuana makes
up more than $1 billion of cartel income Pot isn’t the main source of income for cartels. They make
most of their cash from drugs like cocaine and heroin. But marijuana accounts for 15 to 26 percent of
the cartel haul, according to RAND’s 2008 data. That translates to an estimated $1.1 billion to $2 billion
of gross income. The drop in sales certainly wouldn’t end the existence of drug traffickers — they bring
in an estimated $6 billion to $8 billion annually — but losing a fifth of one’s income would hurt any
business. On top of that, Kilmer says that marijuana likely makes up a higher percentage of the cartel
take today than it did back in 2008. So taking away pot would sting even more. 3. Authorities could
focus on other drugs Marijuana made up 94 percent of the drugs seized by Border Patrol in the 2012
fiscal year, judging by weight. If pot becomes legal in the U.S. and cartels are pushed out of the market,
that would allow law-enforcement agencies to dedicate more resources to combat the trafficking of
drugs like heroin and cocaine.
Federal legalization is key—state-by-state legalization is beginning to undercut
Mexican weed but it’s not large enough to make a difference—the plan is a gamechanger
McKay 12-2-14 (Tom, Live News columnist, "11 Months After Marijuana Legalization, Here's What's
Happening to Mexican Cartels" World Mic) mic.com/articles/105510/11-months-after-marijuanalegalization-here-s-what-s-happening-to-mexican-cartels
Legal weed in the United States is undercutting Mexican competition. With either recreational or
medical marijuana legal in more than half of U.S. states, drug cartels south of the border are beginning
to find that growing, smuggling and distributing pot is a much less lucrative business. What's happening:
NPR's John Burnett reported from the ground in the northwestern Mexican state of Sinaloa, where drugrelated crime is so intense that its coverage is now restricted. One farmer told him that business was not
going so well: "Two or three years ago, a kilogram [2.2 pounds] of marijuana was worth $60 to $90,"
says Nabor, a 24-year-old pot grower ... "But now they're paying us $30 to $40 a kilo. It's a big
difference. If the U.S. continues to legalize pot, they'll run us into the ground." If the price slumps to
$20 a kilogram, Nabor speculates that the Mexican weed market will collapse. The culprit, Burnett says,
is much better domestic weed proudly made in America: U.S.-grown marijuana - some of it cultivated in
high-tech greenhouses - is three or four times more expensive than Mexican marijuana. [High TImes
editor Dan Vinkovetsky] says prices for Mexican weed continue to slide because it's so much weaker. He
says American cannabis typically has 10% to 20% THC, the ingredient that makes a person high, whereas
the THC content of so-called Mexican brick weed is typically 5% to 8%. Burnett's findings dovetail an
April Washington Post report, which found that drug cartels were instead trying to push cheap heroin
after wholesale cannabis prices in Sinaloa crashed from $100 per kilogram five years ago to less than
$25. "It's not worth it anymore," longtime marijuana farmer Rodrigo Silla told the Washington Post. "I
wish the Americans would stop with this legalization." Source: Getty Images The background: As Mic's
Coleen Jose previously reported, Mexican drug cartels remain incredibly dangerous, killing on average
12,896 people per year from 2007 to 2013, making them far deadlier than terrorist group Islamic State.
But there's a very simple explanation for all this violence: The illegal drug trade generates more money
on an annual basis than the GDP of many individual countries, and Mexican authorities are relatively
weak and corrupt. (The recent massacre of 43 Mexican university students by drug cartels likely
happened after police handed them off to the criminals for execution.) Drug prices are very difficult to
estimate, since no one is actually keeping track of the market, but marijuana is a major revenue stream
for drug cartels. This chart from Information Is Beautiful roughly estimates that a square kilometer of
marijuana is worth approximately $47.6 million dollars. Source: David McCandless Crushing the weed
market and cutting off one of its main sources of revenue is essential to destroying Latin American drug
cartels. Cocaine is worth more money, but Mexican cartels may ultimately earn more from weed since
they don't have to first buy cocaine in bulk from Colombian suppliers. Why you should care: Legalization
in the U.S. won't be a death blow for cartels, who will shift their efforts to pushing other substances or
perhaps other ventures entirely (like human smuggling). Western Mexico's Knights Templar cartel, for
example, may make most of its money from illegal mining, logging and extortion. An astonishing 2012
New York Times profile of the El Chapo Guzman organization documented the cartel's amazing,
corporate-style complexity, including staff accountants and armies of independent contractors. Drug
cartels are complex, dynamic organizations that shift with the times. They're not going away anytime
soon. Source: Getty Images But marijuana legalization will severely undercut the value of one of their
most profitable products. A 2012 study from the Mexican Competitiveness Institute found that U.S.
state legalization would wipe out around 30% of the cartels' marijuana market. Another by the RAND
Corporation in 2010 speculated that if American weed pushed out cartel-grown pot, the latter's profits
from marijuana could plummet by 85%. If defeating cartels is a priority, than the federal government
should ease up marijuana by removing it from the Schedule I category of substances with no known
medical purpose (a lie) and allow dispensaries in states where marijuana has been legalized to function
normally, instead of taxing them to death. Or Congress could legalize the sale of recreational marijuana,
which would deal a far more effective blow to cartels than piecemeal legalization on a state-by-state
basis. Considering most Americans now support marijuana legalization, that day might not be far off. But
for the nearly 13,000 people a year murdered by the drug trade in Mexico, it's still not soon enough.
Most comprehensive studies prove violence will be significantly reduced in the longrun, and short-term lashout will be limited
Beau Kilmer et al 10, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Brittany M. Bond, Peter H. Reuter (Kilmer--Codirector,
RAND Drug Policy Research Center; Senior Policy Researcher, RAND; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate
School, Ph.D. in public policy, Harvard University; M.P.P., University of California, Berkeley; B.A. in
international relations, Michigan State University, Caulkins--Stever Professor of Operations Research
and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, Bond--research economist in the Office of the Chief
Economist of the US Department of Commerce's Economics and Statistics Administration, Reuter-Professor in the School of Public Policy and the Department of Criminology at the University of
Maryland. “Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico Would Legalizing Marijuana in
California Help?” RAND occasional paper (peer reviewed),
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP325.pdf
However, there is at least one countervailing factor that might reduce violence in the short run. Given
that the signal of market decline will be strong and unambiguous, experienced participants might accept
the fact that their earnings and the market as a whole are in decline. This could lead to a reduced effort
on their part to fight for control of routes or officials, since those areas of control are now less valuable.
Of course, that does presume strategic thinking in a population that appears to have a propensity for
expressive and instrumental violence. The natural projection in the long run is more optimistic. Fewer
young males will enter the drug trade, and the incentives for violence will decline as the economic
returns to leader- ship of a DTO fall. 10 However, the long run is indeterminably measured: probably
years, and perhaps many years.
Alternative activities can’t make up for profits—post-prohibition effect on the mafia
proves
Robelo 13 -- Drug Policy Alliance research coordinator
[Daniel, "Demand Reduction or Redirection? Channeling Illicit Drug Demand towards a Regulated Supply
to Diminish Violence in Latin America," Oregon Law Review, 91 Or. L. Rev. 1227, 2013, l/n]
It is also impossible to foresee how regulation would affect levels of violence. Some analysts believe a
short-term increase in violence is possible (as competition over a smaller market could intensify), but
that violence in the longer term will decline. n106 Some analysts point out that organized crime may
further diversify into other activities, such as extortion and kidnapping, though these have been shown
to be considerably less profitable than drug trafficking. As one scholar [*1249] notes, given the
profitability of the drug trade, "it would take roughly 50,000 kidnappings to equal 10% of cocaine
revenues from the U.S. n107 While the American mafia certainly diversified into other criminal
endeavors after the Repeal of alcohol Prohibition, homicide rates nevertheless declined dramatically.
n108 Combining marijuana regulation with medical regulatory models for heroin, cocaine and
methamphetamine could strike a major blow to the corrosive economic power of violent trafficking
organizations, diminishing their ability to perpetrate murder, hire recruits, purchase weapons, corrupt
officials, operate with impunity, and terrorize societies. Moreover, these approaches promise concrete
results - potentially significant reductions in DTO revenues - unlike all other strategies that Mexico or the
United States have tried to date. n109 Criminal organizations would still rely on other activities for their
income, but they would be left weaker and less of a threat to security. Furthermore, the United States
and Latin American governments would save resources currently wasted on prohibition enforcement
and generate new revenues in taxes - resources which could be applied more effectively towards
confronting violence and other crimes that directly threaten public safety. n110
Even modest losses means cartels can’t corrupt the police and judiciary
Usborne 14 [David, "How Central Is Marijuana In The Drug War? Ctd," The Dish, quoted by Andrew
Sullivan, 1-11-14, dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/01/11/how-central-is-marijuana-in-the-drug-war-ctd/,
accessed 6-9-14]
A 2012 research paper by the Mexican Competitiveness Institute in Mexico called ‘If Our Neighbours
Legalise’, said that the legalisation of marijuana in Colorado, Washington and California would depress
cartel profits by as much as 30 per cent. A 2010 Rand Corp study of what would happen if just California
legalised suggests a more modest fall-out. Using consumption in the US as the most useful measure, its
authors posit that marijuana accounts for perhaps 25 per cent of the cartels’ revenues. The cartels
would survive losing that, but still. “That’s enough to hurt, enough to cause massive unemployment in
the illicit drugs sector,” says [fellow at the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center David] Shirk. Less
money for cartels means weaker cartels and less capacity to corrupt the judiciary and the police in
Mexico with crumpled bills in brown envelopes. Crimes like extortion and kidnappings are also more
easily tackled.
Plan creates a reverse gateway effect that reduces demand for harder drugs
Herrington, 12 Luke, Editor-At-Large for E-IR and Assistant Reviews Editor for Special Operations
Journal. He is a graduate student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Kansas
where he previously earned an MA in Global and International Studies, “Marijuana Legalization: Panacea
in the War on Drugs or Stoners Blowing Smoke?,” http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/24/marijuanalagalization-panacea-in-the-war-on-drugs-or-stoners-blowing-smoke/, Vitz
Legalization Will Hurt the Cartels A chorus of Latin American leaders think legalization will undermine
the cartels, and they advocate it as a new strategy in the war on drugs. In March, Otto Perez Molina, the
president of Guatemala, announced his interest in legalizing drugs in an effort to fight the cartels,
including the Zetas, who were allegedly behind a May 2011 attack that left 27 dismembered workers on
a farm in northern Guatemala. Molina, however, is not the only leader to suggest that drug legalization
could help stem the rising tide of drug-related violence in Latin America. In fact, former Mexican
President Vicente Fox also supports the legalization of marijuana, [7] as do César Gaviria, Ernesto
Zedillo, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Ricardo Lagos, former presidents of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil,
and Chile respectively. [8] The government of Uruguay is also agitating for legalization. There, officials
announced that marijuana legalization and regulation may be used to help fight cocaine use and
abuse. The government also says it would sell the drug directly, tracking buyers in the process and
limiting the black market’s ability to usurp this new supply. [9] Grillo agrees. He suggests that massburnings of marijuana in Mexico, for instance, a hallmark in source control, do more to illustrate exactly
how hulking the narco-economic edifice of the cartel’s drug industry really is, than it does to elucidate
how Mexico constantly hammers their organizations. It also demonstrates that U.S. demand for product
will continue to encourage the flow of marijuana and, by extension, other drugs over the border. Citing a
narrowly defeated attempt by California voters to legalize marijuana, and petitioners in Colorado
promoting a referendum to do the same, Grillo highlights the fact that campaigns for legalization view
the Mexican Drug War “as a reason to change U.S. drug laws.” Moreover, these campaigners argue that
“American ganja smokers are giving billions of dollars to psychotic Mexican drug cartels, […] and
legalization is the only way to stop the war.” [10] Grillo concedes that the cartels have morphed into
diversified, 21st century firms with entrenched profit sources well beyond the scope of the marijuana
industry. Nevertheless, he concludes, legalization as a strategy in the war on drugs could still do more in
the effort to undermine cartel profits than the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Mexican
army ever have. Legalization “might not kill the Mexican cartels,” he says, however it certainly could
inflict a deep wound upon their organizations. Armstrong accuses the U.S. of failure in its war on drugs,
and asserts that the violence in Mexico is only one consequence. Despite the tightening of post-9/11
border regulations, tons of cocaine and marijuana continue to pass into the U.S. and billions of dollars in
illicit money and weapons are passing into Mexico. Traditional policies hardly curb this two-way flow of
illicit traffic, in essence, because secondary and tertiary criminal lieutenants are prepared to fill the void
when their leaders are arrested or killed. Indeed, General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., the leader of U.S.
Northern Command (NORTHCOM), testified before the U.S. Senate, stating that the “decapitation
strategy” may succeed in killing key drug figures, but “it ‘has not had an appreciable effect’ in thwarting
the drug trade.” [11] The Mexican government has even started rethinking its approach. Instead of
focusing on the interdiction of drugs bound for U.S. markets, Mexican authorities are starting to focus
more on their citizens’ safety. Obama Administration officials, for their part, have chastised Latin
American leaders for debating the legalization strategy, whilst also stressing the importance of shared
responsibility to the Mexican government. In spite of this, the U.S. has done little on its end to stem the
actual demand for illicit drugs. Armstrong believes U.S. policymakers must launch a serious dialogue
here [in America] on legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, the drugs. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s
better than no solution at all. […] The United States needs a strategy to win the war or to settle it. [12]
Indeed, if shared responsibility means anything, it means that the U.S. must do its part not to enable the
continuation of the drug wars. That means that in addition to the possible legalization or
decriminalization of marijuana (and other drugs for that matter), the U.S. must slow the flood of
weapons and cash, the cartels’ raison d’etre. [13] Most importantly, legalization could undermine Latin
American cartels by removing from marijuana, the so-called “gateway effect.” As has happened in other
countries, such as Portugal, where decriminalization has been experimented with on a large scale,
isolating marijuana from the black market makes it more difficult for drug dealers to push “harder”
narcotics on individuals using marijuana. More will be said on this subject below, but for now, suffice it
to say that this has the potential to undermine the cartels—perhaps the foundations of the black market
itself—across the board, from the ground up. [14]
They won’t compete in the legal market
Carpenter 11 – Ted Galen Carpenter, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, “Undermining Mexico’s
Dangerous Drug Cartels”, Cato Policy Analysis, 11-15,
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA688.pdf
Legalizing pot would strike a blow against Mexican traffickers. It would be difficult for them to compete
with American producers in the American market, given the difference in transportation distances and
other factors. There would be little incentive for consumers to buy their product from unsavory
Mexican criminal syndicates when legitimate domestic firms could offer the drug at a competitive
price—and advertise how they are honest enterprises. Indeed, for many Americans, they could just
grow their own supply—a cost advantage that the cartels could not hope to match.
Mexico instability undermines U.S. leadership and risks global arms races
Robert Haddick, contractor at U.S. Special Operations Command, managing editor of Small Wars
Journal, "This Week at War: If Mexico Is at War, Does America Have to Win It?" FOREIGN POLICY, 9--10-10,
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/10/this_week_at_war_if_mexico_is_at_war_does_america_h
ave_to_win_it, accessed 5-2-13.
Most significantly, a strengthening Mexican insurgency would very likely affect America's role in the
rest of the world. An increasingly chaotic American side of the border, marked by bloody cartel wars,
corrupted government and media, and a breakdown in security, would likely cause many in the United
States to question the importance of military and foreign policy ventures elsewhere in the world. Should
the southern border become a U.S. president's primary national security concern, nervous allies and
opportunistic adversaries elsewhere in the world would no doubt adjust to a distracted and inwardlooking America, with potentially disruptive arms races the result. Secretary Clinton has looked south
and now sees an insurgency. Let's hope that the United States can apply what it has recently learned
about insurgencies to stop this one from getting out of control.
Heg decline causes nuclear war
Metz 13 – Dr. Steven Metz, Director of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute, Ph.D. from the Johns
Hopkins University, and an MA and BA from the University of South Carolina, “A Receding Presence: The
Military Implications of American Retrenchment”, World Politics Review, 10-22,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13312/a-receding-presence-the-military-implications-ofamerican-retrenchment
So much for the regions of modest concern. The Middle East/North Africa region, by contrast, is
retrenchment or narrowing
a part of the world where American
U.S. military capabilities could have extensive adverse effects. While the region has a number
of nations with significant military capability, it does not have a functioning method for preserving order without outside involvement. As
U.S. power
recedes, it could turn out that American involvement was in fact a deterrent against Iran taking a more
adventurous regional posture, for instance. With the United States gone, Tehran could become more aggressive,
propelling the Middle East toward division into hostile Shiite and Sunni blocs and encouraging the spread of nuclear
weapons. With fewer ties between regional armed forces and the United States, there also could be a new round of military coups.
States of the region could increase pressure on Israel, possibly leading to pre-emptive military strikes by the Israelis,
with a risk of another major war. One of the al-Qaida affiliates might seize control of a state or exercise outright control of at least part of a collapsed
state. Or China might see American withdrawal as an opportunity to play a greater role in the region, particularly in the Persian Gulf. The United States has a
number of security objectives in the Middle East and North Africa: protecting world access to the region's petroleum, limiting humanitarian disasters, preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, limiting the operating space for al-Qaida and its affiliates, sustaining America's commitment to long-standing partners
and assuring Israel's security. Arguments that the U.S. can disengage from the region and recoup savings in defense expenditures assume that petroleum exports
would continue even in the event of domination of the region by a hostile power like Iran or a competitor like China, state collapse or even the seizure of power by
extremists. Whoever exercises power in the region would need to sell oil. And the United States is moving toward petroleum self-sufficiency or, at least, away from
dependence on Middle Eastern oil. But even if the United States could get along with diminished petroleum exports from the Middle East, many other nations
couldn't. The economic damage would cascade, inevitably affecting the United States. Clearly disengagement
from the Middle East and
North Africa would entail significant risks for the United States. It would be a roll of the strategic dice. South and Central Asia are a bit
different, since large-scale U.S. involvement there is a relatively recent phenomenon. This means that the regional security architecture there is less dependent on
the United States than that of some other regions. South
and Central Asia also includes two vibrant, competitive and nucleararmed powers—India and China—as well as one of the world's most fragile nuclear states, Pakistan. Writers
like Robert Kaplan argue that South Asia's importance will continue to grow, its future shaped by the competition between China and India. This makes America's
security partnership with India crucial. The key issue is whether India can continue to modernize its military to balance China while addressing its immense domestic
problems with infrastructure, education, income inequality and ethnic and religious tensions. If it cannot, the United States might have to decide between ceding
domination of the region to China or spending what it takes to sustain an American military presence in the region. Central
Asia is different. After a decade of
U.S. military operations, the region remains
a cauldron of extremism and terrorism. America's future role there is in doubt, as it looks like
the United States will not be able to sustain a working security partnership with Afghanistan and Pakistan in the future. At some point one or both of
these states could collapse, with extremist movements gaining control. There is little chance of another large-scale U.S. military
intervention to forestall state collapse, but Washington might feel compelled to act to secure Pakistan's nuclear
weapons if Islamabad loses control of them. The key decision for Washington might someday be whether to tolerate extremist-dominated
areas or states as long as they do not enable transnational terrorism. Could the United States allow a Taliban state in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, for instance,
if it did not provide training areas and other support to al-Qaida? Most likely, the U.S. approach would be to launch raids and long-distance attacks on discernible alQaida targets and hope that such a method best balanced costs and risks. The Asia-Pacific region will remain the most important one to the United States even in a
time of receding American power. The United States retains deep economic interests in and massive trade with Asia, and has been a central player in the region's
security system for more than a century. While instability or conflict there is less likely than in the Middle East and North Africa, if it happened it would be much
more dangerous because of the economic and military power of the states likely to be involved. U.S. strategy in the Asia-Pacific has been described as a hub-andspokes strategy "with the United States as the hub, bilateral alliances as the spokes and multilateral institutions largely at the margins." In particular, the bilateral
"spokes" are U.S. security ties with key allies Australia, Japan and South Korea and, in a way, Taiwan. The United States also has many other beneficial security
relationships in the region, including with Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines. America's
major security objectives in the AsiaPacific in recent years have been to discourage Chinese provocation or destabilization as China rises in political, economic and military
power, and to prevent the world's most bizarre and unpredictable nuclear power—North Korea—from unleashing Armageddon
through some sort of miscalculation. Because the U.S. plays a more central role in the Asia-Pacific security
framework than in any other regional security arrangement, this is the region where disengagement or a recession of
American power would have the most far-reaching effect. Without an American counterweight, China
might become increasingly aggressive and provocative. This could lead the other leading powers of the region close to
China—particularly Japan, South Korea and Taiwan—to abandon their historical antagonism toward one another and move toward
some sort of de facto or even formal alliance. If China pushed them too hard, all three have the technological capability to
develop and deploy nuclear weapons quickly. The middle powers of the region, particularly those embroiled in disputes with China over
the resources of the South China Sea, would have to decide between acceding to Beijing's demands or aligning themselves with the Japan-South Korea-Taiwan bloc.
Clearly North Korea will remain the most incendiary element of the Asia-Pacific system even if the United States opts to downgrade its involvement in regional
security. The parasitic Kim dynasty cannot survive forever. The question is whether it lashes out in its death throes, potentially with nuclear weapons, or implodes
into internal conflict. Either action would require a significant multinational effort, whether to invade then reconstruct and stabilize the nation, or for humanitarian
relief and peacekeeping following a civil war. Even if the United States were less involved in the region, it would probably participate in such an effort, but might not
lead it. Across all these regions, four types of security
threats are plausible and dangerous: protracted internal conflicts
that cause humanitarian disasters and provide operating space for extremists (the Syria model); the further proliferation of nuclear weapons;
the seizure of a state or part of a state by extremists that then use the territory they control to support transnational
terrorism; and the old specter
of major war between nations. U.S. political leaders and security experts once believed that maintaining a full range of military
capabilities, including the ability to undertake large-scale, protracted land operations, was an important
deterrent to potential opponents. But the problem with deterrence is that it's impossible to prove. Did the U.S. military deter the Soviet seizure
of Western Europe, or did Moscow never intend to do that irrespective of what the United States did? Unfortunately, the only way to definitively demonstrate the
value of deterrence is to allow U.S. power to recede and see if bad things happen. Until recently, the United States was not inclined to take such a risk. But now
there is increasing political support for accepting greater risk by moving toward a cheaper military without a full range of capabilities. Many Americans are willing to
throw the strategic dice. The
recession of American power will influence the evolution of the various regional
security systems, of which history suggests there are three types: hegemonic security systems in which a dominant state assures stability; balance of
power systems where rivals compete but do not dominate; and cooperative systems in which multiple states inside and sometimes outside a region maintain
security and limit or contain conflict. Sub-Saharan Africa is a weak cooperative system organized around the African Union. Even if there is diminished U.S.
involvement, the sub-Saharan African security system is likely to remain as it is. Latin America might have once been a hegemonic system, at least in the Caribbean
Basin, but today it is moving toward becoming a cooperative system with a diminished U.S. role. The same is true of Europe. The Middle East/North Africa
region, South
and Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific will probably move toward becoming balance of power systems
with less U.S. involvement. Balances of power can prevent major wars with adept diplomacy and when the costs of conflict are high, as in Europe during the Cold
War, for instance. But catastrophic
conflicts can happen if the balance collapses, as in Europe in the summer of
1914. Power balances work best when one key state is able to shift sides to preserve the balance, but there is no candidate to play this role in the emerging
power balances in these three regions. Hence the balances in these regions will be dangerously unstable.
2,000 years of history prove heg solves war
Sempa, assistant US Attorney, 11 (Francis, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, an adjunct professor of political science at Wilkes University, contributing editor to
American Diplomacy, October 2011, “Review of ‘Dangerous Times? The International Politics of Great
Power Peace By Christopher J. Fettweis,’” Joint Force Quarterly, Issue 63, p. 150,
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dangerous+Times%3f+The+International+Politics+of+Great+Power+Pea
ce-a0275489833, DOA: 10-31-14, ara)
Forget Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli. Put aside Mackinder, Mahan, and Spykman. Close the
military academies and war colleges. Shut our overseas bases. Bring our troops home. Make dramatic
cuts in the defense budget. The end of major war, and perhaps the end of war itself, is near, according
to Tulane assistant professor Christopher Fettweis in his recent book, Dangerous Times? The
International Politics of Great Power Peace. Fettweis is not the first intellectual, nor will he be the last,
to proclaim the onset of perpetual peace. He is squarely in the tradition of Immanuel Kant, Herbert
Spencer, and Norman Angell, to name just three. Indeed, in the book’s introduction, Fettweis attempts
to rehabilitate Angell’s reputation for prophecy, which suffered a devastating blow when the Great War
falsified his claim in The Great Illusion that economic interdependence had rendered great power war
obsolete. Angell, Fettweis writes, was the first “prominent constructivist thinker of the twentieth
century,” and was not wrong—just ahead of his time (p. 5). Fettweis bases his theory or vision of the
obsolescence of major war on the supposed linear progress of human nature, a major tenet of 20thcentury liberalism that is rooted in the rationalist theories of the Enlightenment. “History,” according to
Fettweis, “seems to be unfolding as a line extending into the future—a halting, incomplete, inconsistent
line perhaps, one with frequent temporary reversals, but a line nonetheless.” The world is growing
“more liberal and more reliant upon reason, logic, and science” (p. 217). We have heard this all before.
Human nature can be perfected. Statesmen and leaders will be guided by reason and science. Such
thinking influenced the visionaries of the French Revolution and produced 25 years of war among the
great powers of Europe. Similar ideas influenced President Woodrow Wilson and his intellectual
supporters who endeavored at Versailles to transform the horrors of World War I into a peace that
would make that conflict “the war to end all wars.” What followed were disarmament conferences, an
international agreement to outlaw war, the rise of expansionist powers, appeasement by the
democracies, and the most destructive war in human history. Ideas, which Fettweis claims will bring
about the proliferation of peace, transformed Russia, Germany, and Japan into expansionist, totalitarian
powers. Those same ideas led to the Gulag, the Holocaust, and the Rape of Nanking. So much for human
progress. Fettweis knows all of this, but claims that since the end of the Cold War, the leaders and
peoples of the major powers, except the United States, have accepted the idea that major war is
unthinkable. His proof is that there has been no major war among the great powers for 20 years—a
historical period that coincides with the American “unipolar” moment. This is very thin empirical
evidence upon which to base a predictive theory of international relations. Fettweis criticizes the realist
and neorealist schools of thought, claiming that their adherents focus too narrowly on the past behavior
of states in the international system. In his view, realists place too great an emphasis on power. Ideas
and norms instead of power, he claims, provide structure to the international system. Classical
geopolitical theorists such as Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Nicholas Spykman, and Colin
Gray are dismissed by Fettweis in less than two pages, despite the fact that their analyses of great
power politics and conflict have long been considered sound and frequently prescient. Realists and
classical geopoliticians have more than 2,000 years of empirical evidence to support their theories of
how states and empires behave and how the international system works. Ideas are important, but
power is the governing force in international politics, and geography is the most permanent factor in the
analysis of power. Fettweis makes much of the fact that the countries of Western and Central Europe,
which waged war against each other repeatedly for nearly 400 years, are at peace, and claims that there
is little likelihood that they will ever again wage war against each other. Even if the latter assertion turns
out to be true, that does not mean that the end of major war is in sight. Throughout history, some
peoples and empires that previously waged war for one reason or another became pacific without
producing worldwide perpetual peace: the Mongols, Saracens, Ottomans, Dutch, Venetians, and the
Spanish Empire come immediately to mind. A Europe at peace does not translate to an Asia, Africa, and
Middle East at peace. In a world in which major wars are obsolete, Fettweis believes the United States
needs to adjust its grand strategy from vigorous internationalism to strategic restraint. His specific
recommendations include the removal of all U.S. military forces from Europe; an end to our bilateral
security guarantees to Japan and South Korea; an end to our alliance with Israel; an indifference to the
balance of power on the Eurasian landmass; a law enforcement approach to terrorism; a drastic cut in
military spending; a much smaller Navy; and the abolition of regional combatant commands. What
Fettweis is proposing is effectively an end to what Walter Russell Mead calls “the maritime world order”
that was established by Great Britain and maintained first by the British Empire and then by the United
States. It is a world order that has defeated repeated challenges by potential hegemonic powers and
resulted in an unprecedented spread of prosperity and freedom. But all of that, we are assured, is in the
past. China poses no threat. The United States can safely withdraw from Eurasia. The power vacuum will
remain unfilled. Fettweis needs a dose of humility. Sir Halford Mackinder, the greatest of all
geopoliticians, was referring to visionaries and liberal idealists like Fettweis when he cautioned, “He
would be a sanguine man . . . who would trust the future peace of the world to a change in the mentality
of any nation.” Most profoundly, General Douglas MacArthur, who knew a little bit more about war and
international conflict than Fettweis, reminded the cadets at West Point in 1962 that “only the dead have
seen the end of war.”
Strong Mexican cartels facilitate WMD terror attacks in the US—the threat is
significant and underestimated
By Michael Webster 3-16, Investigative Reporter, War on Drugs and War on Terrorist Specialist, cites the
following sources: POSTURE STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN F. KELLY, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
COMMANDER, UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND BEFORE THE 114TH CONGRESS SENATE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE 12 MARCH 2015. The Texas Department of Public Safety, 2013 Threat
Assessment U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, FY 14 Border Security Report. According to the CBP,
239,229 migrants from the Northern Tier countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were
apprehended in 2014, representing a 68% increase compared to FY 13. 229,178 migrants from Mexico
were apprehended, a 14% decrease. Testimony of Roberta Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of State,
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Before the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs,
United States House of Representatives, November 18, 2014.. “Terrorists threaten United States
through drug lords” http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/webster/150316
**NOTE: MDC=Mexican Drug Cartels
The spread of Mexican Drug Cartels (MDC's) and other criminal organizations in Mexico and other
Central and South American countries are beginning to join forces with terrorist groups like ISIS.¶
Together they are tearing at the social, economic, and security fabric of our neighbors to the south.
Powerful MDC's are well resourced; these groups traffic in drugs and humans. This includes smuggling
into the U.S. heroin, cocaine, marijuana, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, methamphetamine – small arms
and explosives, precursor chemicals, illegally mined gold, counterfeit goods, humans, and dangerous
terrorists and contraband.¶ They engage in money laundering using many American banks, bribery of
officials from both Mexico and the U.S., intimidation and threats to business owners and individuals and
bloody assassinations which include beheadings every bit as horrible as the recently depicted murders
of innocent journalist and christens seen on worldwide TV by ISIS . They threaten the very underpinnings
of democracy itself: citizen safety, rule of law, and economic prosperity. And they pose a direct threat to
the stability of our partners and an insidious risk to the security of our nation.¶ While there is growing
recognition of the danger posed by transnational organized crime, it is often eclipsed by other
concerns.¶ According to General JOHN F. KELLY, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS COMMANDER of the
UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND, who spoke before the 114th CONGRESS SENATE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE, "I believe we are overlooking a significant security threat."¶ Criminal
organizations are constantly adapting their methods for trafficking across our borders. There are reports
from intel sources around the world who believe that there are clear indications that the criminal
networks involved in human and drug trafficking are interested in supporting the efforts of terrorist
groups, these networks could unwittingly, or even wittingly, facilitate the movement of terrorist
operatives or weapons of mass destruction toward our borders. Potentially undetected and almost
completely unrestricted. Some experts and American officials think some WMD's are already within our
borders.¶ General Kelly reports that the drug trade – which is exacerbated by U.S. drug consumption –
has wrought devastating consequences in many of our partner nations, degrading their civilian police
and justice systems, corrupting their institutions, and contributing to a breakdown in citizen safety.¶ The
general points out that the tentacles of global networks involved in narcotics and arms trafficking,
human smuggling, illicit finance, and other types of illegal activity reach across Latin America and the
Caribbean and into the United States, yet we continue to underestimate the threat of transnational
organized crime at significant and direct risk to our national security and that of our partner nations.
Unless confronted by an immediate, visible, or uncomfortable crisis, our nation's tendency is to take the
security of the Western Hemisphere for granted. I believe this is a mistake.¶ In addition to thousands of
Central Americans fleeing poverty and violence, foreign nationals from the Middle East including
countries like Somalia, Bangladesh, Lebanon, and Pakistan are using the region's human smuggling
networks to enter the United States.¶ While many are merely seeking economic opportunity or fleeing
war, others are seeking to do us harm. Last year, ISIS adherents posted discussions on social media
calling for the infiltration of the U.S. southern border.¶ The Texas Department of Public Safety, 2013
Threat Assessment Spotlighted that the Economic Citizenship Programs provides a quick path for foreign
nationals to acquire citizenship. Of concern, these "cash for passport" programs could be exploited by
criminals, terrorists, or other nefarious actors to obtain freedom of movement, facilitate entry into the
U.S., or launder illicitly gained funds.¶ Last year, almost half a million migrants from Central America and
Mexico – including over 50,000 unaccompanied children (UAC) and families – were apprehended on our
border, many fleeing violence, poverty, and the spreading influence of criminal networks and gangs.
Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson testified that the "UAC migration serves as a warning sign
that the serious and longstanding challenges in Central America are worsening." In my opinion, the
relative ease with which human smugglers moved tens of thousands of people to our nation's doorstep
also serves as another warning sign: these smuggling routes are a potential vulnerability to our
homeland. As I stated last year, terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same smuggling
routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even bring weapons of
mass destruction into the United States."¶ There appears to be financial and operational overlap
between criminal and terrorist networks in the region. Terrorists and militant organizations are believed
to be taping into the international illicit marketplace to underwrite their activities and obtain arms and
funding to conduct operations to spread extreme Islam throughout the globe.
WMD terror is likely and causes extinction
Nathan Myhrvold 13, Phd in theoretical and mathematical physics from Princeton, and founded
Intellectual Ventures after retiring as chief strategist and chief technology officer of Microsoft
Corporation , July 2013, "Stratgic Terrorism: A Call to Action," The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf
Several powerful trends have aligned to profoundly change the way that the world works. Technology ¶
now allows stateless groups to organize, recruit, and fund ¶ themselves in an unprecedented fashion.
That, coupled ¶ with the extreme difficulty of finding and punishing a stateless group, means that
stateless groups are positioned to be ¶ lead players on the world stage. They may act on their own, ¶ or
they may act as proxies for nation-states that wish to ¶ duck responsibility. Either way, stateless groups
are forces ¶ to be reckoned with.¶ At the same time, a different set of technology trends ¶ means that
small numbers of people can obtain incredibly ¶ lethal power. Now, for the first time in human history,
a ¶ small group can be as lethal as the largest superpower. Such ¶ a group could execute an attack that
could kill millions of ¶ people. It is technically feasible for such a group to kill billions of people, to end
modern civilization—perhaps even ¶ to drive the human race to extinction. Our defense establishment
was shaped over decades to ¶ address what was, for a long time, the only strategic threat ¶ our nation
faced: Soviet or Chinese missiles. More recently, ¶ it has started retooling to address tactical terror
attacks like ¶ those launched on the morning of 9/11, but the reform ¶ process is incomplete and
inconsistent. A real defense will ¶ require rebuilding our military and intelligence capabilities from the
ground up. Yet, so far, strategic terrorism has ¶ received relatively little attention in defense agencies,
and ¶ the efforts that have been launched to combat this existential threat seem fragmented.¶ History
suggests what will happen. The only thing ¶ that shakes America out of complacency is a direct threat ¶
from a determined adversary that confronts us with our ¶ shortcomings by repeatedly attacking us or
hectoring us for ¶ decades
Global Prohibition: 1AC
Federal legalization sends a global signal in favor of ending drug prohibition—causes a shift in
other countries towards harm reduction strategies
Joshua D. Wild, “The Uncomfortable Truth about the United States’ Role in the Failure of the Global
War on Drugs and How It is Going to Fix It,” SUFFOLK TRANSNATIONAL LAW REVIEW v. 36, Summer
2013, p. 437-446
The War on Drugs' demise started when the bellicose analogy was created. n77 The correct classification
of the global drug problem was and still is as a set of interlinked health and social challenges to be
managed, not a war to be won. n78 The U.S. has worked strenuously for the past fifty years to ensure
that all countries adopt its rigid, prohibitionist approach to drug policy, essentially repressing the
potential for alternative policy development and experimentation. n79 This was an expensive mistake
that the U.S. unfortunately cannot take back. n80 The current emergence from the economic recession
of 2008-2009 has set the stage for a generational, political and cultural shift, placing the U.S. in a unique
moment in its history; the necessary sociopolitical context to revoke its prohibitionist ideals and replace
them with more modern policies grounded in health, science and humanity. n81 The U.S. can remedy its
mistake by using its considerable diplomatic influence and international presence to foster reform in
other countries. n82 One way to do this is by capitalizing [*438] on this unique moment in its existence
and experimenting with models of legal regulation, specifically with marijuana because nearly half of
U.S. citizens favor legalization of it. n83 This will help redeem our image internationally and help repair
foreign relations because the monumental scope of the international marijuana market is largely
created by the exorbitant U.S. demand for the drug which partially stems from the illegality of the
market. n84 B. Step 1: Recognize the Ineffectiveness of The Global War on Drugs and Consider
Alternatives An objective way to gauge the effectiveness of a drug policy is to examine how the policy
manages the most toxic drugs and the problems associated with them. n85 With that in mind, at the
global level, having one in five intravenous drug users have HIV and one in every two users having
Hepatitis C is clearly an epidemic and not the result of effective drug control policies. n86 The threat of
arrest and punishment as a deterrent from people using drugs is sound in theory, but in practice this
hypothesis is tenuous. n87 Countries that have enacted harsh, punitive laws have higher levels of drug
use and related problems than countries with more tolerant approaches. n88 Additionally, the countries
that have experimented with forms of legal regulation outside of punitive approaches have not seen
rises in drug use and dependence [*439] rates. n89 Therefore, one sensible first step in placing this issue
back into a manageable position is for national governments to encourage other governments to
experiment with models of legal regulation of drugs which fit their context. n90 This will in turn,
undermine the criminal market, enhance national security, and allow other countries to learn from their
application. n91 1. Easier to Say Than Do - A Suggestion for Overcoming Difficulties Associated With
Legal Regulation For this movement to be successful and effectively manage the epidemic at hand there
must be a broad consensus around the world that the current drug control policies are morally harmful.
n92 This consensus however is precluded by the stigma and fear associated with more toxic drugs such
as heroin. n93 This note does not propose that heroin and other toxic drugs should be legalized but
instead suggests that society and drug policies tend to consolidate and classify all illicit drugs as equally
dangerous. n94 This in turn restrains any progressive debate about experimenting with the regulation of
different drugs under different standards. n95 [*440] Regardless of these false dichotomies, which often
restrain progressive debate, it is difficult not to give credence to the idea of marijuana being socially
acceptable when it has been by far the most widely produced and consumed illicit drug. n96 There is
between 125 and 203 million users worldwide and no indication of that number declining. n97 With this
many users, it is reasonable to conclude that if the international community could reach a consensus
about the moral noxiousness of any drug control policy, the repression of marijuana would likely be it.
n98 Marijuana, arguably socially acceptable, represents a simple mechanism to enter into the
experimentation process with the legal regulation of drugs. n99 Without advocating for the UN to adopt
new commissions or encouraging drastic moves such as the decriminalization of all illicit substances, the
global decriminalization of marijuana would be a relatively minor adjustment compared to the
monumental impact. n100 If national governments were to decriminalize marijuana, the scope of this
movement would essentially eradicate the public health problem of marijuana abuse and the associated
criminality because of its illegal status. n101 Public health problems can be remedied because it will
afford governments the ability to regulate the market and control the quality and price of the drug,
essentially removing toxic impurities and setting a price that will diminish an illegal market. n102 This
will in turn diminish the criminal market [*441] by eradicating the need for users to commit crimes to
procure marijuana and removing the economic incentive for other countries to get involved in the drug's
market. n103 Without arguing that this is the panacea for the global war on drugs, proponents of
legalization can aptly point to the archaic drug control policies in place and this macro approach as an
effective way to tackle the problem now. n104 C. Step 2: Real Reform - the U.S. Needs to Stand at the
Forefront of Drug Policy Reformation The U.S. wields considerable influence over the rest of the world,
so it is no surprise that its call for the development and maintenance of prohibitive, punitive drug
policies resulted in a majority of the international community following. n105 Conversely, if the U.S.
leads the call for the development and maintenance of more tolerant drug policies grounded in health,
humanity and science, a majority of the international community will also follow. n106 Cultural shifts do
not take place overnight, and the idea of complete U.S. drug policy reformation is too aggressive and
stark in contrast to succeed against modern bureaucracy and political alliances. n107 On the other hand,
a more moderate, piecemeal approach could effectively act as a catalyst for this transformation while
simultaneously serving as a case study for opponents of legal regulation. n108 [*442] If the U.S. is
serious about addressing the ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs, then the federal government must
remove marijuana from its list of criminally banned substances. n109 The tone of the Obama
administration is a significant step in this direction. n110 President Obama has explicitly acknowledged
the need to treat drugs as more of a public health problem, as well as the validity of debate on
alternatives, but he does not favor drug legalization. n111 This progressive rhetoric is a significant step
in the right direction, but until there is some real reform confronting the issue, reducing punitive
measures and supporting other countries to develop drug policies that suit their context, there is still an
abdication of policy responsibility. n112 1. Starting Small - Potential Positive Effects of Regulation and
Taxation of Marijuana in the U.S. If marijuana was legal in the U.S., it would function similarly to the
market of legal substances such as liquor, coffee and tobacco. n113 Individual and corporate
participants in the market would pay taxes, increasing revenues and saving the government from the
exorbitant cost of trying to enforce prohibition laws. n114 Consumers' human rights would be promoted
through self-determination, autonomy and access to more accurate information about the product they
are consuming. n115 Additionally, case studies and research suggest that the decriminalization or
legalization [*443] of marijuana reduces the drugs' consumption and does not necessarily result in a
more favorable attitude towards it. n116 The legal regulation of marijuana would relieve the current
displaced burden the drug places on law enforcement, domestically and internationally. n117 In the
U.S., law enforcement could refocus their efforts away from reducing the marijuana market per se and
instead towards reducing harm to individuals, communities and national security. n118 Abroad, U.S.
international relations would improve because of the reduced levels of corruption and violence at home
and afar. n119 The precarious position repressive policies place on foreign governments when they have
to destroy the livelihoods of agricultural workers would be reduced. n120 Additionally, legalization and
regulation would provide assistance to governments in regaining some degree of control over the
regions dominated by drug dealers and terrorist groups because those groups would lose a major source
of funding for their organizations. n121 2. Health Concerns? - Marijuana in Comparison to Other Similar
Legal Substances The federal government, acknowledging the risks inherent in alcohol and tobacco,
argues that adding a third substance to that mix cannot be beneficial. n122 Adding anything to a class of
[*444] dangerous substances is likely never going to be beneficial; however marijuana would be
incorrectly classified if it was equated with those two substances. n123 Marijuana is far less toxic and
addictive than alcohol and tobacco. n124 Long term use of marijuana is far less damaging than long term
alcohol or tobacco use. n125 Alcohol use contributes to aggressive and reckless behavior, acts of
violence and serious injuries while marijuana actually reduces likelihood of aggressive behavior or
violence during intoxication and is seldom associated with emergency room visits. n126 As with most
things in life, there can be no guarantee that the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana would
lead the U.S. to a better socio-economical position in the future. n127 Two things however, are certain:
that the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would dramatically reduce most of the costs associated
with the current drug policies, domestically and internationally, and [*445] if the U.S. is serious about its
objective of considering the costs of drug control measures, then it is vital and rational for the
legalization option is considered. n128 D. Why the Time is Ripe for U.S. Drug Policy Reformation The
political atmosphere at the end of World War I and II was leverage for the U.S., emerging as the
dominant political, economic and military power. n129 This leverage allowed it to shape a prohibitive
drug control regime that until now has remained in perpetuity. n130 Today, we stand in a unique
moment inside of U.S. history. n131 The generational, political and cultural shifts that accompanied the
U.S. emergence from the "Great Recession" resulted in a sociopolitical climate that may be what is
necessary for real reform. n132 Politically, marijuana has become a hot issue; economically, the
marijuana industry is bolstering a faltering economy and socially, marijuana is poised to transform the
way we live and view medicine. n133 The public disdain for the widespread problems prohibition caused
in the early 20th century resulted in the end of alcohol prohibition during the Great Depression. n134 If
history does actually repeat itself than the Great recession may have been much more telling than
expected. n135 V. Conclusion The U.S. and its prohibitionist ideals exacerbated the failure of both the
international and its own domestic drug policies. n136 As a result, the U.S. should accept accountability
for its mistakes by reforming its drug policies in a way that will help [*446] place the global drug market
back into a manageable position. n137 Marijuana is an actionable, evidence based mechanism for
constructive legal and policy reform that through a domino effect can transform the global drug
prohibition regime. n138 The generational, political and cultural shifts that accompanied the U.S.
emergence from the "Great Recession" have resulted in a sociopolitical climate ready for real reform.
n139 The U.S. will capitalize on this unique moment by removing marijuana from the list of federally
banned substances, setting the stage for future international and domestic drug policies that are
actually effective. n140
Global prohibition has massively undermined public health efforts to deal with the
spread of diseases like AIDS and tuberculosis
Steven Rolles, senior policy analyst, George Murkin, Martin Powell, Danny Kushlick, founder, and Jane
Slater, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, THE ALTERNATIVE WORLD DRUG REPORT: COUNTING THE
CSTS OF THE WAR ON DRUGS, 2012, p. 9-12.
5. Threatening public health, spreading disease and death While the war on drugs has primarily been
promoted as a way of protecting health, it has in reality achieved the opposite. It has not only failed in
its key aim of reducing or eliminating drug use, but has increased risks and created new health harms –
all while establishing political and practical obstacles to effective public health interventions that might
reduce them. • Prevention and harm reduction messages are undermined by criminalisation of target
populations, leading to distrust and stigmatisation • Criminalisation encourages high-risk behaviours,
such as injecting in unhygienic, unsupervised environments, poly-drug use and bingeing • Enforcement
tilts the market towards more potent but profitable drug products. It can also fuel the emergence of
high-risk, new “designer” drugs, or domestically manufactured drugs (“krokadil”, for instance) • Illegally
produced and supplied drugs are of unknown strength and purity, increasing the risk of overdose,
poisoning and infection • The emotive politics of the drug war, and stigmatisation of drug users, has
created obstacles to provision of effective harm reduction, which despite proven cost-effectiveness
remains unavailable in many parts of the world. This contributes to increased overdose deaths, and
fuels the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and tuberculosis among people who inject drugs • The growing
population of people who use drugs in prisons has created a particularly acute health crisis, as prisons
are high-risk environments, inadequately equipped to deal with the challenges they face • The
development impacts of the war on drugs have had much wider negative impacts on health service
provision • Drug-war politics have had a chilling effect on provision of opiates for pain control and
palliative care, with over five billion people having little or no access There is an absence of evidence
that either supply- or user-level enforcement interventions have reduced or eliminated use. Instead,
drug-related risk is increased and new harms created – with the greatest burden carried by the most
vulnerable populations.
Unchecked AIDS spread causes extinction
(WAIF) Washington AIDS International Foundation, staff, 2004. Available from the World Wide Web at:
www.waifaction.org/, accessed 5-27-09.
Virtually every nation in the world has been severely hit by the plague of AIDS; we are experiencing an
extinction-causing event. There are no vaccines, no cures, and no group that is not vulnerable. And,
because it is spread largely by sex and by mother-to-child contact, and to a smaller degree by blood
contact, it is hitting those of childbearing age the hardest. This is a silent killer. Without testing, it can go
undetected for many years, even as the carrier transmits it to others. Unfortunately, we know only the
most advanced cases in most of the countries of the world. Many millions of others may be infected, but
in the latent stage. WAIF is committed to educate the public about the emergency of the AIDS epidemic.
AIDS spread causes nuclear great power conflict
Koblentz, 10 (Deputy Director of the Biodefense Program @ GMU, Assistant Professor in Public and
International Affairs, March, "Biosecurity Reconsidered: Calibrating Biological Threats and Responses."
International Security Vol. 34, No. 4, p. 96-132)
Pandemics are disease outbreaks that occur over a wide geographic area, such as a region, continent, or
the entire world, and infect an unusually high proportion of the population. Two pandemic diseases are
widely cited as having the potential to pose direct threats to the stability and security of states:
HIV/AIDS and influenza. HIV/AIDS. Since it was first identified in 1981, HIV is estimated to have killed
more than 25 million people worldwide. According to the Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the
percentage of the global population with HIV has stabilized since 2000, but the overall number of people
living with HIV (33 million in 2007) has steadily increased. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to bear a
disproportionate share of the global burden of HIV with 35 percent of new HIV infections, 75 percent of
AIDS deaths, and 67 percent of all people living with HIV. 116 Scholars have identified four ways that
HIV/AIDS can affect security. 117 First, the disproportionately high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the armed
forces of some nations, particularly in Southern Africa, may compromise the ability of those states to
defend themselves from internal or external threats. Militaries with high rates of HIV infection may
suffer losses in combat readiness and effectiveness as infected troops are transferred out of combat
roles, units lose cohesion because of high turnover rates, middle management is "hollowed out" by the
early death or disability of officers, and defense budgets are strained because of rising medical costs and
the need to recruit and train replacements for sick soldiers. The second threat is that HIV/AIDS will
undermine the international peace-keeping system. Nations with militaries with high rates of HIV/AIDS
will be unable to provide troops for international peacekeeping missions; nations with healthy militaries
may be unwilling to commit troops to peacekeeping operations in nations with a high prevalence rate of
HIV/AIDS; and war-torn nations may be unwilling to accept peacekeepers for fear they will spread the
disease in their country. The third threat is that a "second wave" of HIV/AIDS could strike large,
strategically important countries such as China, India, and Russia. These states, which possess nuclear
weapons and are important players in critical regions, also suffer from internal security challenges that
could be aggravated by a severe AIDS epidemic and its attendant socioeconomic disruptions. The fourth
threat is that the high prevalence of HIV in less developed countries will cause political instability that
could degenerate into internal conflict or spread into neighboring countries. Unlike most diseases,
which affect primarily the poor, young, and old, HIV/AIDS strikes young adults and members of the
middle and upper classes. By sickening and killing members of society when they should be their most
productive, HIV/AIDS has inflicted the "single greatest reversal in human development" in modern
history. 118
Tuberculosis causes extinction—mutations and empirics
Ethan Huff 2/3/14 “Sudden collapse of Harappan civilization may foreshadow superbug threat to
modern humans”
http://www.naturalnews.com/043757_harappan_civilization_superbugs_antibiotic_resistance.html#
The mystery surrounding the sudden collapse of the ancient city of Harappa, a major urban center that
was a prominent feature of the now defunct Indus civilization, recently became a little bit less
mysterious thanks to new research out of Appalachian State University. An international team of
climatologists, archaeologists and biologists found that rampant disease, among other things, played a
major role in the swift decline of this primordial people group -- and the same thing could happen to
modern humanity as a result of antibiotic-resistant "superbugs," believe some. What exists from the
historical record shows that Harappa flourished even before the Indus civilization as a whole reached its
peak, spanning 1 million square kilometers in what is now Pakistan and India. Scholars say the city
thrived primarily between the years of 2600 and 1700 B.C. but suddenly collapsed for reasons that up
until now have remained elusive due to a lack of reliable records and other concrete evidence. But we
now know that the uncontrolled spread of disease played a significant role in the downfall of Harappa,
as did the violence and chaos that erupted as a result of a widening social hierarchy. Specifically, the
new research found that a combination of socioeconomic inequality and disease -- tuberculosis and
leprosy, which were new at the time, are believed to have spread quickly during the final days before
the collapse -- were largely to blame for the city's ultimate demise. "In this case, it appears that the
rapid urbanization process in Indus cities, and the increasingly large amount of culture contact, brought
new challenges to the human population," says Gwen Robbins Schug, one of the lead researchers
involved with the project. "Infectious diseases like leprosy and tuberculosis were probably transmitted
across an interaction sphere that spanned Middle and South Asia." Rapid urbanization spawned disease
spread that killed off entire civilization A recent exhumation of remains from Harappa revealed that,
toward the end of the city's existence, violence and disease had reached epic proportions. Because of
this, Harappa was essentially being evacuated in droves by its residents during the final days leading up
to its collapse, a previously unknown fact about the civilization that came as a surprise to historians.
"The collapse of the Indus civilization and the reorganization of its human population has been
controversial for a long time," says Schug. Though the exact cause of all the violence and corresponding
disease that ravished Harappa is still somewhat shrouded in mystery, experts now know that a period of
rapid urbanization definitely precluded its undoing. Much like what appears to be occurring in modern
society, Harappa "advanced" too quickly and eventually imploded on itself. "The evidence from Harappa
offers insights into how social and biological challenges impacted past societies facing rapid population
growth, climate change and environmental degradation," adds Schug, as quoted by Science Daily.
"Unfortunately, in this case, increasing levels of violence and disease accompanied massive levels of
migration and resource stress and disproportionate impacts were felt by the most vulnerable members
of society." Drug-resistant 'superbugs' threaten to kill off modern civilization There is a tendency when
looking at ancient history through the lens of today to assume that what happened to them could never
happen to us. Modern humanity is simply far too advanced to ever just collapse in on itself, goes the
assumption. And yet history also has a seemingly sinister way of repeating itself when you least expect
it, in modern times with the threat of drug-resistant "superbugs" brought about as a result of so-called
advancements in medicine.
Legalization of marijuana in Morocco is key to stability—they model US policy
Roslington and Pack 13 (James, PhD candidate in North African history at the University of
Cambridge, and Jason, 11-4-13, "Morocco's Growing Cannabis Debate" Foreign Policy)
mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/04/morocco_s_growing_cannabis_debate
Cognizant of developments in the United States in Colorado and Washington state, Moroccan social
media has been abuzz this summer with a seemingly unlikely possibility: the legalization of cannabis.
Activists and politicians in Morocco are close to firming up a date later this month for the parliament to
host a seminar on the economic implications of legalization. The powerful Party of Authenticity and
Modernity will chair the daylong seminar. This has led some commentators to speculate that the move
may even have the blessing of the monarchy. Morocco regularly vies with Afghanistan for the title of the
world's biggest producer of cannabis -- its output was recently estimated at nearly 40,000 tons annually
-- yet open debate on the role of the plant in the country's economy remains infrequent. In recent years,
despite improvements in production, both small farmers and big producers have seen their cannabisrelated income plummet. Political moves to legalize cannabis are a recognition that Morocco's drug
policy has failed. For decades, farmers in the Rif region in the north have been tacitly allowed to
cultivate the herb as an escape from dire poverty. At the same time, occasional crackdowns and
arbitrary detentions of growers ensured that the central state kept a firm grip on the region. This policy
worked well for decades but is now beginning to unravel as profits fall and unrest rises. During the late
1960s, technical advances meant that farmers could transform the raw product into resin (aka "hash")
for export to the European market. When inexpensive Moroccan hash began to flow northwards in ever
increasing quantities, European counter-cultural movements differentiated themselves from American
pot-smoking hippies by mixing hash with tobacco and rolling it into joints. The new European hash
culture spread rapidly due to its bare bones simplicity -- fancy implements like pipes and bongs were not
needed. In the 1980s, the Moroccan cannabis business boomed as big producers and middlemen made
fortunes, pouring their profits into luxury villas and ostentatious displays of wealth. By the 1990s,
northern Morocco had become the hash capital of the world. But the good times couldn't last. As part of
the international war on drugs, Morocco came under pressure to crack down on cannabis cultivation.
European Union coastguards stepped up their patrols looking for drug shipments from North Africa.
There were even claims that Moroccan drug-money was financing terrorism, especially in response to
the Madrid bombings in 2003. Once stemming the Moroccan drug trade could be rhetorically situated as
part of President George W. Bush's Global War on Terror, the pressure on Morocco to eradicate the
cannabis fields in the north became unbearable. Yet more crucial than geopolitics or government
crackdowns, the all-important European market had begun to change. Evolving tastes played a part: in a
world of designer drugs and legal highs, hash became increasingly uncool and prosaic. As cheap hash
lost its cachet, sophisticated consumers switched to high-priced designer strains of pot. Rather than
smelling like tar and looking like packaged mud, they had pleasing aromas, pretty buds, and catchy
names like "purple haze." Even more important than all these changes in consumer taste profiles,
European drug gangs have cut net costs to consumers by growing their own weed in large-scale farms.
For example, it is now estimated that 80 percent of cannabis consumed in the Britain is homegrown. The
decreased European demand for imported cannabis has meant trouble for farmers in Morocco. The
risks and rewards of the trade were always unfairly split, with small farmers more exposed to
fluctuations in price and police repression than wealthy middlemen. Complaints about the lack of state
investment and systemic police corruption, combined with the zeitgeist of the "Arab Spring," led to
large-scale protests in Morocco during 2011 and 2012. Although the outbursts have subsided,
simmering discontent still mingles with sporadic local protests -- currently focused on the small town of
Targuist in the central Rif. Falling yields and the government's unpopular eradication program formed a
backdrop to the unrest as the protests spread to the heartland of cannabis country in Ketama in
January. The Moroccan government has recognized that whack-a-mole policing, by itself, can no longer
deal with popular discontent. As part of the Moroccan strategy to insulate itself from the unrest
plaguing its neighbors, the state appears to have switched tack -- now preferring to employ carrots as
well as sticks to tighten its political grip over the restive north. To buttress these efforts, the supreme
political authority in Morocco is clearly exploring the possibility of legislation to legalize cannabis.
Legalization would boost tax revenue and prop up the economy of the region. As early as May 2009,
Fouad Ali el Himma, one of the king's closest confidants, called for a national debate on cannabis and an
end to arbitrary detention of its growers. Potentially influenced by trends in places like California,
Himma argued that cannabis should be rebranded as a traditional Moroccan herbal palliative rather
than an illegal drug. These ideas are now gaining momentum with expressions of interest from virtually
all the major Moroccan political parties. Even the Islamist Party of Justice and Development has
cautiously welcomed the draft proposals -- presumably because the party is mindful that it now
occupies a minority presence in the cabinet and could benefit from going with the flow.
Instability in Morocco causes phosphorus shortages which threaten global food production
Sydney Morning Herald 11 (Quoting Stuart White and Dana Cordell, professors from the Institute
for Sustainable Futures, 2-2-11, "Unstable Middle East threatens phosphate" Sydney Morning Herald)
news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/unstable-middle-east-threatens-phosphate-201102021ad7m.html
Instability in the Middle East and North Africa could disrupt supplies of phosphate rock and threaten
global food security, say two Australian academics. Phosphorus is an important component of fertiliser.
A high proportion of phosphate rock reserves are in the Middle East and Africa. Professor Stuart White
and Dr Dana Cordell from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney,
are among researchers investigating a possible peak in phosphate rock production before the end of the
century. Advertisement Speaking in the United States at the Sustainable Phosphorus Summit at Arizona
State University, they said regional instability was an extra component in the potential gap between
supply and demand in global phosphorus resources. "Morocco alone controls the vast majority of the
world's remaining high-quality phosphate rock," Prof White said in a statement. "Even a temporary
disruption to the supply of phosphate on the world market can have serious ramifications for nations'
food security. Prof White said that even before the peak in phosphorus production, there is a prospect
of significant rises in prices and a consequent impact upon farmers and global crop yields.
Food scarcity causes wars that go nuclear
Future Directions International (FDI), Australian research institute, “International Conflict Triggers and
Potential Conflict Points Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity,” WORKSHOP REPORT, Global Food
and Water Crisis Research Programme, 5—25—12, p. 8-9.
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a
lack of resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian
revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are
said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the
general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in
the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather,
urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the
developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March
2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries
across the gl-obe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities,
the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.” “Hunger
feeds anarchy.” This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that
if “large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then
wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World
War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating
chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global
conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions,
civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling
resources.” As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over
resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger
results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A study
by the [IPRI] International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is
more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such
wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The
UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the [CSIS] US Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo
Peace Research Institute [OPRI], all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even
nuclear war.
Environment: 1AC
Unregulated marijuana cultivation has a massive environmental impact—federal legalization
is key to enable regulatory oversight
Zuckerman 13 (Seth, journalist, 10-31-13, "Is Pot-Growing Bad for the Environment?" The Nation)
www.thenation.com/article/176955/pot-growing-bad-environment?page=0,2
As cannabis production has ramped up in Northern California to meet the demand for medical and
black-market marijuana, the ecological impacts of its cultivation have ballooned. From shrunken,
muddy streams to rivers choked with algae and wild lands tainted with chemical poisons, large-scale
cannabis agriculture is emerging as a significant threat to the victories that have been won in the region
to protect wilderness, keep toxic chemicals out of the environment, and rebuild salmon runs that had
once provided the backbone of a coast-wide fishing industry. River advocate Scott Greacen has spent
most of his career fighting dams and the timber industry, but now he’s widened his focus to include the
costs of reckless marijuana growing. Last year was a time of region-wide rebound for threatened salmon
runs, but one of his colleagues walked his neighborhood creek and sent a downbeat report that only a
few spawning fish had returned. Even more alarming was the condition of the creek bed: coated with
silt and mud, a sign that the water quality in this stream was going downhill. “The problem with the
weed industry is that its impacts are severe, it’s not effectively regulated, and it’s growing so rapidly,”
says Greacen, executive director of Friends of the Eel River, which runs through the heart of the
marijuana belt. That lack of regulation sets marijuana’s impacts apart from those that stem from legal
farming or logging, yet the 76-year-old federal prohibition on cannabis has thwarted attempts to hold
its production to any kind of environmental standard. As a result, the ecological impact of an ounce of
pot varies tremendously, depending on whether it was produced by squatters in national forests,
hydroponic operators in homes and warehouses, industrial-scale operations on private land, or
conscientious mom-and-pop farmers. Consumers could exert market power through their choices, if
only they had a reliable, widely accepted certification program, like the ones that guarantee the
integrity of organic agriculture. But thanks to the prohibition on pot, no such certification program exists
for cannabis products. To understand how raising some dried flowers—the prized part of the cannabis
plant—can damage the local ecosystem, you first have to grasp the skyrocketing scale of backwoods
agriculture on the redwood coast. Last fall, Scott Bauer of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
turned a mapping crew loose on satellite photos of two adjoining creeks. In the Staten Island–sized area
that drains into those streams, his team identified more than 1,000 cannabis farms, estimated to
produce some 40,000 small-tree-sized plants annually. Bauer holds up the maps, where each
greenhouse is marked in blue and each outdoor marijuana garden in red, with dots that correspond to
the size of the operation. It looks like the landscape has a severe case of Technicolor acne. “In the last
couple of years, the increase has been exponential,” Bauer says. “On the screen, you can toggle back and forth between the 2010 aerial
photo and the one from 2012. Where there had been one or two sites, now there are ten.” Each of those sites represents industrial development in a mostly wild landscape, with the hilly
terrain flattened and cleared. “When someone shaves off a mountaintop and sets a facility on it,” Bauer says, “that’s never changing. The topsoil is gone.” The displaced soil is then spread by
bulldozer to build up a larger flat pad for greenhouses and other farm buildings. But heavy winter rains wash some of the soil into streams, Bauer explains, where it sullies the salmon’s
spawning gravels and fills in the pools where salmon fry spend the summer. Ironically, these are the very impacts that resulted from the worst logging practices of the last century. “We got
logging to the point that the rules are pretty tight,” Bauer says, “and now there’s this whole new industry where nobody has any idea what they’re doing. You see guys building roads who have
never even used a Cat [Caterpillar tractor]. We’re going backwards.” Then there’s irrigation. A hefty cannabis plant needs several gallons of water per day in the rainless summer growing
season, which doesn’t sound like much until you multiply it by thousands of plants and consider that many of the streams in the area naturally dwindle each August and September. In the
summer of 2012, the two creeks that Bauer’s team mapped got so low that they turned into a series of disconnected pools with no water flowing between them, trapping the young fish in
shrinking ponds. “It’s a serious issue for the coho salmon,” Bauer says. “How is this species going to recover if there’s no water?” The effects extend beyond salmon. During several law
enforcement raids last year, Bauer surveyed the creeks supplying marijuana farms to document the environmental violations occurring there. Each time, he says, he found a sensitive
salamander species above the grower’s water intakes, but none below them, where the irrigation pipes had left little water in the creek. On one of these raids, he chastised the grower, who
was camped out onsite and hailed from the East Coast, new to the four- to six-month dry season that comes with California’s Mediterranean climate. “I told him, ‘You’re taking most of the
flow, man,’ ” Bauer recalls. “’It’s just a little tiny creek, and you’ve got three other growers downstream. If you’re all taking 20 or 30 percent, pretty soon there’s nothing left for the fish.’ So he
says, ‘I didn’t think about that.’ ” While some growers raise their pot organically, many do not. “Once you get to a certain scale, it’s really hard to operate in a sustainable way,” Greacen says.
“Among other things, you’ve got a monoculture, and monocultures invite pests.” Spider mites turn out to be a particular challenge for greenhouse growers. Tony Silvaggio, a lecturer at
Humboldt State University and a scholar at the campus’s year-old Humboldt Institute for Interdisciplinary Marijuana Research, found that potent poisons such as Avid and Floramite are sold in
small vials under the counter at grower supply stores, in defiance of a state law that requires they be sold only to holders of a pesticide applicator’s license. Nor are just the workers at risk: the
miticides have been tested for use on decorative plants, but not for their impacts if smoked. Otherwise ecologically minded growers can be driven to spray with commercial pesticides,
Silvaggio has found in his research. “After you’ve worked for months, if you have an outbreak of mites in your last few weeks when the buds are going, you’ve got to do something—otherwise
you lose everything,” he says. Outdoor growers face another threat: rats, which are drawn to the aromatic, sticky foliage of the cannabis plant. Raids at growing sites typically find packages of
the long-acting rodent poison warfarin, which has begun making its way up the food chain to predators such as the rare, weasel-like fisher. A study last year in the online scientific journal PLOS
One found that more than 70 percent of fishers have rat poison in their bloodstream, and attributed four fisher deaths to internal bleeding triggered by the poison they absorbed through their
prey. Deep in the back-country, Silvaggio says, growers shoot or poison bears to keep them from raiding their encampments. The final blow to environmental health from outdoor growing
comes from fertilizers. Growers dump their used potting soil, enriched with unabsorbed fertilizers, in places where it washes into nearby streams and is suspected of triggering blooms of toxic
algae. The deaths of four dogs on Eel River tributaries have been linked to the algae, which the dogs ingest after swimming in the river and then licking their fur. The cannabis industry—or
what Silvaggio calls the “marijuana-industrial complex”—has been building toward this collision with the environment ever since California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing
the medicinal use of marijuana under state law. Seven years later, the legislature passed Senate Bill 420, which allows patients growing pot with a doctor’s blessing to form collectives and sell
their herbal remedy to fellow patients. Thus were born the storefront dispensaries, which grew so common that they came to outnumber Starbucks outlets in Los Angeles. From the growers’
point of view, a 100-plant operation no longer had to be hidden, because its existence couldn’t be presumed illegal under state law. So most growers stopped hiding their plants in discreet
back-country clearings or buried shipping containers and instead put them out in the open. As large grows became less risky, they proliferated—and so did their effects on the environment.
Google Earth posted satellite photos taken in August 2012, when most outdoor pot gardens were nearing their peak. Working with Silvaggio, a graduate student identified large growing sites
in the area, and posted a Google Earth flyover tour of the region that makes it clear that the two creeks Bauer’s team studied are representative of the situation across the region. With all of
the disturbance from burgeoning backwoods marijuana gardens, it might seem that raising cannabis indoors would be the answer. Indoor growers can tap into municipal water supplies and
don’t have to clear land or build roads to farms on hilltop hideaways. But indoor growing is responsible instead for a more insidious brand of damage: an outsize carbon footprint to power the
electric-intensive lights, fans and pumps that it takes to raise plants inside. A dining-table-size hydroponic unit yielding five one-pound crops per year would consume as much electricity as the
average US home, according to a 2012 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Policy. All told, the carbon footprint of a single gram of cannabis is the same as driving seventeen miles in a
Honda Civic. In addition, says Kristin Nevedal, president of the Emerald Growers Association, “the tendency indoors is to lean toward chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides to stabilize
the man-made environment, because you don’t have the natural beneficials that are found outdoors.” Nevertheless, the appeal of indoor growing is strong, explains Sharon (not her real
name), a single mother who used to raise marijuana in the sunshine but moved her operation indoors after she split up with her husband. Under her 3,000 watts of electric light, she raises
numerous smaller plants in a space the size of two sheets of plywood, using far less physical effort than when she raised large plants outdoors. “It’s a very mommy-friendly business that
provides a dependable, year-round income,” she says. Sharon harvests small batches of marijuana year-round, which fetch a few hundred dollars more per pound than outdoor-grown
cannabis because of consumers’ preferences. Sharon’s growing operation supports her and her teenage daughter in the rural area where she settled more than two decades ago. Add up the
energy used by indoor growers, from those on Sharon’s scale to the converted warehouses favored by urban dispensaries, and the impact is significant—estimated at 3 percent of the state’s
total power bill, or the electricity consumed by 1 million homes. On a local level, indoor cannabis production is blocking climate stabilization efforts in the coastal city of Arcata, which aimed to
cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over twelve years. But during the first half of that period, while electricity consumption was flat or declining slightly statewide, Arcata’s
household electrical use grew by 25 percent. City staff traced the increase to more than 600 houses that were using at least triple the electricity of the average home—a level consistent with a
commercial cannabis operation. The city has borne other costs, too, besides simply missing its climate goals. Inexpertly wired grow houses catch fire, and the conversion of residential units to
indoor hothouses has cut into the city’s supply of affordable housing. Last November, city voters approved a stiff tax on jumbo electricity consumers. Now the city council is working with other
Humboldt County local governments to pass a similar tax so that growers can’t evade the fee simply by fleeing the city limits, says City Councilman Michael Winkler. “We don’t want any place
in Humboldt County to be a cheaper place to grow than any other. And since this is the Silicon Valley of marijuana growing, there are a lot of reasons why people would want to stay here if
they’re doing this,” he says. “My goal is to make it expensive enough to get large-scale marijuana growing out of the neighborhoods.” A tax on excessive electricity use may seem like an
indirect way of curbing household cannabis cultivation, but the city had to back away from its more direct approach—a zoning ordinance—when the federal government threatened to
Attempts in neighboring Mendocino
County to issue permits to outdoor growers meeting environmental and public-safety standards were
foiled when federal attorneys slapped county officials with similar warning—illustrating, yet again, the
way prohibition sabotages efforts to reduce the industry’s environmental damage. Indeed, observers
cite federal cannabis prohibition as the biggest impediment to curbing the impacts of marijuana
cultivation, which continues to expand despite a decades-long federal policy of zero tolerance. “We
don’t have a set of best management practices for this industry, partly because of federal prohibition,”
says researcher Silvaggio. “If a grower comes to the county agricultural commissioner and asks, ‘What
are the practices I can use that can limit my impact?’, the county ag guy says, ‘I can’t talk to you about
that because we get federal money.’ ”
prosecute local officials throughout the state if they sanctioned an activity that is categorically forbidden under US law.
Illicit marijuana cultivation has put salmon on the brink of extinction in California and the
Pacific Northwest
Bland 14 (Alastair, reporter, 1-13-14, "California's Pot Farms Could Leave Salmon Runs Truly Smoked"
National Public Radio) www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/01/08/260788863/californias-pot-farms-couldleave-salmon-runs-truly-smoked
For many users and advocates of marijuana, the boom in the West Coast growing industry may be all
good and groovy. But in California, critics say the recent explosion of the marijuana industry along the
state's North Coast — a region called the "emerald triangle" — could put a permanent buzz kill on
struggling salmon populations. The problem? According to critics, marijuana plantations guzzle
enormous amounts of water while also spilling pesticides, fertilizers and stream-clogging sediments into
waterways, including the Eel and the Klamath rivers, that have historically produced large numbers of
Chinook salmon and related species. "The whole North Coast is being affected by these pot growers,"
says Dave Bitts, a Humboldt County commercial fisherman and the president of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "I have nothing against people growing dope," he says, "but if
you do, we want you to grow your crop in a way that doesn't screw up fish habitat. There is no salmonbearing watershed at this point that we can afford to sacrifice." Growers of marijuana often withdraw
water directly from small streams and use up to 6 gallons per day per plant during the summer growing
season, says Scott Bauer, a fisheries biologist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. "When
you have 20,000 or 30,000 plants in a watershed, that is a lot of water," Bauer says. But marijuana
growers are undeservedly taking the blame for a problem that is caused by all residents of the North
Coast, argues Kristin Nevedal, a founding chairperson with the Emerald Growers Association. "It's just so
easy to point a finger at cannabis growers because it's a federally prohibited substance," she tells The
Salt. "The truth is, if you flush a toilet in the hills, you're a part of the problem." According to Bauer, 24
tributaries of the Eel River — in which once-enormous spawning runs of Chinook salmon have nearly
vanished — went completely dry in the summer of 2013. Each, Bauer says, was being used to irrigate
pot farms. As a result, Bauer expects to see poor returns of Chinook and Coho salmon, as well as
steelhead, in several years. While 2013 saw record-low precipitation in California, drought, Bauer says, is
only part of the problem, and he still blames marijuana farmers. Taking water from a stream isn't
necessarily illegal, though it does usually require applying with the state for permission. Many farmers
go this route, Bauer says. But of the estimated 4,000 pot growers in Humboldt County alone, "maybe a
couple have applied for" water use permits, Bauer says. Marijuana plantations along the North Coast are
proliferating. Bauer, who has closely studied Google Earth images of the area, estimates that acreage
under pot cultivation doubled from 2009 to 2012. Stormer Feiler, a scientist with California's North
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, confirms the same: "It's like the gold rush," he says.
California's Chinook salmon fishery was canceled or shortened three years in a row beginning in 2008.
This occurred following record-low spawning returns in the Sacramento River, one of the largest salmonproducing watersheds on the West Coast. The crash was blamed partly on agricultural overuse of the
river's water. Since then, the Golden Gate Salmon Association, a group based in San Francisco, has been
advocating for more fish-friendly use of the river's water —especially limits on how much water can be
pumped into farmland. Now, marijuana farms have emerged as an issue of increasing concern, says the
association's executive director, John McManus. "It's not just the water they're taking out of the streams
but the chemicals and nutrients they're putting into the water," McManus says. Fertilizers that drain
into rivers can cause floating carpets of algae to grow in the water. When these mats begin to decay, the
breakdown process steals oxygen from the water, suffocating fish. Bauer has discovered pools full of
dead adult Chinook salmon — fish full of eggs, he says, that had not yet spawned. As many as a halfmillion Chinook salmon once spawned in the Eel River each year. By the 1950s, the fish were almost
gone. Since then, the population has slightly rebounded, and several thousand Chinook now return to
the Eel annually. Scott Greacen, the executive director of Friends of the Eel River, warns that, unless pot
growers are more closely regulated, some of California's North Coast salmon runs could be looking at
extinction.
No alt causes—marijuana is the number one threat to salmon
Harkinson 14 (Josh, reporter, March/April 2014, "The Landscape-Scarring, Energy-Sucking, WildlifeKilling Reality of Pot Farming" Mother Jones) www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/marijuanaweed-pot-farming-environmental-impacts
Among the downsides of the green rush is the strain it puts on water resources in a drought-plagued
region. Scott Bauer, a biologist with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, calculates that irrigation
for cannabis farms has sucked up all of the water that would ordinarily keep local salmon streams
running through the dry season. Marijuana cultivation, he believes, "is a big reason why" at least 24
salmon and steelhead streams stopped flowing last summer. "I would consider it probably the No. 1
threat" to salmon in the area, he told me. "We are spending millions of dollars on restoring streams.
We are investing all this money in removing roads and trying to contain sediment and fixing fish path
barriers, but without water there's no fish."
Salmon are a keystone species—preserving their habitat is key to avoid ecosystem
collapse which risks extinction
Stephan 13 (Bernie, broker of Eco Realty, co-hosts KWMR’s Post Carbon Radio and blogs at
MarinSonoma.com, Protecting our salmon and our human survival, 10/24/2013,
http://www.ptreyeslight.com/article/protecting-our-salmon-and-our-human-survival
It’s time we valued our freshwater creeks—nature’s roads—for the value they bring in the long term. Biodiversity
in our watershed is
essential for many species and is essential for ultimate human survival. We must protect our
watersheds
Extinction is far more serious than anyone’s financial investment.¶ The
cumulative effect of many small land disturbances near a stream can be devastating Land-use
restrictions to protect salmon streams have successfully been implemented elsewhere in California and
, respecting the natural flows of water and the life they enable.
.
around the United States. Marin’s failure to take permanent action is truly disturbing, considering that other counties and cities have enacted stream protection measures. The need to control
development, to protect Marin’s salmon, has been well understood for decades.
¶ Marin officials have watched coho salmon populations drop by 70 percent since the 1960’s. In 2010, the
nonprofit Salmon Protection and Watershed Network sued the county for its failure to protect salmon. Marin’s Superior Court imposed a ban on new development in San Geronimo Valley
pending the adoption of an ordinance that had been promised since 1994.
¶ In June, almost two decades after the ordinance had been proposed, the Board of Supervisors had before it a
draft stream protection ordinance ready for adoption. But when it came to a vote, supervisors lacked the political courage to protect the salmon. Instead, they chose to punt, appointing a
subcommittee to make recommendations for revising the Countywide Plan once again.
¶ We can have development setbacks for coho and all the other species that don’t recognize our
surveyed boundaries. Our creeks are roads for salmon, whose annual migrations are a marvel of nature. When my family lived on San Geronimo Creek, the sighting of salmon always lifted our
spirits, connecting us to the natural world. I envision Marin’s creeks as wildlife corridors where aquatic and terrestrial critter alike would have their needs met. It’s time for us humans to see
the bigger picture and begin limiting our development.
¶ Private property rights should take a back seat to the needs of nature. As a working realtor, I’m still speaking up for the fish. I value
their right to continue co-existing with us more highly than our right to expand real estate development. But will our supervisors do the same? Human activity, especially land development,
¶
¶ As our planet undergoes a biodiversity crisis everywhere, 16,000 species are threatened with extinction, including 12 percent of birds, 23 percent of mammals and 32 percent of
has been the main cause of the collapse of the Lagunitas Creek salmon population, and sustaining the salmon requires rigorous protection along the entire length of the creek and its
tributaries.
amphibians. Biologists are clear that humans are responsible for the declines we are witnessing. The aggregate effect of all our development continues to destroy the homes and habitat of
wildlife, even when we as individuals take great care not to.
¶ We should move quickly to enact a rigorous, enforceable ordinance to protect our salmon, or
they will all be gone and the threats to human survival are not far behind Let’s listen to the scientists over the protestations of
property owners. Let’s heed the dire warnings; there has been enough delay already. ¶ I urge the county supervisors to exercise decisive leadership is reversing the tide that always seems to
put private property rights ahead of nature’s rights Salmon are the biological foundation—and keystone species—of our
precious coastal ecosystems Let’s hope the supervisors stem the tide of ecocide and side with the fish on this important issue.
.
.
.
Legalizing marijuana is key to remove political barriers to the collection of energy data which
is key to solve warming
Elkind 14 (Ethan, Climate Policy Associate with a joint appointment at UC Berkeley School of Law and
UCLA School of Law/taught at UCLA Law School’s Frank Wells Environmental Law Clinic, February 10th
2014, “How Legalizing Marijuana Could Help Fight Climate Change”, http://legalplanet.org/2014/02/10/how-legalizing-marijuana-could-help-fight-climate-change/, AB)
Now that the two states that just legalized marijuana sent their football teams to the Superbowl this
year, it’s clear that the stars are aligning for legalizing marijuana nationwide. Sure, legalizing marijuana
makes fiscal, moral, and practical sense, but what about the benefits to the environment? Well, it turns
out that even the fight against climate change could potentially be enhanced by making cannabis — and
the grow operations that produce it — legal. It starts with the grow sites. Regular Legal Planet readers
may recall co-blogger Rick Frank writing about the local hazards and pollution caused by illegal grow
operations on public lands. But there’s another, potentially broader environmental issue at stake with
legalizing and mainstreaming grow operations: enabling the improved collection of energy data to help
target energy conservation and efficiency programs. Energy data are critical to the fight against climate
change and other harmful forms of air pollution. Policy makers, especially here in California (as
represented by Ken Alex, Legal Planet guest blogger and senior advisor to Governor Jerry Brown), would
like to get a better sense of where the most energy is being used. If they could access energy data by
neighborhoods, industry, and time of use, among other categories, policy makers could target the most
inefficient customers with incentives and rates to become more efficient. Reducing this electricity usage
would have major benefits in terms of reducing air pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions) from
power plants and saving ratepayers money from the avoided construction of new plants. Not to mention
that the customers themselves would benefit from paying for less electricity. So what is standing in the
way of giving policy makers access to the vital data? Privacy concerns. Even though the energy data are
anonymized and aggregated, a vocal segment of ratepayers doesn’t like even the remote possibility that
the government could use these data to know when you’re home, when you leave for work, or how
your business operates. Overall, most people have little to hide when it comes to electricity usage. But
indoor marijuana growers sure do, and they are quietly constituting a major force in opposition to
greater disclosure of energy data. And they have reason for concern. In documented cases, police have
issued subpoenas for electricity data to bust pot growers. This is not a small industry either: a 2012
study by Evan Mills of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (the Lab was not involved in his work)
indicated that these grow operations could be responsible for up to 2% of nationwide household
electricity usage, at a total cost of $6 billion (in fact, the growers themselves may be our first target for
implementing improved efficiency measures, given their potentially wasteful, unregulated ways). So it’s
not a stretch to think that legalizing marijuana nationwide, and allowing commercial grow operations to
proceed in a regulated fashion, could have the additional benefit of defusing some of the major privacy
objections to releasing environmentally beneficial energy data. Of course, the privacy objections aren’t
just limited to marijuana growers, and even with legalization, some residential growers may still want or
need to remain anonymous. But sensible marijuana policies could make a major difference in alleviating
privacy concerns, unlocking the data that can lead to sound and strategic energy efficiency programs.
Transparency in emissions data is key to solve warming
Fagotto and Graham 13 (Elena, Ph.D. at Erasmus University Rotterdam and senior researcher at
Harvard University and Mary is a research fellow at both KSG and the Georgetown University Law
Center“, http://issues.org/23-4/fagotto-2/ , Full Disclosure: Using Transparency to Fight Climate
Change”, November 27th, AB)
An essential first step in any effective climate change policy is to require major contributors to fully
disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. Congressional leaders are finally working seriously on long
term-approaches to counter climate change. But all the major proposals leave a critical policy gap
because they would not take effect for at least five years. Meanwhile, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
continue to increase, and company executives continue to make decisions that lock in the emissions of
future power plants, factories, and cars. Congress could fill that policy gap now by requiring greater
transparency. In the immediate future, legislating product labeling and factory reporting of greenhouse
gas emissions would make markets work better. Such disclosure would expose inefficiencies and allow
investors, business partners, employees, community residents, and consumers to compare cars, air
conditioners, lawn mowers, and manufacturing plants. As people factored that information into
everyday choices, company executives would have new incentives to cut emissions sooner rather than
later. Greater transparency would also help jump start whatever cap-and-trade or other regulatory
approach emerges from the current congressional debate. A carefully constructed transparency system
is therefore an essential element of U.S. climate change strategy. Such a system would fill a legislative
void and provide immediate benefits as Congress continues its debate. Congress is debating long-term
approaches to climate change. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, and John Dingell (D-MI), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are holding
wide-ranging hearings, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCA) has created a select committee to coordinate
climate change action in the House. Three major bills propose variations on a cap-and-trade approach to
cutting greenhouse gas emissions. All combine industry emission limits or “caps” with governmentcreated markets for trading emission permits. The bills differ mainly in the progressive severity of caps
and in how they are set. The most ambitious proposal, introduced by Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVT), proposes caps that would reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Ironically, though,
even if the 110th Congress approves some variation on a cap-and-trade approach, the new law will not
create any immediate incentives for manufacturers, power providers, factory farms, and other major
contributors to reduce emissions. If President Bush signed such legislation in 2008, his action would only
signal the beginning of another debate over the rules that would govern the system. That debate is likely
to be long and acrimonious because the fine print of the regulations will determine which companies
are the real winners or losers from government action. Regulations will govern the mechanics of trading
emission permits, the allocation of “caps” among industries and companies, and the timing of
compliance—all costly and contentious issues for energy-intensive businesses. Such delay may be
inevitable but its costs will be high. Even conservative projections conclude that U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions will continue to increase rapidly during the next decade and will produce increasingly serious
consequences. The administration’s latest climate action report, circulated in draft, projects that a 19%
increase in emissions between 2000 and 2020 will contribute to persistent drought, coastal flooding,
and water shortages in many parts of the country and around the world. That increase could be as high
as 30% under a business-as-usual scenario. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that
carbon dioxide emissions, the most common greenhouse gas, increased by 20% from 1990 to 2005, and
emissions of three more potent fluorinated gases, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocompounds, and sulfur
hexafluoride, weighted for their relative contribution to climate change, increased by 82.5%. The United
States still holds the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases. Each
large contributor to increasing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions has a unique story. Carbon dioxide
emissions from generating electricity, responsible for 41% of total U.S. emissions from fossil fuel
combustion in 2005, continue to increase faster than energy use because dramatic increases in the price
of natural gas have led some power providers to increase their reliance on coal. The most recent
estimates of the federal Energy Information Administration project that such emissions will increase
1.2% a year from 2005 to 2030. (The burning of petroleum and natural gas results in 25% and 45% less
carbon emissions per unit respectively than does the burning of coal.) Power companies are investing
now in facilities that will shape the next half-century of electricity generation—and the next half-century
of greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the more than 100 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing
boards will have useful lives of 50 years or more. Carbon emissions from the incineration of municipal
solid waste, not even including paper and yard trimmings, increased 91% from 1990 to 2005 as more
plastics, synthetic rubber, and other wastes from petroleum products were burned. Carbon emissions
from cement manufacture increased 38% as construction activity increased to meet the demands of the
growing U.S. economy. Carbon emissions from the burning of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel to power
cars, trucks, planes, and other forms of transportation increased 32% during the same period because of
increased travel and “the stagnation of fuel efficiency across the U.S. vehicle fleet,” according to the
EPA. Executives will need powerful incentives to alter current plans in order to make significant
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions any time soon. Most are understandably reluctant to place their
companies at a competitive disadvantage by making bold and often costly emission-cutting moves
unilaterally. In fact, the prolonged congressional debate may make executives more reluctant to act
early since their companies may reap large emission-cutting credits once regulations take effect. So far,
neither the administration nor Congress has come up with any way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in the next critical years. A carefully constructed transparency system would mobilize the power of
public opinion, inform choice, and help markets work better now. Requiring disclosure for each
proposed and existing major factory and power plant as well as for each new car, truck, furnace,
refrigerator, and other energy-intensive product would expose their relative carbon efficiencies as well
as their total contributions to such emissions. Once disclosed, emissions data could be used by mayors
and governors to design and carry out emission-reduction plans; by local zoning and permitting
authorities to place conditions on the construction or alteration of plants; by investors to more
accurately predict material risks; by consumers to choose among cars, air conditioners, and heating
systems; and by employees to decide where they want to work. Environmental groups, industry
associations, and local and national media could use the information to help to pinpoint the most
inefficient factories and cars.
Warming is real, human caused, and causes extinction—acting now is key to avoid
catastrophic collapse
Dr. David McCoy et al., MD, Centre for International Health and Development, University College
London, “Climate Change and Human Survival,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL v. 348, 4—2—14, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2510, accessed 8-31-14.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published its report on the impacts of
global warming. Building on its recent update of the physical science of global warming [1], the IPCC’s
new report should leave the world in no doubt about the scale and immediacy of the threat to human
survival, health, and well-being. The IPCC has already concluded that it is “virtually certain that human
influence has warmed the global climate system” and that it is “extremely likely that more than half of
the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” is anthropogenic [1].
Its new report outlines the future threats of further global warming: increased scarcity of food and fresh
water; extreme weather events; rise in sea level; loss of biodiversity; areas becoming uninhabitable; and
mass human migration, conflict and violence. Leaked drafts talk of hundreds of millions displaced in a
little over 80 years. This month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) added
its voice: “the well being of people of all nations [is] at risk.” [2] Such comments reaffirm the conclusions
of the Lancet/UCL Commission: that climate change is “the greatest threat to human health of the 21st
century.” [3] The changes seen so far—massive arctic ice loss and extreme weather events, for
example—have resulted from an estimated average temperature rise of 0.89°C since 1901. Further
changes will depend on how much we continue to heat the planet. The release of just another 275
gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would probably commit us to a temperature rise of at least 2°C—an
amount that could be emitted in less than eight years. [4] “Business as usual” will increase carbon
dioxide concentrations from the current level of 400 parts per million (ppm), which is a 40% increase
from 280 ppm 150 years ago, to 936 ppm by 2100, with a 50:50 chance that this will deliver global mean
temperature rises of more than 4°C. It is now widely understood that such a rise is “incompatible with
an organised global community.” [5]. The IPCC warns of “tipping points” in the Earth’s system, which, if
crossed, could lead to a catastrophic collapse of interlinked human and natural systems. The AAAS
concludes that there is now a “real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes
with highly damaging impacts on people around the globe.” [2] And this week a report from the World
Meteorological Office (WMO) confirmed that extreme weather events are accelerating. WMO secretary
general Michel Jarraud said, “There is no standstill in global warming . . . The laws of physics are nonnegotiable.” [6]
Back to cartels
Terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons—multiple potential sources
Neely 13 (Meggaen, research intern for the Project on Nuclear Issues, 3-21-13, "Doubting Deterrence of
Nuclear Terrorism" Center for Strategic and International Studies) csis.org/blog/doubting-deterrencenuclear-terrorism
The risk that terrorists will set off a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil is disconcertingly high. While a terrorist
organization may experience difficulty constructing nuclear weapons facilities, there is significant concern
that terrorists can obtain a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials. The fear that an actor could steal a nuclear
weapon or fissile material and transport it to the U nited S tates has long-existed. It takes a great amount
of time and resources (including territory) to construct centrifuges and reactors to build a nuclear
weapon from scratch. Relatively easily-transportable nuclear weapons, however, present one opportunity to
terrorists. For example, exercises similar to the recent Russian movement of nuclear weapons from munitions
depots to storage sites may prove attractive targets. Loose nuclear materials pose a second opportunity.
Terrorists could use them to create a crude nuclear weapon similar to the gun-type design of Little Boy. Its
simplicity – two subcritical masses of highly-enriched uranium – may make it attractive to terrorists. While
such a weapon might not produce the immediate destruction seen at Hiroshima, the radioactive fall-out
and psychological effects would still be damaging. These two opportunities for terrorists differ from
concerns about a “dirty bomb,” which mixes radioactive material with conventional explosives.
bioterror is probable and causes extinction
Matheny 7 Jason G. Matheny, research associate with the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford
University, 2007, “Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction,” http://www.upmcbiosecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2007/2007-10-15-reducingrisk.html
Of current extinction risks, the most severe may be bioterrorism. The knowledge needed to engineer a
virus is modest compared to that needed to build a nuclear weapon; the necessary equipment and
materials are increasingly accessible and because biological agents are self-replicating, a weapon can
have an exponential effect on a population (Warrick, 2006; Williams, 2006).5 Current U.S. biodefense
efforts are funded at $5 billion per year to develop and stockpile new drugs and vaccines, monitor
biological agents and emerging diseases, and strengthen the capacities of local health systems to
respond to pandemics (Lam, Franco, & Shuler, 2006).
2AC
Treaty CP: 2AC
U.N. says no to the amendment
Rolles 9 senior policy analyst for the Transform Drug Policy Foundation (Stephen, “After the War on Drugs:
Blueprint for Regulation,”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tdpf.org.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FBlueprint.pdf&ei=xMcRVMEgia_IBL3xgtgE&usg=
AFQjCNEzapo6rmX2drItTNAlEF6SqJcDiw&sig2=vhMVPBlGoaWEJ9GB2HYbHg)
Article 3 of the Single Convention allows for the WHO or any Party state to initiate the modification process
that would reschedule a specified drug or delete it from the conventions at any time. For cannabis and coca
an amendment to the Single Convention would also be required as cultivation and production of the plants is
specifically prohibited, separately from the scheduling infrastructure-thus drastically limiting the reform
possibilities theoretically available for other scheduled drugs. The nature of the Convention provisions
renders this somewhat academic , as individual states have the power within the system to easily block
change . The WHO, whilst key to any modification process because of its advisory role, can only make
non-binding recommendations-the power to implement changes remains with the 53 member Commission
on Narcotic Drugs that operates within and determines policy for the UNODC. Within the CND there exists a
curious alliance of states (including Sweden, Japan, many ex-Soviet States, most Arab nations and the USA) that
are staunchly opposed to any revisions that would move the treaty away from its punitive tenets. For these
countries the conventions are based on the rigid and absolute position that all (illegal) drug use is
morally unacceptable-to the extent that the conventions have assumed a status more akin to religious
documents." In effect, unlike the statement in the 1997 UN world drugs report (above), for these
countries the conventions are, to all intents and purposes, indeed written in stone.
That solves—only the permutation maintains sufficient leverage to get conservative nations
on board
David R. Bewley-Taylor 12, Professor of International Relations and Public Policy at Swansea University
Wales, and founding Director of the Global Drug Policy Observatory, March 2012, “Towards revision of
the UN drug control conventions: The logic and dilemmas of Like-Minded Groups,”
http://www.tni.org/files/download/dlr19.pdf
However, in another scenario, an effective and strategically shrewd development of a cannabis regulation
group, might generate enough support for, or critically limit resistance towards, treaty amendment. This would
be more likely if the LMG contained a credible mix of nations, including one or more ‘critical states’, which could
withstand or pacify opposition from other sections of the international community. In terms of process, it is
worth pointing out that although strengthening the prohibitive credentials of the regime , the 1972 Protocol
Amending the Single Convention is the final product of numerous amendment proposals from the US with
support from other states including the UK.43 In this respect, the use of denunciation may also be
appropriate, but here as a trigger for treaty revision. By merely making moves to leave the confines of the
regime, an LMG might be able to generate a critical mass sufficient to compel states favouring the status quo to
engage with the process. Moreover, prohibition-oriented states , as well as those parts of the UN apparatus
resistant to change, might be more open to treaty modification or amendment if it was felt that such a
concession would prevent the collapse of the control system . By Lawrence Helfer’s analysis ‘withdrawing
from an agreement (or threatening to withdraw ) can give a denouncing state additional voice…by increasing
its leverage to reshape the treaty…’ (Emphasis added).44
“Resolved” doesn’t lock the aff into “certainty”
Merriam Webster ‘9 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved)
# Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ # Function: verb # Inflected
Form(s): resolved; re·solv·ing 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by
dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult, deliberate
Neither does “should”
Encarta World English Dictionary 2005
(http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861735294)
expressing conditions or consequences: used to express the conditionality of an occurrence and suggest it is
not a given, or to indicate the consequence of something that might happen ( used in conditional clauses )
And resolved doesn’t mean immediate
Online Plain Text English Dictionary ‘9 (http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Resolve)
Resolve: “To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to resolve on a
better course of life.”
Amendments get crushed—causes a more restrictive treaty
Rolles, 9 – senior policy analyst for the Transform Drug Policy Foundation (Stephen, “After the War on
Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation,”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQ
FjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tdpf.org.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FBlueprint.pdf&ei=xMcRVME
gia_IBL3xgtgE&usg=AFQjCNEzapo6rmX2drItTNAlEF6SqJcDiw&sig2=vhMVPBlGoaWEJ9GB2HYbHg)
The obstacles to modification render it an effectively worthless option, making the prospects for
amendment seem initially more promising. However, once again there is ample scope for opposing parties
to block changes. ' The possibility to amend is provided in Article 47 of the Single Convention. Article 30 of
the 1971 Convention and Article 31 of the 1988 Convention. Parties can notify the Secretary-General of
a proposed amendment, including the reasoning behind the move. The Secretary- General then
communicates the proposed amendment and the reasons for it to the Parties and to the Council. It is
then the ECOSOC's decision to either call a conference to consider the amendment, or ask the parties if
they accept the amendment. In the unlikely event of no party rejecting the amendment within 18
months the amendment comes into force. In the more likely event of objections being raised to ECOSOC,
the council then can decide whether or not to convene a conference to consider the amendment. Such a
conference could usefully raise the profile of the revision issue. but there would be no guarantee of
meaningful revisions. Prohibition oriented states could even potentially exploit the event to move policy in the
opposite direction. "" Functional cost objections could also be made to such a conference-that is, that it
would be too expensive.
The counterplan causes huge delays—UN Bureaucracy
Ottawa 7 “Time to get on with the job” Ottawa Citizen- Most popular groundbreaking news for Canada,
July 16, 2007 Monday, lexis
The secretary general of the U nited N ations meets tomorrow with the president of the U nited S tates to
discuss some of the most urgent problems facing humanity. It has been six months since Mr. Ban took
office. He seems to enjoy his reputation as a cautious bureaucrat. He took his time filling key positions,
and most of his statements have been uncontroversial. His name shows up in the third paragraphs of
news stories, rather than in the headlines. The UN, though, has not receded from the world stage during
Mr. Ban's first months. The newly reconstituted Human Rights Council took its first faltering steps and
met with deserved criticism for failing to speak out about blatant abuses. UN agencies have steered the
debate on drugs in Afghanistan and climate change. There are more UN peacekeeping personnel in the
field than ever. On Darfur -- an immediate threat to security and development that the UN could help
solve -- Mr. Ban's quiet diplomacy has been overshadowed by U.S. President George W. Bush's much stronger
leadership. At one point, Mr. Ban suggested he needed more time ; time is a luxury the displaced and dying do
not have. The issue of UN reform was close to Kofi Annan's heart and seems equally dear to his
successor. It's been slow going on that front, too, although it's not Mr. Ban's fault that getting any change
through the U nited N ations system is like walking through molasses.
Add-On: Cyber 2AC
Federal prohibition creates a shortage of cyber workers—causes attacks
Aliya Sternstein 14, Next Gov Senior Correspondent, FEDERAL CYBER HIRING COULD TAKE A HIT UNDER
MARIJUANA MANDATE, March 14, http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2014/03/federal-cyberhiring-could-take-hit-under-marijuana-mandate/80527/
The Obama administration’s policy to uphold a ban on federal employees smoking pot -- even where recreational
marijuana is now legal under state law -- could snuff out efforts to hire nonconventional but trusted hackers to
search for holes in government computer systems. Many of the best of these white hats known as “ethical hackers ” tend to
shy away from the establishment. "It is only recently that I started hearing that this state ban would be a challenge to hiring ethical hackers," said Kathleen Smith, chief
management officer at ClearedJobs.Net, an online forum for cleared security professionals that also hosts job fairs. " The managers are having a difficult time
with balancing between what an employee can do based on state law -- and what they are banned from doing
based on federal law , especially with regards to cleared work and their security clearance ." A July 2013 blog post on state
marijuana laws that appeared on ClearedJobs.Net was the second most popular story on the site last year. It read: “Those of you with (or planning to obtain) security clearances who have an
interest in adding marijuana use to your recreational pastime may think, ‘Great! If I’m ever in Colorado or Washington State, I can smoke pot without any ramifications!’ Unfortunately, you are
wrong!” Colorado on New Year's Day became the first state to allow the use of marijuana for leisure, and Washington will follow this summer. The federal government effectively criminalized
marijuana in 1937. Now the feds say they will look the other way in states that legalize dope, unless they see drugged driving, distribution to minors or certain other infractions. Or, unless
Marijuana is illegal under federal law and the rules prohibiting federal employees from
using it still apply, regardless of state laws ,” a Justice Department spokesperson told Nextgov's sister publication Government Executive. Officials
those rolling a joint work for them. “
already had announced
that federal employees are barred from inhaling while working in Colorado or anywhere else
where cannabis is legal. Undergraduate code crackers – in high demand nationwide -- are seeing that some freedoms
granted to their neighbors will not apply to them if they join public service. "When I'm talking to college kids, I tell people: 'You are going to have to think
about how you are going to change your life to do this,'" Smith said. A December 2013 letter to Obama administration officials from the information
security trade group (ISC)2 said 61 percent of federal employees surveyed "believe that their agency has too few information
security workers to manage threats now , let alone in the future, yet information security positions are going unfilled ."
Federal employers might be able to entice nonconventional computer whizzes with stimulants instead of hallucinogens, Smith said. "What I found with people who like doing cleared work and
working for the government is they like to work on the really cool stuff," said Smith, whose clients include security cleared professionals in the federal government and private sector. "The
price to work on the really cool stuff might be: Some of the recreational drug use I can't do any longer."
Nuclear war
Robert Tilford 12, Graduate US Army Airborne School, Ft. Benning, Georgia, “Cyber attackers could shut
down the electric grid for the entire east coast” 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/cyberattackers-could-easily-shut-down-the-electric-grid-for-the-entire-east-coa ***we don’t agree with the
ableist language
To make matters worse
a cyber attack that can take out a civilian power grid, for example could also cripple the U.S.
military .¶ The senator notes that is that the same power grids that supply cities and towns, stores and gas stations, cell towers
and heart monitors also power “ every
power outage
military base in our country.”¶ “Although bases would be prepared to weather a short
with backup diesel generators, within hours, not days, fuel supplies would run out”, he said.¶ Which means military
command and control centers could go dark .¶ Radar systems that detect air threats to our country would shut Down
completely.¶ “Communication between
commanders and their troop s would also go silent. And many weapons systems
would be left without either fuel or electric power”, said Senator Grassley.¶ “So in a few short hours or days, the
mightiest military in the world would be left scrambling to maintain base functions”, he said.¶ We contacted the
Pentagon and officials confirmed the threat of a cyber attack is something very real .¶ Top national security
officials—including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA Director— have
said, “preventing a cyber attack and improving the nation’s electric grids is among the most urgent priorities of our country” (source:
Congressional Record).¶ So how serious is the Pentagon taking all this?¶ Enough to start, or end a war over it, for sure. ¶ A cyber attack today against
the US could very well be seen as an “Act of War” and could be met with a “full scale” US military response . ¶
That could include the use of “nuclear weapons”, if authorized by the President.
Add-On: Radiation 2AC
Hemp absorbs toxins from nuclear meltdowns -- extinction
Daw 13 “Hemp remediation for Japan” Phillip Daw – Staff at The Leaf, October 14, 2013,
http://theleafonline.com/c/science/2013/10/hemp-remediation-for-japan/
The planet is now facing a nuclear disaster at least 10 times greater than the infamous Chernobyl reactor
meltdown — a magnitude often referred to by scientists as an “Extinction Level Event” (ELE). The Japanese
Fukushima Dai-ichi triple nuclear meltdown has already affected the US. Radioactive material has been spilling
from the power plants since March 11, 2011, exposing every creature on Earth to plutonium, cesium 137,
uranium, and other toxins that travel through the ocean, jet stream and food and water systems. People every
day drink, eat, breathe and wash with radioactive particles that cause disease, disaster and that could possibly
end human life on earth. To limit this catastrophe, all nations should cultivate radiation-eating fungi and plants
such as cannabis hemp to remediate the radiation and mend the ecosystem . Medical marijuana and hash oil
(such as ‘Rick Simpson’s oil’) reduce cancer risk, and hemp foods and beverages are an excellent nutrition
source to bolster the immune systems of people and livestock. Hemp is a biomass champion at cleaning the
environment of many toxins including radiation, as demonstrated in the Chernobyl crisis. High-melanin-
content mushrooms that eat radiation are partners in a great phyto-remediation team to clean the
environment. Unused government land could be turned over to farmers who agree to grow hemp
through FarmAid contracted by the UN and/or national governments. Nuclear entombment using lead,
aluminum, hempcrete building materials and hemp plastic with a free-energy cooling system (magnetic,
hydro or solar) can contain and seal off the contaminated reactors and area. Nearby structures should be
encased in hemp plastic or hempcrete and sealed to reduce indoor radiation. Natural hemp garments are
comfortable, stylish and people can wear them to block UV rays and otherwise reduce their risk. The great
stumbling block to healing the nations is cannabis prohibition, enforced by the US through the DEA at home
and funding the Drug War abroad. Fukushima is a man-made disaster. Cannabis hemp is a natural herb
offering a lifeline to the planet . Will future generations look back to see that America used its Drug War
lies to block bio-remediation, or will the US abandon hemp prohibition to salvage the Earth? That depends
on how many people step up to demand that America implement the hemp solution.
Add-On: LA Relations 2AC
Plan reinvigorates Latin American relations
Peter Hakim 14, President emeritus and Cameron Combs is program associate at the Inter-American
Dialogue, “Why the U.S. should legalize marijuana”, 1/26,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/26/3891371/why-the-us-should-legalize-marijuana.html
Tiny Uruguay
made waves a month ago by becoming the first nation anywhere to fully legalize the sale and use of
recreational marijuana. Colorado and Washington, however, had already beaten them to the punch, and a handful of other states are expected soon to follow
suit.¶ In addition, 18 states and the District of Columbia permit marijuana for medical purposes. A proposal to legalize medical marijuana could appear on Florida’s
ballot in November.¶ What this all means is that
the U nited S tates is without a national policy toward marijuana . Although legally
banned throughout the country by federal law, cannabis use is, in practice, governed by an incoherent patchwork
of state regulations , and further muddled by staggering disparities in enforcement and punishment .¶ Legalizing
cannabis , a step most Americans now favor, is the only way out of this jumble , particularly after President Obama made clear that he would
not enforce a federal ban on marijuana use in those states where it was now lawful. “We have other fish to fry,” he said. In another interview, he said marijuana is
no more harmful than alcohol.¶ Legalization
should also contribute to easier relations with Mexico and other neighbors to
the south on issues of public security.¶ To be sure, legal marijuana comes with costs and risks. The American Medical Association considers
cannabis a “ dangerous drug” while the American Psychiatric Association asserts that its use impedes neurological development in adolescents and can cause the
“onset of psychiatric disorders.”¶ Some studies suggest it interferes with learning and motivation. It should be anticipated that legalization will lead to greater use,
at all ages, as marijuana becomes more accessible and less expensive, and the cultural and social stigmas surrounding its consumption literally go up in smoke.
Abuse and addiction — including among juveniles — will rise as well.¶ But keeping
marijuana illegal also carries a high price tag. Particularly
devastating are the human costs of arresting and jailing thousands upon thousands of young Americans each year.
Roughly one-third of all U.S. citizens are arrested by age 23. Racial and ethnic minorities are most vulnerable . African-American marijuana
users are over three times more likely to be arrested and imprisoned than whites, even though the two groups consume the drug at virtually the same levels. ¶
With cannabis accounting for roughly half of total drug arrests, legalization would sharply reduce this egregious
disparity . It would also save money by reducing the U.S. prison population . A half a million people were incarcerated for drug
offenses in 2011, a ten-fold jump since 1980 — at an average annual cost per prisoner of more than $20,000 in a minimum-security federal facility.¶ Cannabis
legalization would also help to lift an unneeded burden from U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, where
Washington’s drug war has long strained diplomatic relations .¶ Most governments in the hemisphere have
concluded that U.S. anti-drug policies are just not working and, in many places, are actually contributing to mounting
levels of crime, violence and corruption . Colombia has been a notable exception. With U.S. support of nearly $10 billion, the country has become
far more secure in the past dozen years.¶ Yet Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s president and arguably Washington’s closest ally in the region, is now a leading
advocate of alternative drug strategies. In an exhaustive report last year, prompted by President Santos, the Organization of American States analyzed a range of
alternative policy approaches, including cannabis legalization. ¶ Few Latin American countries are actively contemplating legalization a la uruguaya. But many have
stopped arrests for use and possession of marijuana, and virtually all are keeping a close watch on developments in Uruguay. Nowhere
is there much
enthusiasm for cooperating with the United States in its continuing efforts to eradicate drug crops and interrupt
drug flows.¶ A decision by the U.S. government to legalize marijuana would be a bold step toward breaking today’s
bureaucratic and political inertia and opening the way for a genuine hemisphere-wide search for alternative
strategies .
Relations are key to solve numerous existential threats
Shifter 12 Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United
States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties. Every country in the
Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s
markets, investment capital, and energy resources. Even with its current economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion
economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin America, and it
could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will
inevitably become more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future. The United States and many nations of Latin
America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear
non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights. With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and demographic
integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership Despite the multiple opportunities and potential
relations between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized, relations
will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course
and rebuild vigorous cooperation . Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention —both from the United States and from Latin America
benefits,
and the Caribbean.
Treaties DA: 2AC
DC legalization thumps
By BEN NUCKOLS 2-26, Associated Press “D.C. Legalizes Pot In Capital”
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/02/26/dc-legalizes-pot-in-capital-despite-threats-fromcongress
WASHINGTON (AP) — The D istrict of C olumbia defied threats from Congress and moved forward Thursday
with legalizing possession of marijuana after a voter-approved initiative.¶ Despite last-minute maneuvers
by Republican leaders in Congress and threats that city leaders could face prison time, D.C. Mayor
Muriel Bowser said the city was implementing marijuana legalization as approved by voters. The new
law took effect at 12:01 a.m.¶ Bowser, a Democrat, said the city's plans haven't changed despite a letter
from two leading House Republicans warning of repercussions if the city moves forward with
legalization.¶ D.C. marijuana legalization could put U.S. in violation of anti-drug treaties¶ Washington
Times¶ Congress has final say over the laws in the District of Columbia, and the two sides disagree about
whether Congress acted quickly enough to block an initiative legalizing pot, which was approved by
nearly two-thirds of city voters in November.
Other US violations of I-law thump
Newman 12/3/14 (Alex, "UN Torture Committee Slams U.S. Police and Military." The New American.
12/3/14. www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/19645-un-torture-committee-slams-us-police-and-military, TD)
After a spectacle featuring senior Obama administration officials prostrating themselves before the
United Nations “Committee Against Torture,” the controversial UN body released a scathing report last week
accusing U.S. authorities of widespread violations of what it calls “ international law.” Among other concerns,
the global panel cited everything from “police brutality” by state and local officials domestically to the actions
of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies abroad. Other criticism directed at the United States focused on
immigration policies, deportations , prison conditions, Guantanamo Bay, the terror war , and more. In
response to the UN committee’s findings, the panel called on federal officials to alter U.S. laws to comply
with its demands — including abolishing the death penalty, reforming deportation procedures, and more.
The report also called on the U.S. government to pass new federal laws defining torture in accordance
with the UN Convention. In the same section, it lashed out at the U.S. government’s “interpretation” of
the global “torture” regime, saying that “under international law, reservations that are contrary to the
object and purpose of a treaty are impermissible.” In other words, the dictator-dominated UN, rather
than the U.S. Constitution, purports to be the arbiter of what is or is not “permissible.” advertisement
The UN bureaucrats on the committee — one comes from Morocco, another from Communist China,
and one more from Communist Nepal — also called on U.S. authorities to amend “laws and regulations”
to be in compliance with the global agreement. In addition, the UN committee said it “encourages” the
U.S. government to ratify other global agreements purporting to bind the American people and their
elected officials to globalist demands rather than the U.S. Constitution. Finally, the document is packed
with calls for the federal government to go beyond its constitutional limitations in commandeering state
and local governments. All across the report, the UN also offered instructions to the Obama
administration on everything from indefinite detention without charges or trial to releasing information
on post-9/11 atrocities allegedly perpetrated by various agencies within the U.S. government. Among
other demands, the UN experts called on the Obama administration to “cease the use of indefinite
detention without charge or trial” — something that constitutes a serious crime against the U.S.
Constitution, regardless of what the UN and its oftentimes brutal member governments claim regarding
their planetary torture regime. Moreover, the White House should release information on numerous
instances of CIA “human rights violations, including torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance of
persons suspected of involvement in terrorism-related crimes.” In addition to the CIA, the U.S. military
and its policies — ranging from the treatment of detainees to its policy manuals — came under severe
criticism in the document. Of course, virtually all of the UN’s complaints should be considered moot,
because the U.S. Constitution, which established the federal government in the first place and granted it
a few limited powers, already prohibits such schemes. Separately, in an open letter to Obama, a UN
group of self-styled “human rights experts” with bombastic titles also called on the administration to
release a U.S. Senate report on CIA “interrogation” practices. “As a nation that has publicly affirmed its
belief that respect for truth advances respect for the rule of law, and as a nation that frequently calls for
transparency and accountability in other countries, the United States must rise to meet the standards it
has set both for itself and for others,” the UN “experts” declared. According to the UN “human-rights”
operatives, victims of torture and human-rights defenders around the world would be “emboldened” if
the Obama administration — widely described as the most secrecy-obsessed, least transparent in U.S.
history — would support transparency. “On the contrary, if you yield to the CIA's demands for continued
secrecy on this issue, those resisting accountability will surely misuse this decision to bolster their own
agenda in their countries,” the open letter continued. As The New American has reported on multiple
occasions, in addition to the draconian secrecy, the Obama administration has also improperly worked
to protect George W. Bush administration officials from prosecution for the myriad alleged crimes they
perpetrated under color of law. “The Committee expresses concern over the ongoing failure to fully
investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment of suspects held in U.S. custody abroad, evidenced by
the limited number of criminal prosecutions and convictions,” the UN torture committee said in its
report about the United States, the first such “periodic review” since 2006. In light of the overseas torture
(such as water boarding) carried out by U.S. officials, the UN called for “prompt, impartial and effective
investigations” to “ensure that alleged perpetrators and accomplices are duly prosecuted, including
persons in positions of command and those who provided legal cover to torture.” If found guilty of the
charges, the criminals in government should be punished with serious penalties “commensurate with
the grave nature of their acts,” the UN said. Victims of U.S. government torture should also be
compensated and rehabilitated, the panel said. On law enforcement, which is a power generally
reserved for state and local government by the U.S. Constitution, the UN also expressed a wide array of
concerns. “The Committee is concerned about numerous reports of police brutality and excessive use of force
by law enforcement officials, in particular against persons belonging to certain racial and ethnic groups,
immigrants and LGBTI individuals, racial profiling by police and immigration offices and growing militarization of
policing activities,” the report said, citing Chicago’s police department as particularly alarming.
Status quo Brownfield doctrine and “technical compliance” arguments gut i-law
Lines 14 Dr. Rick Lines and Damon Barrett, Chair and Director of the International Centre on Human
Rights and Drug Policy, University of Essex, “Guest Post: Has the US Just Called for Unilateral
Interpretation of Multilateral Obligations?” OPINIO JURIS, December 13-19, 2014,
http://opiniojuris.org/2014/12/18/guest-post-us-just-called-unilateral-interpretation-multilateralobligations/, accessed 1-3-15.
These are interesting times for drug law reform, which, as it gathers pace, is asking important questions of international law. A UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs is set for 2016
just as national reforms are challenging international treaties that form the bedrock of a global prohibition regime that has dominated since the turn of the twentieth century. States parties to
the three UN drug control conventions must now confront the legal and political dilemmas this creates. This is the situation in which the US now finds itself following cannabis reforms in
various states that are at odds with these treaties. The State Department has issued its official position in this regard, one that stretches and boundaries of interpretation and raises other
serious questions for international law. In an October statement Ambassador William Brownfield set out that position in the form of the ‘four pillar’ approach the United States will now follow
in matters of international drug control. While the four pillars, set out below, have prompted much discussion and debate among those working on drug policy issues, attention among
international lawyers has been rare. This is something of an important gap given the implications of what the US suggests: Respect the integrity of the existing UN drug control conventions.
Accept flexible interpretation of those conventions. Tolerate different national drug policies…[and] accept the fact that some countries will have very strict drug approaches; other countries
will legalise entire categories of drugs. Combat and resist criminal organisations, rather than punishing individual drug users Internationally, the four pillars have emerged in the context of
efforts, led primarily by Latin American States, to open discussions on the future of the international drug control regime, and look at alternatives to the current and destructive prohibitionist
paradigm. Domestically, it comes in the context of successful referenda to legally regulate cannabis in several US states. Both of these are welcome developments. The international drug
regime is long overdue for reform, and the cannabis referenda will produce many positive criminal justice, health and social outcomes in those US states adopting them. However, domestic
cannabis law reform places the United States in a compromised position within the coming debates on the future shape of the international drug control regime. By permitting legal markets in
recreational cannabis, the United States is in breach of both the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 Convention on Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances. This is an awkward position for the US, which for over 100 years has been both the driving force behind the international drug control regime, as well the regime’s de facto
policeman. Admitting the breach threatens both a system the US wishes to protect, as well as its own influential role within it. Rectifying the breach domestically requires trampling on Statelevel democratic ballot initiatives. To its credit the Obama Administration has said via a memorandum from Deputy Attorney General James Cole it will respect and not interfere with the
outcomes of those referenda. The four pillars are a response to this legal and diplomatic conundrum. To justify its contention of treaty ‘flexibility’ – allowing, for example, its legal cannabis
market – the US engages in some interesting, if problematic, legal gymnastics. As explained in an earlier speech of Brownfield’s in March: [I]f it is a living document and they are living
documents [the UN drug control conventions], living means you are allowed to adjust your interpretation as the world changes around you, the world in 1961 was a different place from the
world in 2014 and we the governments and members states of the UN system should be permitted to interpret with that degree of flexibility as we move in to the 21st century. Using the
language of treaties as living documents – more commonly known as dynamic or evolutive interpretation – Brownfield attempts to paint cannabis legalisation in the US as something other
than the breach it obviously is, in the process raising a number of international legal concerns. Dynamic interpretation is well established in international human rights law, particularly the
jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. But, as described by the International Law Commission in 2006, it is an approach ‘much more deeply embedded in human rights law
than in general international law’, suggesting that its application in the context of international drug control law must be considered cautiously. This is not to suggest that dynamic
interpretation is not evident in other regimes, and it indeed has been used by the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Justice and the Appellate Body of the World Trade
Organization in various cases. The drug treaties are suppression conventions. They form part of the body of transnational criminal law, not international human rights law. However, we accept
that, for a variety of reasons it is legitimate to apply a dynamic interpretive approach to elements of international drug control law, particularly where drug control engages human rights.
However,
there are clear problems with the US’s use of this approach. The first is the limits of interpretation itself. The classic approach to dynamic
interpretation, as established by the European Court in Tyrer v UK, is a process of broadening or expanding the understanding of an obligation based upon changes in law, evolving social
norms or widespread change in State practice. In other words, understanding treaty language in a modern context. There are various examples of this in practice from differing legal regimes.
However, Brownfield suggests that the ‘living’ nature of the drug treaties means that an obligation can legitimately evolve to the point of meaning the exact opposite of what it states, and that
somehow the non-medical, non-scientific use of cannabis has evolved from being illegal in international law to being legal. This is an absurdity. The treaties already include a mechanism for the
status of individual drugs to change or evolve, and for individual substances can be included in, or removed from, international control with approval of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs,
a process known as ‘rescheduling’. The Brownfield approach circumvents this, for the obvious reason that such a resolution would never make it through the Commission, and instead posits
the ‘living instrument’ idea as the alternative. However, for this outcome to be legally valid without cannabis being rescheduled, dynamic interpretation would need to alter the understanding
of what the term ‘medical and scientific use’ means within the conventions, the only circumstance within the current international regime under which cannabis, and all controlled substances,
Brownfield does not suggest this, for if he did then this evolved understanding of medical and scientific use could reasonably be
is clearly a bridge too far
for the US. The second problem is one of interpretive forum. Dynamic interpretation is a judicial approach, utilised by judges or adjudication bodies to balance
competing or conflicting interests in arriving at a decision. It is an approach employed by a neutral arbiter to dispute resolution, not a doctrine for
States to use to unilaterally change the nature and scope of their own treaty obligations. Indeed, if we are to pursue an evolutive approach, then we also
may be legally manufactured, accessed and used. But
applied to all drugs under international control, making legal recreational access to all controlled drugs part of the new ‘living’ drug regime. This
need to look at broader State practice. You can easily count on the fingers one hand the number of countries with a legalised recreational cannabis market, so this approach has clearly not
evolved to an extent where legal regulation of the substances within the treaties would be permissible. Even then it is stretching any reasonable interpretation to reverse what the law in fact
The four pillars suggest, quite clearly, the acceptance of divergent unilateral
interpretations. Whatever one thinks of the drugs treaties, such an approach creates an international minefield . Imagine an international
legal order in which individual States are allowed to decide for themselves which treaty obligations apply to
them, and in what way. Here, however, we come to the third major problem, which is that the flexibility the US seeks for itself may not
extend to others at all. We have both argued separately that this new US position has little to do with treaty compliance, and is really about maintaining its own central role as
says. But in any case Brownfield does not suggest that we look to evolving State practice.
global arbiter of drug control, a position which it uses to great influence internationally. Surprisingly, US drug czar Michael Botticelli recently admitted as much in his Senate confirmation
hearings, stating that ‘[t]he Four Pillar framework is an effort to stake out a middle ground between those who believe that prosecution and jail is the only approach and those favoring radical
changes to the conventions’. In effect, the US denial of its own treaty breach allows it to sit in judgement over the drug reform actions of other States, comfortable in its self appointed role of
neutral ‘middle man’ or ‘referee’ of acceptable treaty flexibility, and therefore protecting its own national interests against any ‘radical changes to the conventions’, apart from its own. To be
clear, our concern is not about compliance with bad laws, which these treaties surely are. Our concern is with the potential implications of the State Department’s argumentation. The failed,
punitive prohibitionist approach of the international drug control regime must end. It is a regime that causes untold human and societal damage across the globe, and change to this regime is
it would be unfortunate to see established rules of international law become
collateral damage in the fallout of the end of the war on drugs.
slow yet becoming more inevitable. However,
Open breach key to spurring broader reform of the entire regime
Steve Rolles, senior drug policy analyst, Transform, responding to “The State Department’s Move to a
More Flexible Diplomatic Policy on Drugs Is a Rational Approach to a Difficult Question,” John Collins,
PhD Candidate, London School of Economics, 12—14, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/12/01/theu-s-new-more-flexible-diplomatic-doctrine-on-drugs-is-a-rational-approach-to-a-difficult-question/,
accessed 1-3-15.
Thanks for this John. I agree with a lot of your analysis but differ on a few fundamentals. I dont see how prohibition can be regarded as an ‘antiquated provision’ of
the treaties. Aside from regulating medical uses, prohibition wasand remains their core function; they are essentially prohibitionist legal instruments. To me the
idea that doing something so fundamentally contrary to prohibition as legalisation could ever be allowed within any ‘flexible interpretation’ is not a sustainable
argument for the US or anyone else. Its actually as absurd as saying torture is allow under a flexible interpretation of the convention against torture.
Decriminalisation, arguably yes. Legalisation – definitely not. On that basis I also disagree that there is any reasonable case to make that the US are somehow not
breaching the treaties. They clearly are – by any reading of the law, and as claimed by the treaty bodies of the UNODC, and INCB. The reality of breach has to be the
starting point in the debate moving forward Its certainly welcome that the US are talking about the problems with the treaties and showing willingness to accept the
reality of experiments with regulation models that challenge the prohibitionist international framework. But the US can’t have their cake and eat it on this issue –
you can’t breach a core treaty framework and try and maintain its integrity at the same time. The US breach (and the Uruguay breach) are the clearest challenge yet
to the fundamentally punitive prohibitionist nature of the drug treaties – the US needs to acknowledge this and lead the debate on treaty reform instead of hiding
from it with spurious legal arguments about flexibility. Trapped between the impossible challenges of enforcing federal law in the reform states, or pushing a new
treaty system through congress – they have apparently opted for a legal fudge to try and keep the discussion on treaty refrom off the tabel for as long as possible –
at least for the UNGASS. They should own and justify the breach instead of denying it. For once, its a case they can reasonably make –
this is a US treaty breach that has occurred for very good reasons, namely that the old prohibitionist system is dysfunctional and redundant – and new approaches
are needed to protect the health and welfare of citizens. The drug treaties are not written in stone; as you say, with all laws they contain mechanisms for their
reform and modernisation when needed. That need has clearly arrived The challenge to the drug treaty framework that the US and other breaches represents
can and should act as a catalyst for meaningful debate and reform of an outdated and broken system. Modernisation of the
international system to make it fit for purpose is something the US should embrace, not shy away from or try
and finesse its way around with untenable and messy legal interpretations If the US are serious about pursuing
the wider health, human rights and development goals of the UN, or specifically the drug treaty goals of preserving the ‘health and welfare of mankind’ they
need to acknowledge that the a prohibitionists treaty framework is no longer fit for purpose – if it ever was. Nothing could demonstrate this more
clearly than their own overt breach of its core prohibitionist tenets. Ironically, the current US position does not
preserve the ‘integrity’ of the treaties atall. Failure to reform them will simply render them increasingly marginalised and redundant’. The
way to preserve their integrity is to reform them so they achieve the UN’s wider goals. Unlike the US, the reform movement can have our
cake and eat it on this one – we can encourage principled breaches to improve local policy outcomes, and we can encourage an active
multilateral debate and reform process at the same time. The two do not need to be sequential and are not
mutually exclusive – quite the opposite. Countries no longer need the permission o the US to explore legalisation – that time has passed, and as
such the Brownfield doctrine is symbolically significant but largely irrelevant to geopolitical reality. My sense is we shouldn’t buy into it as
some huge concession – its actually a political excuse and delaying tactic that we should simply exploit to accelerate a
treaty reform process by highlighting how broken and absurd the system is now shown to be.
Ilaw fails—states only cooperate when it’s in their interests
Eric A. Posner 9, Kirkland and Ellis Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. The Perils of
Global Legalism, 34-6
global legalists acknowledge that international law is created and enforced by states. They believe that states are willing to expand
international law along legalistic lines because states’ long-term interests lie in solving global collective action problems .
In the absence of a world govern- ment or other forms of integration, international law seems like the only way for states to solve these problems. The great difficulty for the
global legalist is explaining why, if states create and maintain international law, they will also not break it when they prefer
34 ¶ Most
to free ride. In the absence of an enforcement mechanism, what ensures that states that create law and legal institutions that are
supposed to solve global collective action prob- lems
will not ignore them? ¶ For the rational choice theorist, the answer is plain: states cannot solve global
collective action problems by creating institutions that themselves depend on global collective action. This is
not to say that international law is not possible at all. Certainly, states can cooperate by threatening to retaliate against cheaters, and where international
problems are matters of coordination rather than confl ict, international law can go far, indeed.7 But if states (or the individuals who control states) cannot create a
global government or q uasi-g overnment institutions, then it seems unlikely that they can solve, in spontaneous fashion, the types of
problems that, at the national level, require the action of governments . ¶ Global legalists are not enthusiasts for rational choice theory and
have ¶ 35¶ grappled with this problem in other ways.8 I will criticize their attempts in chapter 3. Here I want to focus on one approach, which is to insist that just as
individuals can be loyal to government, so too can individuals (and their governments) be loyal to international law and be
willing to defer to its requirements even when self-i nterest does not strictly demand that they do so. International law has force because (or to the extent
that) it is legitimate.9 ¶ What makes governance or law legitimate? This is a complicated ques- tion best left to philosophers, but a simple and adequate point for present
purposes is that no system of law will be perceived as legitimate unless those governed by that law believe that the
law
serves their interests or respects and enforces their values. Perhaps more is required than this — such as political participation, for example — but we
can treat the fi rst condition as necessary if not suffi cient. If individuals believe that a system of law does not advance their interests and
respect their values, that instead it advances the interests of others or is dysfunctional and helps no one at all, they will not believe
that the law is legitimate and will not voluntarily submit to its authority . ¶ Unfortunately, international law does not
does good —
satisfy this condition , mainly because of its institutional weaknesses ; but of course, its institutional weaknesses stem
from the state system — states are not willing to tolerate powerful international agencies. In classic
international law, states enjoy sovereign equality, which means that international law cannot be created unless
all agree, and that international law binds all states equally. What this means is that if nearly everyone in the world agrees that some global legal instrument would be benefi cial (a
climate treaty, the UN charter), it can be blocked by a tiny country like Iceland (population 300,000) or a dictatorship like North Korea. What
is the attraction of a system that puts a tiny country like Iceland on equal footing with China? When then at- torney general
Robert Jackson tried to justify American aid for Britain at the onset of World War II on the grounds that the Nazi Germany was the aggressor, international lawyers complained that the United
States could not claim neutrality while providing aid to a belligerent — there was no such thing as an aggressor in international law.10 Nazi Germany had not agreed to such a rule of
international law; therefore, such a rule could not exist. Only through the destruction of Nazi Germany could international law be changed; East and West Germany could reenter international
Because
no world government can compel states to comply with inter- national law, states will comply with international
law only when doing so is in their interest. In this way, international law always depends on state consent. So international law must take states as they are,
so-¶ 36¶ ciety only on other people’s terms. How could such a system be perceived to be legitimate? ¶ There is, of course, a reason why international law works in this fash- ion.
which means that little states, big states, good states, and bad states, all exist on a plane of equality. ¶
Iran Politics: 2AC
Bipartisan support for new sanctions – deal falls through
Weisman 4-2-15. Jonathon, and Jennifer Steinhauer, “Congress Responds Cautiously to Framework, and
Demands Right to Review Deal,” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/world/middleeast/congressresponds-cautiously-to-framework-and-demands-right-to-review-deal.html
WASHINGTON — Leading lawmakers from both parties in Congress responded cautiously on Thursday to
the tentative framework for a nuclear deal between Western powers and Iran, demanding to review any final
agreement but pointedly refraining from a vow to kill the accord. Congress could still scuttle a deal if
lawmakers move forward with tough new sanctions on Iran just as economic and nuclear penalties are
supposed to be lifted. And Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, said the panel would continue with plans to formally draft bipartisan legislation on
April 14 insisting on congressional examination of any agreement. The committee’s leadership was looking for
ways to shape a bill that would gain broad approval in both parties . “We want the right to go through the
details of the deal and to decide whether we believe congressionally mandated sanctions should be
alleviated,” Mr. Corker said in an interview. That sentiment was bipartisan . President Obama received an
update on the talks with Iran on Wednesday from Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary
Ernest Moniz. Credit Pete Souza/The White House “If Congress appears to be bypassed, that’s not good
for the national debate and national unity as we move forward with Iran,” said Representative Eliot L.
Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee. President Obama made a
pointed appeal to Congress to let diplomacy work, even as he promised consultation. “If Congress kills
this deal — not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative — then it’s the
United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy,” he said at the White House.
“International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen.” But a senior administration official
hinted at compromise, at least on the review legislation. He reiterated the president’s promise to veto
legislation imposing new sanctions on Iran, but said that a previous veto threat on the congressional
review bill applied only to the measure as it was originally drafted. The jousting is likely to continue for
months , and pressure could mount on Republican leaders to toughen their stand. Negotiators must turn a
framework into a detailed agreement by this summer, and legal sanctions imposed by the United States
will not have to be lifted anytime soon, possibly not for years. The agreement is not likely to require
action from Congress until the next presidential administration. But beyond the leadership suites, a more
hard-edge response came quickly. “The Obama administration’s efforts to get a deal at any cost will have a
greater cost than the world can bear,” said Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the chairman of the
Homeland Security Committee. “If this deal moves forward, the consequences for the U.S. and our allies
in the region will be dire.” Some Democrats hailed it. “We’ve set the stage for a paradigm shift in the
country and in the region,” said Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon. But other
Democrats tried to find a middle ground between embracing the accord and undermining it. Senator
Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that he
wanted unanimity around Congress’s request for review, and that aspects of the legislation would have to be
toned down.
Corker and Kirk-Menendez kill the deal – perception alone is toxic
Schulberg 4-2-15. Jessica, “World Leaders Reach Tentative Deal With Iran -- Now They Have To Sell It,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/iran-nuclear-negotiations_n_6994912.html
One bill, introduced by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) would prohibit the implementation of any deal for 60 days,
at which point Congress can decide to vote for or against the deal, or do nothing. The bill would prohibit
the president from temporarily waiving sanctions against Iran during this period. The Corker bill, which
tentatively needs the support of only three more Democrats to secure the 67 votes needed to overturn
Obama’s promised veto, is scheduled for markup in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 14,
the day after the Senate returns from recess. Corker said Thursday he wanted to wait to see the specifics of
the deal before weighing in, but warned that people must "remain clear-eyed" about Iran’s resistance to
concessions. He also emphasized the importance of Congress being able to weigh in on any final deal. "I
am confident of a strong vote on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act when the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee takes it up on April 14," he said. An alternative bill, led by Sens. Mark-Kirk (R-Ill.) and Bob
Menendez (D-N.J.) would impose additional sanctions against Iran if negotiators fail to reach a final
agreement by June 30. While the Kirk-Menendez bill technically has no effect until after the June 30
deadline, Obama has warned that the threat of additional punishment against Iran could endanger the entire
negotiating process .
Thumpers first – transportation, NSA, budget
Mattingly 4-1-15. Phil, “The Next Big Congressional Battles: A Timeline,”
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-01/the-next-big-congressional-battles-a-timeline,
A new day? It’s a little too soon to tell, but curious Capitol Hill watchers can take solace in this: There
will be no shortage of drama in the months ahead . Over the next seven months, Congress faces a healthy
handful of do-or-die votes —the kind of must-pass legislation that has bedeviled Washington in recent
years. As Al Hunt notes in his latest column, it’s not as if the folks that have given Boehner problems in
the past have up and left the building. Some of the big gest fights of this Congress are queued up for the
weeks and months ahead. There will be cliffs, and there may yet be some diving off of them. From funding
for the plane you fly in and the roads you drive on, to how much access the N ational S ecurity A gency has
to your metadata, to whether the U.S. can pay all of its bills, 2015 is just getting started . So to all the
lawmakers, staffers and lobbyists taking a breather during the current congressional recess, enjoy.
There's no way this calm, orderly version of legislating can last. Can it?
TPA thumps—Obama pushing now, leaning on dems
Johnson 3-25-15. Fawn, 'Fast Track' Can Happen. But Will Wyden Go Along?,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-finance-committee/fast-track-can-happen-but-willwyden-go-along-20150325,
Passing t rade p romotion a uthority has been Hatch's top priority since he took the helm of the
committee in January. He wanted the full Senate to be debating it this month. Instead, it's stuck in
committee until at least April. The legislation would speed up congressional approval of trade deals
neogitated by the White House by giving lawmakers only an up-or down-vote. They would not be able to
amend the agreements. This is a traditionally Republican idea, backed by businesses that stand to gain a
lot from easy transfer of goods and services between countries. In an ironic twist of political fates, it is
also a top priority for Obama, the GOP's usual archenemy. Hatch defies Obama on a regular basis on many
issues —health care, particularly—but on this one , he declares that the president "has a friend in me."
Hatch says TPA would put two trade deals already in the works on a glide path. One of them is with 11
Asia-Pacific countries and the other is with 28 countries in the European Union. Given the unusual alliance
of Republican leaders and the White House, passing a TPA bill should be a relatively simple task. It's certainly
not as complex as writing major tax legislation. The negotiations aren't complicated. The framework for
the legislation is already done. It's just a matter of figuring out where the two or three Democratic 'yes' votes
are and scheduling a committee vote. But the vote hasn't happened yet. It's a sign that even the simple
things aren't that simple, even for a panel that prides itself on getting things done without big drama.
Earlier this month, Hatch said the only person who could nudge the legislation forward was the president.
Obama assented. He recently spoke privately with both Hatch and Wyden about the need to pass TPA.
Obama 's involvement slightly improved Hatch 's mood. Before he talked with the president, Hatch went so
far as to suggest that nothing on trade would get accomplished until after 2016. He also said he hadn't
spoken with Obama in "well over a year." After his chat, he told reporters that he and Wyden are " making
progress ."
PC is irrelevant—politicians vote based on self-interest
Drum 14 (Kevin, political writer, 8-20-14, "Barack Obama Loathes Congress as Much as You Do" Mother
Jones) www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/08/barack-obama-loathes-congress-much-you-do
I'd probably give a little more credit to schmoozing than this. But only a very little. At the margins, there
are probably times when having a good relationship with a committee chair will speed up action or
provide a valuable extra vote or two on a bill or a nominee. And Obama has the perfect vehicle for doing
this regularly since he loves to play golf. But for the most part Klein is right. There's very little evidence
that congressional schmoozing has more than a tiny effect on things. Members of Congress vote the way they
want or need to vote, and if they respond to anyone, it's to party leaders, interest groups, and fellow
ideologues. In days gone by, presidents could coerce votes by working to withhold money from a district, or by
agreeing to name a crony as the local postmaster, but those days are long gone. There's really very little
leverage that presidents have over members of Congress these days, regardless of party.
Turn- Plan causes a GOP civil war
Wyler, 14 – Vice associate editor
[Grace, "Republicans Have Finally Turned Against the Drug War," Vice, 3-11-14,
www.vice.com/read/cpac-republicans-finally-turn-against-the-drug-war, accessed 1-4-15]
In short, this is a crowd that relishes a battle—especially a losing one. So it seemed natural to assume
that this year’s CPAC discussion on marijuana legalization would be a swan song to prohibition and the
War on Drugs. Even the title of the panel—"Rocky Mountain High: Does Legalized Pot Mean Society's
Going Up In Smoke?"—suggested a room full of Willie Horton Republicans grumbling about gateway
drugs and the country’s moral decay. The panel started off predictably enough, pitting prohibitionist
panelist Christopher Beach, an executive producer for drug-czar-turned-talk-radio-host Bill Bennett,
against Fox News commenter Mary Katharine Ham. Beach spouted off the familiar arguments: that
despite massive costs and overflowing prisons, the war on drugs is actually working, that weed is bad for
you, and that legalization could have dire unforeseen consequences for public health and safety. But
then a surprising thing happened: No one bought it. CPAC Republicans, it turns out, really like their
weed—or at least like the idea of legalizing it. One by one, the audience members turned against Beach,
heckling his talking points and bombarding him with anti-drug war stats. A College Republican in Rand
Paul swag demanded that Beach account for DEA surveillance. When Beach suggested that the
government is responsible for public safety, the entire audience broke out in loud jeers. Any prohibition
Republicans in the room were likely shamed into silence when Howard Wooldridge, an ex-sheriff in a
cowboy hat and a homemade "COPS SAY LEGALIZE POT: ASK ME WHY" shirt, started yelling “Nanny
State Liberal!” at Beach from the back of the room. “The war on drugs is the most destructive,
dysfunctional, and immoral policy since slavery and Jim Crow,” Howard shouted at Beach. “How do you
justify morally the deaths of dozens and dozens of kids every year selling marijuana at your altar of
prohibition?” While the forcefulness of their arguments was unexpected, it makes sense that CPAC’s
Republicans would support legalizing marijuana, given the party’s growing emphasis on limited
government, federalism, and personal responsibility. The US government has spent upwards of $1
trillion on the War on Drugs over the past four decades with negligible results, amounting to a
disastrous and racially charged boondoggle with enormous social costs. The potential unintended
consequences of legalizing pot, libertarian Republicans argue, are outweighed by the danger of Big
Government overreach and of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on programs that don’t work. “I've
witnessed the government’s effort at trying to save us from ourselves, and it's still as easy for my 14year-old to get drugs today as it was for me to get them 40 years ago,” said Ken Horst, a middle-aged
Minnesota Republican who was one of the loudest hecklers at the CPAC panel. “What have [they] done
with all that time and effort and money? We don't see any progress. It’s just another example of the
government having 40 years to try to do something and prove it to us, and they didn't do it.” “I don't see
that the negatives are so great that if marijuana were legalized, society is going to go into the toilet and
the Russians are going to take over,” he added. Some Republican politicians have also started to soften
their views, breaking with the GOP’s usual hard-line stance on drug policy and criminal justice. In a CPAC
panel Friday, Governor Rick Perry of Texas followed up his recent support for decriminalizing marijuana
with remarks on efforts to reform his state’s prison system. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has
also tried to make criminal justice a signature issue, using part of his inaugural address this year to
criticize the “failed war on drugs.” And Senator Rand Paul, who won this year’s CPAC straw poll, has said
he thinks marijuana laws should be left to state and local governments. The Republican shift on weed
comes as more and more Americans are starting to embrace the idea of legalization. Colorado and
Washington residents can already get high whenever they want, and Alaska and Oregon will vote on
similar measures to legalize recreational use this year. Recent surveys show that about half of
Americans—including 58 percent in this January Gallup poll—now support legalization, up from about
30 percent in 2000. Those numbers are even greater among young people: According to a new Pew
Research Center study on millennials, 68 percent of people ages 18 to 33 support legalizing weed, up
from 34 percent just eight years ago. The issue has all of the makings of a culture-war
blowout , pitting old-guard conservatives against a new cadre of young, more socially liberal
conservatives. On one hand, the GOP is desperate to attract a younger crowd, a task the Pew report
suggests is becoming increasingly difficult, as younger voters are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex
marriage, tend to support abortion rights, and think the government should provide more services. That
leaves marijuana legalization as one of the few issues where Republicans actually have a shot at
appealing to voters under 30. On the other hand, the dwindling opposition to weed remains
concentrated among older Republicans, the party’s most reliable voter base.
Kills GOP agenda
Carlson, 14 -- Kitco News staff
[Debbie, "Watch Congressional 'Lame Duck' Session For Clues On Obama, GOP Relationship," Kitco
News, 11-6-14, www.kitco.com/news/2014-11-06/Watch-Congressional-Lame-Duck-Session-For-CluesOn-Obama-GOP-Relationship.html, accessed 1-4-15]
Stoddard said she expects the new GOP leadership to try to push some “ambitious” legislation on
energy, expanding trade and to reduce regulations, policies they may be able to work with Obama on
making into law. They’ll also likely try to “take an ax” to the Affordable Care Act, also known as
Obamacare, but any bills sent to Obama for repeal will likely be vetoed she said. Dee Buchanan,
principal, Ogilvy Government Relations, said he expects to see the House of Representatives and Senate
pass a broad framework on tax reform, but it “remains to be seen whether the president will be
invested in a big way... (I’m) hopeful he will do so, but I’m not optimistic.” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky),
who is expected to become Senate leader, and Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), House leader, will need to hold
their factions together “and quash rebellions” to present a united front to show they can govern, Stoddard
said.
Turn- plan causes agenda crowd-out---delays sanctions long enough for the deal to
solve
Cassata 13- AP Staff Reporter
[Donna, “Health care dispute could delay Iran sanctions,” 11-15-13,
http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20131115/health-care-dispute-could-delay-iransanctions, DOA: 1-17-14]
A Senate delay over an unrelated health care issue could be the silver lining for President Barack
Obama in his appeal to Congress to hold off on a new round of Iran sanctions. Republican Sen. David
Vitter of Louisiana wants a vote on his measure to make lawmakers disclose which of their aides are
enrolling in the president's new health care law as part of an ongoing effort to discredit "Obamacare."
He wants a vote as part of the pharmaceutical bill. That could delay Senate action next week on the
annual defense policy bill that is certain to attract an amendment to impose a new round of penalties on
Iran. Obama has spoken to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other senators in a plea to hold off on
sanctions. Earlier, Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the administration
needs more time — without new sanctions — to pursue a deal with Iran.
Winners win- key to momentum and public approval. XOs prove but a new win is key to keep
the momentum going- plan is his only chance
Parnes, 12-27 – The Hill senior White House correspondent
[Amie, "'Liberated' Obama builds momentum," The Hill, 12-27-14,
thehill.com/homenews/administration/228017-liberated-obama-builds-momentum, accessed 12-29-14]
President Obama is responding to a drubbing in the midterm elections with action. So far, it's paying off.
Obama's poll numbers — which had previously slid into the low 40’s — are up, and the president has
enjoyed a streak of good headlines. Those factors, coupled with a rising economy, are making the White
House optimistic about his final two years in office. White House allies say the president feels an
increased sense of liberation with the elections over. They predict that he will continue to be proactive
in the face of the Republican Congress that will take power early next year. After a mostly lackluster
2014, Obama was able to score a series of wins in the last six weeks by going on the offensive with a
string of executive actions, a hitherto-secret plan to normalize relations with Cuba and a satisfying
compromise on the omnibus. “He doesn't feel constrained anymore,” said Steve Elmendorf, the
prominent Democratic lobbyist and veteran of Capitol Hill. “I think he felt constrained before the
election, a little too constrained, to protect vulnerable senators. Now he has a little more breathing
room.” A former senior administration official said that a more confident Obama has emerged since the
midterm dustup: the one who hates to lose. While political pundits and others in the Beltway have been
portraying him as a lame duck, Obama has fought back against that notion, the official said. “The most
remarkable trait of Barack Obama is that he's always had a confidence about him regardless of political
wins or what pundits are saying,” the former official said. “Throughout his presidency, even in the
lowest moments when everyone was piling on, he’s always had this sense that ultimately he’s going to
be vindicated and I think these events certainly helped.” Obama’s winning streak was extended on
Tuesday when new data from the Commerce Department showed that the economy grew at a 5 percent
rate from July to September, the fastest pace in 11 years. The news will surely add to Obama’s swagger
on the economy. White House aide say he’ll continue to tout the recovery – and remind people of just
how dire the situation was when he first took office — as part of an effort to define his legacy. But as
the president continues to play in the "fourth quarter," as he put it at his year-end press conference
last week, even some of his most loyal allies are wondering how can he keep the momentum going.
Political observers caution that Obama will face significant roadblocks in the months ahead, especially
now that all of Capitol Hill is Republican-controlled territory “It will be much, much harder,” said Julian
Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
No US-Russia War 1NC
Oil prices low for at least the next 30 years—even pessimistic expectations are too optimistic
Cunningham 4-1 (Nick Cunningham is a Washington DC-based writer on energy and environmental
issues. OilPrice, "What If An Oil Rebound Never Comes?," 4-1-15, oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/WhatIf-An-Oil-Rebound-Never-Comes.html, accessed 4-2-15)
Oil prices will remain subdued for the next 20 years. That comes from a new policy brief from Stanford
economist Frank Wolak, who says that a series of phenomena – surging U.S. shale production, a weakening
OPEC, the shale revolution spreading globally, efficiencies in drilling, and more natural gas substitution for oil –
will combine to prevent oil prices from rising above $100 per barrel anytime soon. Wolak correctly identifies
several trends that are already underway, several of which contributed to the 2014-2015 oil bust. But there are
very good reasons as to why the notion that oil prices will not rebound and instead stay in a moderate
band of $50 to $60 per barrel over the next 20 years, as Wolak suggests, is a bit optimistic (or
pessimistic, depending on your point of view). Wolak does offer some caveats for why his scenario for
tepid oil prices may not play out, but they are treated more as outside risks rather than real possibilities.
extremely unlikely- Obama doesn’t want to, MAD checks conventional war
By Peter Weber 14 senior editor at TheWeek.com, graduated from Northwestern University. March 5,
2014 “What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?” http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-woulda-us-russia-war-look-like
The chances that the U.S. and Russia will clash militarily over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine are very,
very slim. Ukraine isn't a member of NATO, and President Obama isn't likely to volunteer for another
war. But many of Ukraine's neighbors are NATO members, including Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and
Hungary. And so are the the Baltic states — Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia — further north and right on
Russia's border.¶ If any of those countries come to Ukraine's aid and find themselves in a war with
Russia, NATO is obliged to intervene. That's also true if Russia comes up with some pretext to invade any
of those countries, unlikely as that seems. If we learned anything from World War I, it's that huge,
bloody conflicts can start with tiny skirmishes, especially in Eastern Europe.¶ Again, the U.S. and Russia
almost certainly won't come to blows over Ukraine. But what if they did?¶ If you asked that question
during the Cold War it would be like those fanciful Godzilla vs. King Kong, or Batman vs. Superman
match-ups: Which superpower would prevail in all-out battle? But Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and
military technology didn't stop in 1991. Here, for example, is a look at U.S. versus Russian/USSR defense
spending since the end of the Cold War, from Mother Jones.¶ The U.S. is much wealthier than Russia and
spends a lot more on its military. That doesn't mean a war would be easy for the U.S. to win, though, or
even guarantee a victory: As Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way, Russia will sacrifice a lot to win
its wars, especially on its home turf.¶ So, what would a war between the U.S. and Russia look like? Here
are a few scenarios, from awful to merely bad:¶ Nuclear Armageddon¶ Even with the slow mutual nuclear
disarmament since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia each have thousands of nuclear
warheads at the ready. As Eugene Chow noted earlier this year, the entire stockpile of U.S.
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) — 448 active — is essentially aimed squarely at Russia. Russia's
hundreds of ICBMs are probably returning the favor.¶ In all, the U.S. has about 7,700 nuclear warheads,
including 1,950 warheads ready to deploy via ICBM, submarine, and airplane, plus thousands more in
mothballs or waiting to be dismantled, according to the latest tally by the Federation of American
Scientists. Russia has slightly more warheads overall — about 8,500 — but a slightly fewer 1,800 of them
operational. China, in comparison, has about 250 nuclear warheads, a bit less that France (300) and a bit
more than Britain (225).¶ Nuclear war with Russia is still mutually assured destruction. Hopefully, that's
still deterrent enough.¶ A conventional war in Eastern Europe¶ This is the other scenario that never
happened in the Cold War. Now, the possibility of scenario one (nuclear Armageddon) makes this one
almost equally unlikely. But for the sake of argument, let's assume this hypothetical U.S.-Russia war
breaks out in Ukraine, and that other NATO forces are supplementing U.S. troops, ships, and aircraft.
Unlike in the Asia-Pacific, where the U.S. keeps China in check (and vice versa, as Eugene Chow
explained), NATO provides the United States with a robust military alliance set up specifically to take on
Soviet Russia.
1AR
Not too late
Arrests won’t curb cartel violence
Tuckman 3-5-15 (Jo, reporter, "Mexico drug kingpins behind bars but violence and corruption go
unchecked" The Guardian) www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/05/mexico-drug-kingpins-behindbars-violence-corruption-unchecked
The routine has become almost familiar: a fugitive mafia boss is cornered by Mexican security forces and
captured without a shot fired. The stony-faced kingpin is marched by a masked special forces escort
across airport tarmac dotted with army helicopters, to be whisked away for questioning. Mexican
politicians and police hail another victory in the drug war, warning that no mafia boss is too powerful to
escape justice. US officials shower praise on their colleagues, and chalk up another victory in the drug war.
But all the while, violence fuelled by drug-trafficking and corruption continues to rage across Mexico , and
shipments of marijuana, heroin and methamphetamine keep crossing the border into the US.
State legalization isn’t enough—they haven’t moved on
Tama 15
Jason, a federal executive fellow at The Brookings Institution, "Opinion: Global illicit drug economy is
adapting to pot legalization", The Cannabist, March 13 2015,
www.thecannabist.co/2015/03/13/opinion-global-illicit-drug-economy-adapting-potlegalization/28764/
With multiple state marijuana initiatives winning voter approval in the 2014 midterm elections,
legalization proponents are already hard at work in states like California, where passage of a
comprehensive initiative in 2016 could provide the policy “legitimacy” reformers are seeking. However,
states should proceed cautiously as it is too soon to fully assess the complex economic and public health and
safety implications of state-by-state legalization. More broadly for the nation, it is also important to address
what the legalization debate has thus far either ignored or oversimplified: the effects on international illicit
drug markets , transnational organized crime and American foreign policy. The illicit drug economy is a
complex system run by resilient criminal networks. Despite the move toward legalization, the destabilizing
influence of illicit economies and transnational crime will endure , and a sustained national effort will still be
needed to address this evolving threat. Assuming state-by-state commercial legalization continues, illicit
marijuana markets will persist until legal and black market prices converge and interstate arbitrage
opportunities disappear . Neither of these outcomes is likely in the near-term. States face the very difficult task
of managing consumption levels via unique regulatory regimes that promote scarcity, while simultaneously
trying to price out illicit suppliers. Further, with no regulatory harmonization among states — and no credible
movement to legalize federally — interstate arbitrage opportunities persist and are ripe for exploitation by
illicit traffickers . This is not necessarily an argument against experimenting with legalization, but rather an
acknowledgement of market dynamics and the agility of modern criminal networks. The good news is
marijuana traffickers should face shrinking profit margins in commercially regulated states that progress
toward competitive pricing.
Bioterror M 1AR (Short Rose)
Motive and means exist thru synthetic biology
Rose, 14 -- PhD, recognized international biodefense expert [Patrick, Center for Health & Homeland
Security senior policy analyst & biosecurity expert, National Defense University lecturer, and Adam
Bernier, expert in counter-terrorism, "DIY Bioterrorism Part II: The proliferation of bioterrorism through
synthetic biology," CBRNePortal, 2-24-14, www.cbrneportal.com/diy-bioterrorism-part-ii-theproliferation-of-bioterrorism-through-synthetic-biology/, accessed 8-16-14]
¶
The landscape is changing : previously the instances where biological attacks had the potential to do the
most harm (e.g., Rajneeshees cult’s Salmonella attacks in 1984, Aum Shinri Kyo’s Botulinum toxin, and
Anthrax attacks in the early 90’s) included non-state actors with access to large amounts of funding and
scientists. Funding and a cadre of willing scientists does not guarantee success though. The assertion was
thus made that biological weapons are not only expensive, they require advanced technical training to make
and are even more difficult to effectively perpetrate acts of terrorism with. While it is difficult to determine
with certainty whether the expense and expertise needed to create biological weapons has acted as a
major deterrent for groups thinking of obtaining them, many experts would argue that the
cost/expertise barrier makes the threat from biological attacks extremely small. This assertion is
supported by the evidence that the vast majority of attacks have taken place in Western countries and
was performed by Western citizens with advanced training in scientific research.¶ In the past decade the
cost/expertise assertion has become less accurate . Despite the lack of biological attacks, there are a number
of very dangerous and motivated organizations that have or are actively pursuing biological weapons. The
largest and most outspoken organization has been the global Al Qaeda network, whose leaders have
frequently and passionately called for the development (or purchase) of Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD). The principal message from Al Qaeda Central and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has
included the call to use biological WMDs to terrorize Western nations. Al Qaeda has had a particular focus
on biological and nuclear weapons because of their potential for greatest harm. Osama Bin Laden,
Ayman al-Zawahiri and Anwar al-Awlaki have all called for attacks using biological weapons, going so far
as to say that Muslims everywhere should seek to kill Westerners wherever possible and that obtaining
WMDs is the responsibility of all Muslims. Before the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda had spent
significant funds on building a bio-laboratory and had begun collecting scientists from around the world;
however, the Afghanistan invasion and subsequent global War on Terrorism is thought to have
disrupted their capabilities and killed or captured many of their assets. Despite the physical setbacks,
this disruption does not appear to have changed the aggressive attitude towards obtaining WMDs (e.g., more
recently U.S. Intelligence has been concerned about AQAP attempting to make Ricin).¶ The emergence of
synthetic biology and DIYbio has increased the likelihood that Al Qaeda will succeed in developing biological
WMDs. The low cost and significantly reduced level of necessary expertise may change how many non-state
actors view bio logical weapons as a worthwhile investment. This is not to say that suddenly anyone can make
a weapon or that it is easy. To the contrary making an effective biological weapon will still be difficult, only
much easier and cheaper than it has been in the past.¶ The rapid advancements of synthetic bio logy could be a
game changer , giving organizations currently pursuing biological weapons more options, and encouraging other
organizations to reconsider their worth. Because the bar for attaining bio logical weapons has been lowered
and is likely to continue to be lowered as more advances in biological technology are made, it is important
that the international community begin to formulate policy that protects advances in science that acts
to prevent the intentional misuse of synthetic biology. Disregard for this consideration will be costly. A
successful attack with a potent biological weapon, where no pharmaceutical interventions might exist, will be
deadly and the impact of such an attack will reverberate around the globe because biological weapons are not
bound by international borders.
Treaties DA
Police brutality, detention, interrogations, lack of prosecution
The Jurist 12-1-2014 “UN report criticizes US compliance with anti-torture treaty”
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/12/un-report-criticizes-us-compliance-with-anti-torture-treaty.php]
[JURIST] The
UN Committee Against Torture [official website] released a report [text, PDF] on Friday that found the US has
fallen short of full compliance with the Convention Against Torture international treaty [text]. Police brutality
report],
detention facilities , military interrogations and the criminalization of torture
itself were several
[JURIST
of the top
concerns . The committee raised particular concern regarding the Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder] detention facility,
urging the US to cease the indefinite holding of suspects of terrorism-related activities without official charge or trial, to "appropriately
prosecute those responsible" for detainee mistreatment and to "ensure effective redress for victims." The panel called on the US to abolish
unreasonable sleep deprivation during military interrogations as well as the practice of sensory deprivation, as scientific studies have shown
that it induces psychosis. The committee also urged the US to federally criminalize torture: Notwithstanding the State party's
statement that under U.S. law, acts of torture are prohibited by various statutes and may be prosecuted in a variety of ways, the Committee regrets that a specific
offence of torture has not been introduced yet at the federal level. The Committee is of the view that the introduction of such offence, in full conformity with Article
1 of the Convention, would strengthen the human rights protection framework in the State party. The panel recommended the re-introduction of the Law
Enforcement Torture Prevention Act [text, PDF], a bill previously proposed to Congress in 2012 that defines torture and criminalizes acts of torture by law
enforcement officers and others acting under the color of law.
It is explicit US noncompliance
The Independent 11-29 (“America falling short on complying with anti-torture treaty, UN report finds”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-falling-short-on-complying-withantitorture-treaty-un-report-finds-9892779.html)
The U nited S tates is falling short of complying with an international anti-torture treaty , a United Nations report has
found. Police brutality, military interrogations and prisons were among the UN Committee Against Torture’s top concerns
when they released their report on Friday. It is the first review of the US record since 2006. The panel looked the nation’s compliance with the UN Convention
Against Torture, which took effect in 1987 and was ratified in the US in 1994. “ There
be changed for the United States to comply
fully
are numerous areas in which certain things should
with the convention ,” said Alessio Bruni of Italy, one of the panel's chief investigators.
The report expresses concerns about allegations of police brutality and excessive use of force by officers, particularly the Chicago Police Department’s treatments of
blacks and Latinos. It
also calls for the use of taser weapons by police to be restricted only to life-threatening
situations. However, it had no specific recommendation or reaction to a grand jury’s decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot
dead unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in early August. The panel criticised the US record on military
interrogations, maximum security prisons, illegal migrants and solitary confinement while c
marked
alling for tougher federal laws to define and outlaw torture, including with detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in
Yemen. It also called for a ban on interrogation techniques that rely on sleep or sensory deprivation that is “aimed at
prolonging the sense of capture”.
Politics
Iran U: 1AR
Veto-proof majority’s likely---PC historically fails
Sam Stein 4-2, Huffington Post writer, 4/2/15, “GOP Steadfast On Passing Iran Bill Despite Obama's Plea
To Stand Down,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/gop-iran-bill_n_6996464.html
Appearing in the Rose Garden on Thursday to announce the framework of a historic deal on Iran's
nuclear program, President Barack Obama practically begged lawmakers not to mess with the still delicate
arrangement.
"If Congress kills this deal not based on expert analysis and without offering any reasonable alternative,
then it's the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy," Obama said. "International
unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen."
Congress, at least initially, didn't appear ready to heed that warning .
Within minutes of the president's address, Senate Republicans said they would continue to push a bill that
prevents any final deal from taking effect for 60 days, giving Congress time to vote for or against it -- or do
nothing.
“There is growing bipartisan support for congressional review of the nuclear deal, and I am confident of a
strong vote on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
takes it up on April 14,” committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said in a statement, referencing the
legislation that he has shepherded to near veto-proof support .
The third-ranking Republican in the Senate, John Thune (R-S.D.), also suggested that a collision course
has been set, saying he expects Corker’s bill to come to the floor in the near future.
“A good amount of that depends on the framework [agreement]. My guess is [Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell] will want to put it on the floor fairly quickly,” Thune said. “I think there’s a good
amount of interest in getting the Senate on the record that any deal will have to go through Congress.”
To inch closer to the 67-vote veto-proof majority, proponents of the bill will likely target Democratic Sens.
Ben Cardin (Md.) and Chris Coons (Del.), which would leave them only one supporter short.
Coons let his skepticism be known Thursday, saying that he has told the administration that "no deal is
better than a bad deal" and that he will work with his colleagues to " ensure that Congress' voice is heard in
this process."
Lawmakers' initial coolness over the framework agreement creates complications for the White House as it
tries to hammer out the final details of a nuclear deal by the end of June. After negotiating with world
powers under a bright international spotlight, the Obama administration faces similarly high-stakes talks
on Capitol Hill. Congressional outreach has not been this president's forte , but his biggest foreign policy
achievement may now depend on it.
A senior administration official told reporters on Thursday that the White House would be "briefing very
extensively" members of Congress over the next couple of days, including placing calls to party leaders
and reaching out to Corker.
"We have a great deal of respect for the role Congress has played over the years on Iran," said another
official. "We do believe it is important for Congress to play an oversight role."
But that same official cautioned that the president would oppose any measure that he felt "essentially
undermines our ability to get a deal done."
The administration's success in striking this balance will likely come down to its ability to keep a handful
of critical Senate Democrats in the fold. With Corker's bill at most three votes shy of a veto-proof
majority, the president has a small but important margin for error.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a co-sponsor of Corker’s bill and a strong critic of the Iran talks, said the
framework agreement would receive “close scrutiny” in the coming days from Congress. “If diplomats
can negotiate for two years on this issue, then certainly Congress is entitled to a review period of an
agreement that will fundamentally alter our relationship with Iran and the sanctions imposed by
Congress,” he said.
While Menendez vowed continued oversight, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he
remained “cautiously optimistic” after speaking with Obama about the details of the deal.
“Now is the time for thoughtful consideration, not rash action that could undermine the prospects for
success,” Reid said. “We have much to learn about what was negotiated and what will take place
between now and the end of June.”
Part of the reason the White House seems poised to focus on Democratic senators is that there is little to
no evidence that Republicans will budge. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), perhaps the most likely GOP figure to
speak out in favor of a diplomatic resolution, would not comment on Thursday's news. On the other side
of the spectrum is Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who called the framework agreement worse than the lead-up
to World War II.
"Neville Chamberlain got a better deal in 1938," Kirk said. "Under today’s deal, the United States and its
international partners will dismantle the sanctions regime against Iran, while Iran, the world’s biggest
exporter of terrorism, will be allowed to keep vast capabilities to make nuclear weapons."
At this juncture, a Senate Democratic aide said, it was close to impossible to confidently predict how the
Iran debate will play out. The White House, the aide said, would have to convince skeptical Democrats
that the deal was "rock solid and verifiable," ramp up the amount of briefing, and allow them to "have a
say without being too intrusive." Even then, it's unclear if Obama can stop the legislative intrusion he
warned against.
" I would not put a single cent on any bet at the moment ," said the aide. "So much of this is going to depend on
the individual outreach and briefing over the next couple weeks, and historically they have not done a very
good job on that front."
I-Law 2NC
Multilat inherently fails – their author’s conclusion
*Their ev = straw person – multilat doesn’t work in practice
*Alt causes = structural failure – poor coordination, deadlines, lack of commitment, poor execution
Graeme P. Herd 10 , Head of the International Security Programme, Co-Director of the International
Training Course in Security Policy, Geneva Centre for Security Policy, 2010, “Great Powers: Towards a
“cooperative competitive” future world order paradigm?,” in Great Powers and Strategic Stability in the
21st Century, p. 197-198
Given the absence of immediate hegemonic challengers to the US (or a global strategic catastrophe that could trigger US precipitous decline),
and the need to cooperate to address pressing strategic threats - the real question is what will be the nature of
relations between these Great Powers? Will global order be characterized as a predictable interdependent oneworld system , in which shared strategic threats create interest-based incentives and functional benefits which drive
cooperation between Great Powers? This pathway would be evidenced by the emergence of a global security agenda based on nascent
similarity across national policy agendas . In addition. Great Powers would seek to cooperate by strengthening
multilateral partnerships in institutions (such as the UN, G20 and regional variants), regimes (e.g., arms control, climate and
trade), and shared global norms, including international law . Alternatively, Great Powers may rely less on
institutions, regimes and shared norms, and more on increasing their order-producing managerial role through
geopolitical-bloc formation within their near neighborhoods. Under such circumstances, a re-division of the world into a
competing mercantilist nineteenth-century regional order emerges 17 World order would be characterized more by
hierarchy and balance of power and zero-sum principles than by interdependence.Relative power shifts that allow a return to multipolarity - with three or more
evenly matched powers - occur gradually. The transition from a bipolar in the Cold War to a unipolar moment in the post-Cold War has been crowned, according to Haass, by an era of nonpolarity, where power is diffuse — "a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power"18
Multilateralism is on the rise , characterized by a combination of stales and international organizations, both
influential and talking shops, formal and informal ("multilateralism light"). A dual system of global governance has evolved. An embryonic division of labor
emerges, as groups with no formal rules or permanent structures coordinate policies and immediate reactions to crises, while formal treaty-based institutions then legitimize the results.'9As
powerfully advocated by Wolfgang Schauble:
Global cooperation is the only way to master the new, asymmetric global challenges of
the twenty-first century. No nation can manage these tasks on its own, nor can the entire international community do so without the help of non-state, civil society actors. We must work
together to find appropriate security policy responses to the realities of the twenty-first century.20Highlighting the emergence of what he terms an "interpolar" world - defined as
managing existential interdependence in an unstable multipolar world is
the key.21 Such complex interdependence generates shared interest in cooperative solutions , meanwhile driving
convergence, consensus and accommodation between Great Powers .22 As a result, the multilateral system is being
adjusted to reflect the realities of a global age - the rise of emerging powers and relative decline of the West : "The
"multipolarity in an age of interdependence" — Grevi suggests that
new priority is to maintain a complex balance between multiple states."23 The G20 meeting in London in April 2009 suggested that great and rising powers will reform global financial
architecture so that it regulates and supervises global markets in a more participative, transparent and responsive manner: all countries have contributed to the crisis; all will be involved in the
solution.24
**THEIR EVIDENCE ENDS
However , when we turn to assessing the coherence of current generic responses to the management of these strategic threats, as addressed
by the authors In Part II of this volume,
it is clear that the evident need for greater cooperation does not
always
translate into practical
pragmatic effect. While there is a clear conceptual need for greater cooperation between states to jointly manage sources of strategic threat,
operational reality lags behind . Stepanova argues that efforts to manage the threats of terrorism and political extremism
through Intelligence, legal, judicial, military and police cooperation, as well as political coordination, can occur multi- laterally but operates best at the bilateral
level . Moreover, the global dynamics of terrorism are driven by major armed conflicts, particularly those characterized by external interventions. Lindstrom notes that the key challenge to
managing proliferation is the increasing Internal and external pressures facing the principal non-proliferation regimes, as well as strengthening nonproliferation tools, not least the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention, Caty Clément observes that when addressing the threat
there is general agreement that integrated or the whole of national government approach is weak and that poor
coordination between international actors and tn different fields of activity is still prevalent.: s In the words of Ramesh Thakur: "Unilateral and ad hoc interventions will
of state fragility and regional crises
sow and nourish the seeds of international discord. Multilateral and rules-based Interventions will speak powerfully to the world's determination never again to return to institutionalized indifference to mass atroci- ties "26 Rhodes
argues that in the US under Obama, 111 an era of global financial cnss, the economy—energy nexus IS the central secunty Issue, and that strengthen- Ing fragile states primanly through an emphasis on good governance rather than
the promotion of democracy IS now the pnonty. Vaahtoranta notes that the US and China share an Interest In supporting stable global energy production and transpor- tatlon at an affordable price, and that shared Interests
generate cooperation and market-based approaches. Bates Gill rerntnds us that China's current focus IS more on "domestic" or "Internal" threats to Chinese statehood and It is through th1S pnsm that Chinese strategists prlorltlze
the "global" challenges Identified bv the West, Nevertheless, common ground between China and the other four powers is expanded In the words of Chinese Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Fu Y Ing:
In terms of foreign policy. China has no intention of scrambling for hegemony or sharing hegemony With anyone, The major task of China's diplomacy is to create an external environment of peace and cooperation so that it can
concentrate on building the country
though the global financial crisis has increased the need for multilateral partnerships and made countries more selective by bringing
which in tum should promote more effective international coop eration against a range of shared threats,
the practical results are meagre :
Indeed,
greater focus to building partnerships and strategic relationships,
deadlines have been missed; financial commitments and promises have not been honored, execution has stalled, and
international collective action has fallen far short of what was offered and, more Importantly, needed. These failures represent
not only the perpetual lack of International consensus, but also a flawed obsession with multilateralism as the
panacea for all the world's Ills.
I
Thumps/ILs
LT 1AR Frontline – GOP Unity
Link turn solves the disad- GOP disunity allows Obama to quash Republicans and re-assure
Iran
Rubin, 12-12 -- Washington Post [Jennifer, "Can Congress stop a rotten Iran deal?," Wash Post, 12-1214, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/12/12/can-congress-stop-a-rotten-iran-deal/,
accessed 1-4-15]
A unified , veto-proof majority on legislation containing these elements would be a strategic win for the
West and an historic reassertion of Congress’s role in protecting its own legislation (sanctions) from executive
meddling and outright violation. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and other hard-liners would prefer immediate
sanctions, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. A strictly partisan effort that lowers the
vote total and allows the president both to claim this is all Republican harping and to assure the Iranians he
can veto congressional “mischief” would be a disastrous failure. If Cruz was the goat in the shutdown,
imagine the outrage if he held up a bipartisan consensus on preventing Iran from going nuclear.
LA rels
DROPPED ILS--
Extinction—shifter--finishing
Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved
access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources. Even with its current economic problems, the United
States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for
Latin America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance. For its part, Latin America’s rising
economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future. The United States and
many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate
change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights. With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and
demographic integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership Despite the multiple opportunities and
relations between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized,
relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current situation persists, the harder it will be to
reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation . Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention —both from the United
potential benefits,
States and from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Thumps/ILs
Thumper: Dems—Budget
Thumpes disprove thin
Budget fight forces Democratic defections and kills PC
Hess 3-24-15. Hannah, “Senate Ditches Obama Budget; Plan Earns Only 1 ‘Yes’,”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-ditches-obama-budget-as-presidents-plan-earns-1-yes/?dcz=,
Sen. Thomas R. Carper, D-Del., joined the very short list of members of Congress who have cast “yes” votes
on President Barack Obama’s budget proposals Wednesday evening, when the Senate rejected a budget
alternative based on the $4 trillion blueprint unveiled by Obama in February. Ninety-eight senators voted
against the motion to take it up, following a pattern set in recent years by Republicans trying to force
Democrats to go on the record voting against the White House spending plan. This year, the vote designed
to embarrass Obama was offered by Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas., who noted the
president’s budget does not have a great track record on Capitol Hill. Cornyn said Obama’s previous
budget proposals have received 1,023 “no” votes from Congress.
Thumper: Dems—Trade 2AC
TPA thumps – Dems are defecting - coming fast- he’s pushing it now
Cirilli 3-30-15. Kevin, “Elizabeth Warren plays Ted Cruz role with House Democrats,”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/237261-elizabeth-warren-plays-ted-cruz-card-in-house,
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is meeting with House Democrats in an effort to push back against
President Obama's trade agenda. The liberal senator met Tuesday with a group of House Democrats before
administration officials were to meet with a larger of group of Democrats to discuss the investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS) process, one of the most controversial issue s in two trade deals that the Obama
administration is negotiating. Warren was seeking to push back at administration claims in what was
described by one source familiar with the meeting as a “strategy session.” Backed by labor unions,
liberals argue the dispute settlement panels would tilt the playing field for corporations by letting them
sidestep judicial systems — including U.S. laws — to pursue their interests through international panels.
But the administration, centrist Democrats and many Republicans argue the panels help protect U.S.
jobs by allowing a forum for U.S. businesses to litigate trade disputes internationally. The meeting with
Warren underscores the deep rift between the Dem ocratic ba s e and the administration on trade and
highlights Warren’s growing influence in the House among progressive members. Liberal Democrats have
criticized the administration for holding classified briefings with members and refusing to allow their
staffers to attend. Facing the criticism, White House officials loosened their policy earlier this month.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) told reporters earlier this month that administration officials were "baffling
them with bulls--- rather than providing us the truth" on their trade agenda. Anti-trade Democrats in the
House have harshly criticized the administration’s trade policies, and earlier this month, lashed out at
classified briefings over trade. Rhetoric on the issue has also been growing more rancorous . One former
Democratic staffer turned financial services lobbyist compared Warren's involvement in the House to
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who frequently meets with House Republicans. “Elizabeth Warren is the mirror
image of Ted Cruz, and if we aren’t careful, she’ll drive the Democrats into the same ditch Cruz is trying to
drive the Republicans,” the former Democratic staffer said.
Obama no push
If Obama doesn’t push thumpers he won’t use PC on the plan
Waldman 12 (Paul, contributing editor for the Prospect and the author of Being Right is Not Enough:
What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success, “Why Obama Won't Be the One to End the
War on Drugs,” November 27, 2012, http://prospect.org/article/why-obama-wont-be-one-end-wardrugs)
Why? Because that's what Barack Obama appears to want. One of Andrew Sullivan's readers noted a
video from 2007 in which candidate Obama evaded and hedged in his response to a question about
legalization; the reader said, "the sense I got was that whatever Obama's actual position on marijuana is,
he's not about to let that be the issue that he wastes political capital on . That's not going to be the issue that
prevents him from becoming president and fixing everything else that he cares more about." That sounds
about right to me: While Obama may believe that the War has been a failure and it's absurd to lock up
hundreds of thousands of people for possessing, buying, or selling small amounts of marijuana, it just isn't all
that high on his priority list. If making a major policy change is risky, he's not going to bother . On the other
hand, he doesn't want to alienate the 50 percent of the country that now supports legalization, many of
whom are his staunch supporters, so his preferred outcome would be that no one pays much attention to the
issue for the next four years.
LT 1AR Frontline – GOP Unity
Plan wrecks GOP unity- legalization sparks a culture-war blowout between old guard antidrug conservatives and young socially liberal conservatives- that’s Wyler.
That wrecks the GOP agenda- unified front is key to ambitious legislation- GOP needs to hold
their factions together- that’s Carlson.
Repbuclians unite ev no warrant- mistaged
Link turn solves the disad- GOP disunity allows Obama to quash Republicans and re-assure
Iran
Rubin, 12-12 -- Washington Post [Jennifer, "Can Congress stop a rotten Iran deal?," Wash Post, 12-1214, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/12/12/can-congress-stop-a-rotten-iran-deal/,
accessed 1-4-15]
A unified , veto-proof majority on legislation containing these elements would be a strategic win for the
West and an historic reassertion of Congress’s role in protecting its own legislation (sanctions) from executive
meddling and outright violation. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and other hard-liners would prefer immediate
sanctions, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. A strictly partisan effort that lowers the
vote total and allows the president both to claim this is all Republican harping and to assure the Iranians he
can veto congressional “mischief” would be a disastrous failure. If Cruz was the goat in the shutdown,
imagine the outrage if he held up a bipartisan consensus on preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Internal link controls uniqueness- unity key for GOP and leads to democratic bandwagoningtry or die to break GOP unity
Kane, 1-4 – Washington Post congressional reporter
[Paul, "New Senate majority leader’s main goal for GOP: Don’t be scary," Washington Post, 1-4-15,
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-senate-majority-leaders-main-goal-for-gop-dont-bescary/2015/01/04/80d27196-9074-11e4-a900-9960214d4cd7_story.html, accessed 1-4-15]
McConnell has been coaching his members to understand that, in the initial rounds, they will have to almost
unanimously support the budget outline and the spending bills, because few Democrats will support their
policy riders. With 54 Republicans in his caucus, McConnell knows that he’s a long way from getting 67
votes to override an Obama veto and that it won’t even be easy getting six Democrats to regularly
support legislation so that he can overcome likely filibusters led by the incoming minority leader, Sen.
Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Still, on some issues, such as energy and taxes on the health industry, McConnell
thinks there’s enough bipartisan support to get bills onto Obama’s desk. “They’d like to be relevant. They’d
like to be part of the process,” he said of discussions with some rank-and-file Dem ocrat s . “ Assuming
we
will have on most issues a largely unified conference — I don’t expect that on everything — it
wouldn’t take a whole lot of Democrats to actually pass legislation in the Senate.”
XOs spurred GOP unity- BUT getting drawn into new fights crushes their agenda- gives Obama
exactly the distraction he needs
Noonan, 12-5 -- WSJ columnist
[Peggy, "Can the GOP Find Unity and Purpose?" Wall Street Journal, 12-5-14, www.wsj.com/articles/canthe-gop-find-unity-and-purpose-1417737255, accessed 12-29-14]
The Democrats are divided. The Republicans need to resist Obama’s provocations. Take no bait . Act
independently and in accord with national priorities. Cause no pointless trouble. If there’s trouble, it
should have a clear, understandable, defendable purpose. That is general advice for the new Republican
congressional majority. They will be proving every day they’re a serious governing alternative to the
Democratic-dominated establishment that has run Washington for six years. The Republicans are being
told they are a deeply divided party. True enough. But another way to look at it may prove more
pertinent: “My father’s house has many mansions.” The GOP is showing early signs of actually gathering
together again a functioning coalition. The white working class, according to the last election, has joined, at
least for now. Coalitions are messy; they have many, often opposing, pieces. FDR ’s included New York
socialists, Southern segregationists, Dust Bowl Okies and West Virginia coal miners. But politics is a game
of addition and Republicans are adding. They may owe it only to President Obama, but still: His leadership
has been an emanation of progressive thought. And a coalition formed by reaction and rejection is still a
coalition. Republicans on the Hill now by habit see their adversaries as The Monolith. But it is the
Democrats who are increasingly riven, divided and unhappy. They are rocked by defeat, newly confused as to
their own meaning. They’re disappointed with each other, and angry. They know Harry Reid is a poor face
of the party, a small-town undertaker who never gets around to telling you the cost of the casket. They
have little faith in the strategic and tactical leadership coming from the White House. They recognize the
president as an albatross around their necks. Nancy Pelosi is an attractive, noncredible partisan who just
natters wordage. That’s what they’ve got: an undertaker, an albatross, a natterer. Democrats are
individually trying to place themselves right with their own base, which grows more leftishly restive and
is losing them the center. They’re trying to figure out how to cleave to that base while remaining
politically viable. The sophisticated and sober-minded GOP class should understand that the national
press is dying to impose a story line: extremist, intransigent ideologues come to Washington to defy the
president. It’s important to them that the Republicans be the bad guys. If the president can’t quite be
painted as the good guy, at least he can be portrayed as the more nuanced and interesting figure, the
historic president beset by smaller foes in his last two years. But the president isn’t the story. That’s
what the Republicans need to know. The story is what they make of their new power. The president
wants to be the story. He wants to be the matador taunting the bull with the red cape . He wants to draw the
GOP into strange, dramatic impasses. They should not snort, paw the ground and charge. They should
shake their heads, smile and gesture to the crowd: “Can you believe this guy?” Americans have moved
on. They want results from the people they just elected. The new Republican majority should try, within
the limits imposed by not holding the executive branch, to make progress on their own. They shouldn’t
be drawn into the president’s drama, they should act independently. They’re telling their own story. They
should comport themselves as if they know the difference between yesterday and tomorrow. Early on
they should take a good, small bill, an economic measure that Republicans will and moderate Democrats
can support. They should try very hard to do what the president didn’t do: show bipartisan respect,
work with the other side, put out your hand. They should get that bill briskly through the House and
Senate. If the president vetoes it, they should attempt to override. If they succeed, they’ve made good
law. If they don’t, they try again. In time people will see the culprit, the impediment. Meantime the
president has disasters on his hands. His executive action on immigration, seen by many as daring and
clever, may not prove clever. It is assumed he scored points for his party, or his legacy, by granting a form
of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. But did he? In making that move he removed one of the
Republican Party’s problems. They were split on immigration, their adversaries said the reason was racism.
The whole issue roiled the Republican base. Now the president has taken it out of their hands. And he has
united them in their condemnation of the manner in which he did it. At the same time the president took
an issue that was a daily, agitating mobilizer of his base and removed it as a factor. He took the kettle off
the heat—but that kettle had produced a lot of steam that provided energy to his party. Now the
president has to implement his directive, and implementation has never been his strong suit. He has to
tamp down grievances from those who came here legally or are waiting in line. He has to answer
immigration activists who think they got too little. He has to face all the critics who will experience and
witness the downside of his action on the border. He took an issue that was a problem for Republicans,
and made it a problem for Democrats. That may well prove a political mistake of the first order. Last
week New York’s Chuck Schumer, the third most senior Democrat in the Senate, spoke of a different
political mistake. In a speech, he said the Democrats were trounced in 2014 because Mr. Obama
wrongly staked everything on ObamaCare. Democrats thus “blew the opportunity” the voters gave them
in 2008: “Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs, not for
changes in their health care. . . . Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more
receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them.” After Mr. Schumer came Sen. Tom
Harkin of Iowa, one of the architects of the ObamaCare law, who told Alexander Bolton of the Hill that it
was probably too “complicated. . . . I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or
not done anything at all.” Then came the reliably interesting former Sen. James Webb of Virginia, a
possible presidential candidate. He told a press group in Richmond that the Democratic Party has lost its
way. It lost white working-class voters by becoming “a party of interest groups.” As reported in the
Washington Post, Mr. Webb said: “The Democratic Party has lost the message that made it such a great
party for so many years . . . take care of working people, take care of the people who have no voice in
the corridors of power, no matter their race, ethnicity or any other reason.” He is exactly right. In the
Obama era the Democratic Party has gone from being a party of people to a party of issues, such as
global warming, and the pressure groups—and billionaires—that push them. It has become bloodless.
You know how Republicans should be feeling, for the first time in 10 years? Confident. For all their problems,
they still have a pulse.
LA rels
DROPPED ILS--
Extinction—shifter--finishing
Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved
access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources. Even with its current economic problems, the United
States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for
Latin America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising
economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future. The United States and
many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate
change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights. With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and
demographic integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership Despite the multiple opportunities and
relations between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized,
relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current situation persists, the harder it will be to
reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation . Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention —both from the United
potential benefits,
States and from Latin America and the Caribbean.